Communicating through Visualizations: Service Designers on ...

aho.no

Communicating through Visualizations: Service Designers on ...

Few academics have done research on or involving visualizations in servicedesign, among the little research which has been done, the focus hasoften been service blueprints, such as in Wreiner et al (2009) andSparagen & Chan (2008). As a part of the documentation for the‘Designing for ong>Serviceong>s’-project Jennifer Whyte wrote a short sectiontitled ‘Visualization and the design of services’ (Whyte, 2008). Shefocuses on potential future research on visualizations and how meaning iscreated, as well as its implications for design education. The videodocumentation (Kimbell, 2008) from the same project provides someinsights on visualizations however, especially in the section ‘Making theservices tangible and visible’ (starting at 4.13) in which the frequent useof visualizations is identified as one of the three characteristics whichdefine service designers’ work in comparison to other design disciplines.Lucy Kimbell (2009) later elaborated on her findings, stating that one ofthe main goals behind visualizing is to make the servicesses tangible. Shealso noted that different companies used different techniques.Froukje Sleeswijk Visser (2009) uses visualizations frequently indeveloping a framework for transferring user knowledge from researchersto designers. She developed her framework in relation to products as wellas services, and uses visualizations as a tool to communicate the threeaims in the knowledge transfer; enhancing empathy, providing inspirationand support engagement. She focuses her research on which mechanismsdrive the knowledge transfer rather than how the tools (such asvisualizations) should be formed.However, Sleeswijk Visser (2009) does explore some issues onvisualizations, in regard to the look and feel of the visualizations and itseffect on the knowledge transfer. The case study (‘I prefer real photosover cartoons’) which deals the most with visualizations is directedtowards the two aims of creating empathy and inspiration in regard to themorning rituals of families. Creating empathy with users is often heldforward as one of the key goals of user research in service design(Segelström et al, 2009; Voss & Zomerdijk, 2007; Parker & Heapy,2006). Sleeswijk Visser (2009) found that designers prefer ‘real’ materialover sketched and that the visualization tools storylines and personassupport a quick immersion, where storyboards serve as inspiration.Segelström & Holmlid (2009) explored the uses of visualizations as toolsfor research for service design. The focus of the study was uses ofvisualization in the research stages of the design process. In Segelström &Holmlid (2009) the Analysis-Synthesis Bridge Model (Dubberly et al,2008) is used to position the findings. Due to the focus of the study, thevisualizations that interviewees in the study mention are primarily used inthe design phase where research is interpreted. A categorization of thefound visualization types placed in the Analysis-Synthesis Bridge Model,gave the image shown in Figure 1 (where the size of the bubble indicatesthe amount of interviewees who mentioned a technique of the category).The full list of methods mentioned ong>throughong>out the interviews is availablein the appendix of Segelström & Holmlid (2009).Fabian Segelström – ong>Communicatingong> ong>throughong> ong>Visualizationsong> page 3


Figure 1 - Categories of visualizations found by Segelström & Holmlid (2009), when focusing onvisualizations for user research. The size of the bubble indicates the number of mentioned techniquesincluded in it.Segelström & Holmlid (2009) point to the different characteristics of thevarious categories for visualizing the input from the user research; someserve to highlight the time-based nature of services (such as journeys),the co-creation of value between people (such as personas) and yetothers highlight the relationship between various stakeholders (such asco-creation). Furthermore it is suggested that the nature of services leadto the frequent use of visualizations in the research stage (an opinionechoed by Kimbell (2008; 2009)). Segelström & Holmlid suggest that“the visualization techniques suggested by the designers are not used assimple tools to map and describe what is, but rather serve the purpose ofinterpretation and understanding” (2009, p. 6). For future research,studies into the underlying goals of the visualizations are suggested.MethodThe data used in Segelström & Holmlid (2009) was re-analysed, focusingon the reasoning service designers provide regarding to why they visualizeand on which grounds they build their visualizations. The method sectionis divided into two parts; the first one describes the data collectionwhereas the second one describes the analysis which was performed.Data collectionThe data used for this study has been collected by interviewing practicingservice designers. All agree that they are doing service design, although aFirst Nordic Conference on ong>Serviceong> Design and ong>Serviceong> Innovation, Oslo 24 th – 26 th November 2009 page 4


