A Human-Centred, Multidisciplinary, and Transformative Approach to Service Science: A Service Design Perspective

  • Daniela SangiorgiEmail author
  • Filipe Lima
  • Lia Patrício
  • Maíra Prestes Joly
  • Cristina Favini
Part of the Service Science: Research and Innovations in the Service Economy book series (SSRI)


The increasing complexity and human centeredness of service systems raises new challenges to decision makers, requiring the integration of multidisciplinary efforts while addressing the dynamic reconfiguration of actors for value co-creation. This chapter uses a case study investigation into the practice of an Italian service design agency to expand on the understanding of service design as a human centred, multidisciplinary, and transformative approach for service system innovation. The study illustrates how service design can move from being a disciplinary field to become an overarching approach and a cultivated horizontal skill able to favour multidisciplinary integration; also the evolution in the understanding of service from a given market offering or output, to a dynamic condition of value exchange and co-creation, qualifies service design as an “accompanying” service for clients in their transformation journey that enables the collaborative co-creation of value; as a result of this exploratory case study, service design is depicted as a continuing, collaborative and flexible innovation approach that constantly adjusts depending on the level of engagement and alignment of the key partners and the need to nurture the evolving dynamics of value co-creation for service system transformation.


Service science Service design Service system transformation Multidisciplinarity 



This work has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 642116.


  1. Anderson, L., & Ostrom, A. L. (2015). Transformative Service Research: Advancing Our Knowledge About Service and Well-Being. Journal of Service Research, 18(3), 243–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, L., Ostrom, A. L., Corus, C., Fisk, R. P., Gallan, A. S., Giraldo, M., Williams, J. D. (2013). Transformative service research: An agenda for the future. Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 1203–1210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey, S. G. (2012). Embedding service design: the long and the short of it. In ServDes. 2012 Conference Proceedings Co-Creating Services, The 3rd Service Design and Service Innovation Conference (pp. 31–41). Espoo, Finland: Linköping University Electronic Press, Linköpings universitet.Google Scholar
  4. Bate, P., & Robert, G. (2007). Bringing user experience to healthcare improvement: The concepts, methods and practices of experience-based design. Abingdon: Radcliffe.Google Scholar
  5. Blocker, C. P., & Barrios, A. (2015). The Transformative Value of a Service Experience. Journal of Service Research, 18(3), 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blomkvist, J., Holmlid, S., & Segelström, F. (2011). Service Design Research: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. In M. Stickdorn & J. Schneider (Eds.), This Is Service Design Thinking (pp. 308–315). Amsterdam: BIS Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Bowen, S., McSeveny, K. L., Wolstenholme, D., Cobb, M., Dearden, A. (2013). How was it for you? Experiences of participatory Design in the UK health service. CoDesign, 9(4), 230–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brandt, E. (2006). Designing Exploratory Design Games: A Framework for Participation in Participatory Design? In G. Jacucci, F. Kensing, I. Wagner & J. Blomberg. PDC 2006 - Proceedings of the ninth Participatory Design Conference (pp. 57–66). Trento, Italy.Google Scholar
  9. Brandt, E., & Grunnet, C. (2000). Evoking the future: Drama and props in user centered design. In T. Cherkasky, J. Greenbaum, P. Peter & J. Pors. PDC 2000 Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference (pp. 11-20). New York, USA.Google Scholar
  10. Breidbach, C. F., & Maglio, P. P. (2016). Technology-enabled value co-creation: An empirical analysis of actors, resources, and practices. Industrial Marketing Management, 56, 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buchenau, M., & Fulton Suri, J. (2000). Experience prototyping. DIS ‘00 Proceedings of the 3rd conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques (pp. 424–433). New York, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
  13. Burns, C., Cottam, H., Vanstone, C., & Winhall, J. (2006). Transformation Design. London: Design Council.Google Scholar
  14. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  15. Chesbrough, H., & Sphorer, J. (2006). A research manifesto for services science. Communications of the ACM, 49(7), 35–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. CIA – Central Intelligence Agency (2018). The World Factbook. Retrieved March, 2018.