Influences on the choice of visualization typeWhen it comes to what influences the choice of visualization type, theinterviewees give two main reasons; the nature of the data collected andthe goal of the visualization. The goals vary in various ways as can beseen in Figure 2 above. The two reasons may be broken down evenfurther as the communication of insights might be to the clientorganization just as well as to participants in co-creation workshops.Interviewees also stress the difference in nature of the visualization inregard to whether they are meant to be viewed by external persons or tofacilitate the process within the design team. ong>Visualizationsong> directedtowards external persons are usually made simpler and more aestheticallyappealing, than internal visualizations which are often left complex andcrude in their style – it may be as simple as a wall of post-its.The nature of the data influences in multiple ways as well – differentprojects leads to different ways of collecting user input. Some projectsmay support recording of video material, whereas others not – somethingwhich naturally has a major impact on how the data later is visualized. Theother way is related to the content, rather than the shape, of the data.When improving on an existing service, making a service blueprint of thecurrent situation might help understanding the context as well asidentifying design opportunities, whereas creating a new service requiresother approaches, such as future scenarios.Patterns in choice of visualization typeWhen investigating the visualization techniques used, it was found thatthe interviewees universally claimed to let the data and the goal of thevisualization influence how user input was visualized, rather than fallingback on preferred way of doing things.However, a look back at the tabulation of visualization techniques listed inSegelström & Holmlid (2009), gives the impression of there being a basicset of visualization techniques for service designers. A renewed andexpanded look at the categories of techniques further strengthens thisimpression.If the number of companies who mentioned a techniques within acategory is added one can see that there seems to exist a few basictechniques which most companies use, such as customer journeys andpersonas. Additionally a long tail of types of visualizations which are onlyused by a small number of companies exists.An adaptation of the appendix from Segelström & Holmlid (2009), withthe tools used for prototyping removed, is presented in Table 1 below.The table is also extended by information on the number of companieswho mentioned a technique within each category.Fabian Segelström – ong>Communicatingong> ong>throughong> ong>Visualizationsong> page 7


Category Total Comp. Category Total Comp. Category Total Comp.Journeys 17 11 Highlighting 5 5 Co-creation 2 2Narratives 12 8 Compiling 4 3 Premodelling2 2Personas 10 9 Synthesis 4 3 Sensitizing 2 2Media 10 6 Drama 3 3 Process 2 2Presentation 6 4 Material 3 2 Props 2 1Table 1 - Visualization techniques for research interpretation, total number of times they were mentionedand the number of companies mentioning them. Adapted and expanded from Segelström & Holmlid(2009).DiscussionThe interviews conducted reveal that there are two main influences whichaffect the choice of how to design a visualization of service designresearch; intended audience of the visualization and the nature andcontent of the research data. That the audience of the visualization isvery important for how it will look can also be noted in the fact that‘communicate insights’ to clients is one of the three main reasons forcreating visualizations, whereas the two other reasons are mainly direct atthe design team.Looking at which kind of visualization types are used by the servicedesigners, one can see that there are a few types which are used by mostinterviewees, whereas most types are only used by a few. Journeys,narratives, personas and the use of data collected ong>throughong> visual and/oraudio media seem to be the basic visualization techniques of servicedesign. ong>Visualizationsong> outside these groups are usually developed andused by solitary firms. A key difference between the basic visualizationtechniques and the proprietary ones is that the basic techniques can beused to achieve more than one of the goals, for which visualizations arecreated whereas the proprietary usually only achieve one of these goals.Personas, for example, is a technique which can be used to achieve allthree goals behind visualization and thus becomes an effective technique(in light of this it is not surprising that persona was the single most citedtechnique in the interviews).If one reflects on the role the three reasons to visualize have in the designprocess, one sees that they have distinct places in various parts of thedesign process. Creating visualizations to articulate insights helpsmembers of the design team to externalize the results of theirsensemaking (see Krippendorff, 1989) of the design process, and thuscreating a common ground (see Clark, 1996) on the insights from theresearch within the design team. This helps the team to define the designspace available for the particular project at hand. In other words, theFirst Nordic Conference on ong>Serviceong> Design and ong>Serviceong> Innovation, Oslo 24 th – 26 th November 2009 page 8