  17. Cooper, A. (1999). The inmates are running the asylum. Indianapolis, IA: SAMS/MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  18. Cronbach, L. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 30(2), 116-127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Edvardsson, B. (2011). Expanding Understanding of Service Exchange and Value Co-creation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, 39, 327–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Edvardsson, B., Gustafsson, A., Johnson, M. D., Sandén, B. (2000). New service development and innovation in the new economy. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  21. Edvardsson, B. & Tronvoll, B. (2013). A new conceptualization of service innovation grounded in S‐D logic and service systems, International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 5(1), 19-31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Erlhoff, M., Mager, B., & Manzini, E. (1997). Dienstleistung braucht Design, Professioneller Produkt-und Markenauftrittt fur Serviceanbieter. Herausgeber: Hermann Luchterhand Verlag GmbH.Google Scholar
  23. Garud, R., Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2007). Institutional Entrepreneurship as Embedded Agency: An Introduction to the Special Issue, Organization Studies, 28(7), 957 - 969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Greenbaum, J., & Kyng, M. (1991). Design at work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Hillsdale, New Jersey: LEA Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Grinevich, V. (2015). Design and service innovation: A strategic management perspective. In D. Sangiorgi, A. Prendiville, J. Jung, & E. Yu, Design for Service Innovation and Development (pp. 47–48). Lancaster: Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  26. Hill, A.V., Collier, D.A., Froehle, C.M., Goodale, J.C., Metters, R.D. & Verma, R. (2002), Research opportunities in service process design, Journal of Operations Management, 20, 189-202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Holmlid, S. (2007). Interaction design and service design: Expanding a comparison of design disciplines. In Norders Conference Proceedings Design Inquiries. Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
  28. IBM Research. (2005). Services Science: A new academic discipline?Google Scholar
  29. IfM & IBM. (2007). Succeeding through service innovation: a discussion paper. University of Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  30. Jacobson, I, Spence, I. & Bittner, K. (2011), USE-CASE 2.0. The Guide to Succeeding with Use Cases, Ivar Jacobson International sa. Available at: Scholar
  31. Junginger, S. (2015). Organizational Design Legacies and Service Design. The Design Journal: An International Journal for All Aspects of Design, 18(2), 209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Junginger, S., & Sangiorgi, D. (2009). Service design and organizational change: Bridging the gap between rigour and relevance. In Proceedings of the IASDR Conference on Design Research (pp. 4339–4348). Seoul, South Korea.Google Scholar
  33. Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I, Design and Culture, 3(3), 285-306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kimbell, L. (2015). Applying Design Approaches to Policy Making: Discovering Policy Lab. Brighton: University of Brighton.Google Scholar
  35. Kieliszewski, C. A., Maglio, P. P., & Cefkin, M. (2012). On Modeling Value Constellations to Understand Complex Service System Interactions. European Management Journal, 30(5), 438–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Koskela-Huotari, K., Edvardsson, B., Jonas, J. M., Sörhammar, D., & Witell, L. (2016). Innovation in service ecosystems – Breaking, making, and maintaining institutionalized rules of resource integration, Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2964-2971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kurtmollaiev, S., Fjuk, A., Pedersen, P. E., Clatworthy, S., & Kvale, K. (2018). Organizational Transformation Through Service Design: The Institutional Logics Perspective. Journal of Service Research, 21(1), 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lawrence, T. B. & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Sage Handbook of Organization Studies (pp.  215-254). London: SAGE Publications Ltd., 2nd Edition.Google Scholar