‘articulating insights’-reason for visualizing can be seen as communicationwithin the design team.ong>Serviceong> designers also create visualizations with the aim of keepingempathy. This is a way of making sure that the user input is not forgottenong>throughong>out the design process. That knowledge collected is forgottenover time has been known for a long time, just like the fact that peopletend to remember information which fits their world view better (a classicexample is Bartlett’s (1932 [1995]) experiment with the tale of NativeAmerican ghosts). If designers do not keep in touch with user input, thereis a risk of ending up with self-centered rather than user-centered design(Pruitt & Adlin, 2006). Thus, being able to remember user data the way itwas initially understood is important so that the designs created alwayssuit the users’ needs and wishes. In other words, the ‘keep empathy’-reason for visualizing can be seen as communication with one’s memory.As noted in regard to the influences on the choice of visualization type,there may be various different types of receivers of information outsidethe design team (such as clients, workshop participants and authorities).The information directed towards these different groups may also havevarious aims (aims which can or cannot be met in a single visualization) –creating, and showing, visualization for clients might be a way of showingprogress just as well as a way of grounding the design suggestions thatare made at a later stage. In other words, the ‘communicate insights’-reason for visualizing can be seen as communication with stakeholdersoutside the design team.Put together, this means that the different visualizations of user researchall serve the purpose of communicating the information collected, butwith different recipients. In fact, Clark (1996, p. 153) states that: “Tocommunicate is, according to its Latin roots, ‘to make common’, to makeknown within a group of people”. And that is just what visualizations do intranslating user research insights into new service designs.Implications for service design educationThe findings from this paper and Segelström & Holmlid (2009) togetherimply suggestions for how service designers should be trained atuniversities around the world. It is crucial that students are thought howto translate the intangible nature of services into tangibles which can beused as a basis for discussions with colleagues, clients and the end-usersof the service. Students should learn about the basic techniques, such ascustomer journeys and blueprinting, as well as learning how to find newsolutions to visualizing a service offering when needed. The ability tocommunicate research findings and, in later stages, new servicesuggestions are necessary for a successful service design project andthus should be treated as one of the basic foundations which need to bethought to new service design students. Students also need to bethought to reflect on the nature and qualities which visualizations theycreate have and what they communicate to whom.Fabian Segelström – ong>Communicatingong> ong>throughong> ong>Visualizationsong> page 9


Implications for service design research & future researchThis study has made the implicit knowledge about visualizations for userresearch which exists in the service design community explicit, andanalyzed the nature and underlying motivations for visualizing userresearch. This gives the academic service design community a basis tobuild further research on visualizations on.The results herein describe how service designers talk about usingvisualizations in their work. For future research, an analysis of actualvisualizations from service design projects would be of much interest, tofurther describe how visualizations are used within service design.The paper also highlights the need for more research on visualizations ingeneral. Very little research has been done on specific visualizationtechniques from a service design perspective. The research which existson the visualization techniques is usually done within a different domain,such as service marketing or interaction design. Studies which focus onvisualizations as a part of delivering new service design suggestions, aswell as comparisons to whether there are any differences in the nature ofvisualizations in different stages of the design process.ConclusionThe interviews reported on in this paper all point towards the fact thatvisualization techniques serve as tools for communication within servicedesign. The difference between different types of visualizations dependsof the nature of the data they are based on as well as the intendedrecipients. Many interviewees state that visualizations directed towardsexternal stakeholders are simplified and made with more concern toaesthetical aspects, whereas internal visualizations may be as simple as awall full of post-its. The research also points out a group of basicvisualization techniques within service design, as well as revealing thatthere is a long tail of different techniques used by a small amount ofcompanies.Overall, the paper presented here answers some of the questions raisedby Segelström & Holmlid (2009). Put together the two papers give adescription of how service designers use visualization techniques to makesense of user research and communicate this to the stakeholders in theirdesign projects.AcknowledgementsWe wish to acknowledge Johan Blomkvist who performed one of theinterviews. We want to thank all 17 interviewees that took their time toshare their experiences. The paper has benefited from comments byStefan Holmlid, Johan Blomkvist and Johan Åberg as well as a reviewer.The research was made possible by a research grant from VINNOVA, theFirst Nordic Conference on ong>Serviceong> Design and ong>Serviceong> Innovation, Oslo 24 th – 26 th November 2009 page 10


SERV project, ong>Serviceong> Design, innovation and involvement, ref no 2007-03444.ReferencesBartlett, F. C. (1932 [1995]). Remembering - A study in Experimental andSocial Psychology. USA: Cambridge University Press.Burns, C., & Winhall, J. (2006). The Diabetes Agenda. London: DesignCouncil.Burns, C., Cottam, H., Vanstone, C., & Winhall, J. (2006). TransformationDesign. London: Design Council.Clark, H. C. (1996). Using Language (6th edition.). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Dubberly, H., Evenson, S., & Robinson, R. (2008). The Analysis-SynthesisBridge Model. interactions , March + April, 57-61.Engine. (2007). Dear Architect. From Our New School:http://www.ournewschool.org/assets/pdf/Dear_Architect.pdf.Accessed 29/6/2009.Engine. (n.d.). ong>Serviceong> Design Methods. From Engine ong>Serviceong> Design:http://www.enginegroup.co.uk/service_design/methods/ Accessed23/2/2009Erlhoff, M., Mager, B., & Manzini, E. (1997). Dienstleistung braucht Design- Professioneller Produkt- und Markenauftritt für ong>Serviceong>anbieter. Berlin:Hermann Luchterhand Verlag GmbH.Holmlid, S. (2007). Interaction design and service design: Expanding acomparison of design disciplines. NorDes 2007. Stockholm.Kimbell, L. (2008). What do service designers do? From Designing forong>Serviceong>s: http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/D4S/videoArchive/index.html.Accessed 1/7/09.Kimbell, L. (2009). Insights from ong>Serviceong> Design Practice. 8th EuropeanAcademy of Design Conference, (pp. 249-253). AberdeenKingman-Brundage, J. (1991). Technology, Design and ong>Serviceong> Quality.International Journal of ong>Serviceong> Industry Management , 2 (3), 47-59.Krippendorff, K. (1989). On the Essential Contexts of Artifacts or on theProposition that "Design Is Making Sense (of Things)". Design Issues , 5(2), 9-39.Maffei, S., Mager, B., & Sangiorgi, D. (2005). Innovation ong>throughong> ong>Serviceong>Design. From Research and Theory to a Network of Practice. A Users'Driven Perspective. Joining Forces. Helsinki.Mager, B. (1997). Dienstleistungen als Gegenstand der Gestaltung. in M.Erlhoff, B. Mager, & E. Manzini, Dienstleistung braucht Design -Professioneller Produkt- und Markenauftritt für ong>Serviceong>anbieter (pp. 87-102). Berlin: Hermann Luchterhand Verlag GmbH.Mager, B. (2004). ong>Serviceong> design: A review. Köln: KISD.Mager, B. (2008). ong>Serviceong> Design. in M. Erlhoff, & T. Marshall (Red.),Design Dictionary: Perspectives on Design Terminology (pp. 354-356).Basel: Birkhäuser.Mager, B., & Gais, M. (2009). ong>Serviceong> Design. Paderborn: Wilhelm FinkGmbH.Fabian Segelström – ong>Communicatingong> ong>throughong> ong>Visualizationsong> page 11


Miettinen, S., & Koivisto, M. (Eds). (2009). Designing ong>Serviceong>s withInnovative Methods. Keuruu, Finland: Kuopio Academy of Design.Moggridge, B. (2007). ong>Serviceong>s. In B. Moggride, Designing Interactions(pp. 383-447). The MIT Press.Moritz, S. (2005). ong>Serviceong> Design: Practical Access to an Evolving Field.Cologne, Germany: Köln International School of Design.Parker, S., & Heapy, J. (2006). The Journey to the Interface. London:Demos.Pruitt, J., & Adlin, T. (2006). The Persona Lifecycle: keeping people inmind ong>throughong>out product design. China: Elsevier.Radarstation. (2008). Transitioning Stigma. Denmark: ReSound ConceptInnovation.Saffer, D. (2007). Designing for Interaction: Creating Smart Applicationsand Clever Devices. USA: New Riders.Samalionis, F. (2009). Die Zukunft des ong>Serviceong> Design. In B. Mager & M.Gais, ong>Serviceong> Design (pp. 138-145). Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink GmbH.Segelström, F., & Holmlid, S. (2009). Visualization as tools for research:ong>Serviceong> designers on visualizations. NorDes 2009. Oslo.Segelström, F., Raijmakers, B., & Holmlid, S. (2009). Thinking and DoingEthnography in ong>Serviceong> Design. IASDR, Rigor and Relevance in Design.Seoul.Shostack, L. (1982). How to Design a ong>Serviceong>. European Journal ofMarketing , 161, 49-63.Shostack, L. (1984). Designing ong>Serviceong>s that Deliver. Harvard BusinessReview , 62 (1), 133-139.Sleeswijk Visser