  39. Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R. & Leca, B. (2011). Institutional Work: Refocusing Institutional Studies of Organization, Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 52–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lin, M. C., B. L.Hughes, M. K.Katica, C.Dining-Zuber, & Plsek, P. E. (2011). Service Design and Change of Systems: Human-Centered Approaches to Implementing and Spreading Service Design, International Journal of Design, 5(2), 73–85Google Scholar
  41. Lusch, R. F. & Nambisan, S. (2015). Service Innovation: A Service-Dominant Logic Perspective, MIS Quarterly, 39(1), 155-171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L., & Gustafsson, A. (2016). Fostering a trans-disciplinary perspectives of service ecosystems. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2957–2963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Maglio, P. P., Kwan, S. K., & Spohrer, J. (2015). Toward a Research Agenda for Human-Centered Service System Innovation. Service Science, 7(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Maglio, P. P., Vargo, S. L., Caswell, N., & Spohrer, J. (2009). The service system is the basic abstraction of service science. Information Systems and E-Business Management, 7(4), 395–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Maglio, P. P., & Spohrer, J. (2008). Fundamentals of service science. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 18–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Spohrer, James C. and Paul P. Maglio (2010). Toward a Science of Service Systems: Value and Symbols. In In P. P. Maglio, C. A. Kieliszewski, & J. C. Spohrer (Eds), Handbook of Service Science (pp. 157–97). Springer.Google Scholar
  47. Maglio, P. P. (2013). Service Science 2.0. Service Science, 5(2), 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Maglio, P. P. (2014). Smart Service Systems. Service Science, 6(1), I–II.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Medina-Borja, A. (2015). Smart Things as Service Providers: A Call for Convergence of Disciplines to Build a Research Agenda for the Service Systems of the Future. Service Science, 7(1), II–V.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Manzini, E. (1993). Il design dei servizi. La progettazione del prodotto-servizio. Design Management, 4, 7–12.Google Scholar
  51. Mattelmäki, T. (2006). Design probes, Helsinki: Aalto UniversityGoogle Scholar
  52. Meroni, A., & Sangiorgi, D. (2011). Design for Services. Aldershot: Gower.Google Scholar
  53. Ostrom, A. L., Bitner, M. J. , Brown, S. W., Burkhard, K. A., Goul, M., Smith-Daniels, V., Demirkan, H. & Rabinovich, E. (2010). Moving Forward and Making a Difference: Research Priorities for the Science of Service, Journal of Service Research, 13(1), 4–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ostrom, A. L., Parasuraman, A., Bowen, D. E., Patrício, L., Voss, C. A., Lemon, K. (2015). Service Research Priorities in a Rapidly Changing Context. Journal of Service Research, 18(2), 127–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pacenti, E. (1998). Il progetto dell’interazione nei servizi. Un contributo al tema della progettazione dei servizi. PhD thesis in Industrial Design. Milano: Politecnico di Milano.Google Scholar
  56. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41-50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Patrício, L., Gustafsson, A. & Fisk, R.P. (2018). Upframing Service Design and Innovation for Research Impact. Journal of Service Research, 21(1), 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Patricio, L., & Fisk, R. (2013). Creating new services. In R. P. Fisk, R. Russell-Bennett, & L. Harris (Eds.), Serving Customers Globally (pp. 185-207). Brisbane: Tilde University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Patrício, L., N. Pinho, J. Teixeira and R. P. Fisk (2018). Service design for value networks: enabling value cocreation interactions in healthcare. Service Science 10(1), 76–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Robert, G., & Macdonald, A. S. (2017). Co-design, organizational creativity and quality improvement in the healthcare sector: ‘Designerly’ or ‘design-like’? In D. Sangiorgi, & A. Prendiville, Designing for Service. Key Issues and New Directions (pp. 117–130). Bloomsbury publisher.Google Scholar
  61. Spohrer, J., Maglio, P. P., Bailey, J. & Gruhl, D. (2007). Steps Toward a Science of Service Systems, Computer, 40(1), 71-77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Spohrer, J., Piciocchi, P., & Bassano, C. (2012). Three Frameworks for Service Research: Exploring Multilevel Governance in Nested, Networked Systems. Service Science, 4(2), 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sangiorgi, D. (2009). Building up a framework for Service Design research. In 8th European Academy of Design Conference (pp. 415–420). Aberdeen, Scotland.Google Scholar
  64. Sangiorgi, D. (2015). Designing for public sector innovation in the UK: design strategies for paradigm shifts. Foresight, 17(4), 332–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sangiorgi, D., & Prendiville, A. (2017). Designing for Service. Key Issues and New Directions. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sangiorgi, D., Prendiville, A., Jung, J., Yu, E. (2015). Design for Service Innovation and Development. Lancaster: Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  67. Sangiorgi, D., Lee, J., Sayar, D., Allen, D., & Frank, N. (2016). Moving towards Service Dominant Logic in Manufacturing Sector: Development of a Tool for Inquiry. In ServDes.2016 Conference Proceedings Service Design Geographies, The 6th Service Design and Service Innovation Conference (pp. 105–118), Copenhagen, Denmark: Linköping University Electronic Press, Linköpings universitet.Google Scholar
  68. Schuler, D., & Namioka, A. (1993). Participatory Design: Principles and Practices. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  69. Shostack, G. L. (1984). Designing Services that Deliver. Harvard Business Review, 62(1), 133–139.Google Scholar
  70. Secomandi, F., & Snelders, D. (2011). The Object of Service Design, Design Issues, 27(3), 20-34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sphorer, J., & Kwan, S. K. (2009). Service science, management, engineering, and design (SSMED): an emerging discipline -- outline and references. International Journal of Information Systems in the Service Sector, 1(3), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Stigliani, I., & Fayard, A. (2010). Designing new customer experiences: a study of socio-material practices in service design. Imperial College Business School.Google Scholar
  73. Tether, B. (2009). Design in Innovation: Coming out from the Shadow of R&D, An analysis of the UK Innovation Surveys of 2005. London: Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, HM Government.Google Scholar
  74. Teixeira, J. G., L. Patrício, K.-H. Huang, R. P. Fisk, L. Nóbrega and L. Constantine (2017). The MINDS method: integrating management and interaction design perspectives for service design. Journal of Service Research 20(3), 240-258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Thornton, P., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional Logics and the Historical Contingency of Power in Organizations: Executive Succession in the Higher Education Publishing Industry, 1958– 1990, American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801-843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Thornton, P. & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In R. GreenwoodC. Oliver & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 99-128). London: SAGE Publications LtdGoogle Scholar
  77. Quinlan, E. (2008) Conspicuous Invisibility. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(8), 1480-1499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Vargo, S. L. & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-Dominant Logic: Continuing the Evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Vargo, S. L., Maglio, P. P. & Akaka, M. A. (2008). On value and value co-creation: A service systems and service logic perspective, European Management Journal, 26(3), 145–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Vargo, S.L. & Lusch, R.F. (2011). It’s All B2B . . . and beyond: Toward a Systems Perspective of the Market, Industrial Marketing Management, 40(1), 181–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Vargo, S. L. & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wünderlich, Nancy V., Kristina Heinonen, Amy L. Ostrom, Lia Patrícío, Rui Sousa, Chris Voss and Jos G.A.M. Lemmink (2015), ““Futurizing” Smart Service: Implications for Service Researchers and Managers” Journal of Services Marketing, 29 (6/7), 442–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  85. Yu, E. & Sangiorgi, D. (2018). Service Design as an Approach to Implement the Value Cocreation Perspective in New Service Development. Journal of Service Research, 21(1), 40–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniela Sangiorgi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Filipe Lima
    • 1
  • Lia Patrício
    • 4
  • Maíra Prestes Joly
    • 1
    • 2
  • Cristina Favini
    • 3
  1. 1.Design DepartmentPolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly
  2. 2.INESCTEC, Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of PortoPortoPortugal
  3. 3.LogotelMilanItaly
  4. 4.INESCTEC and Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations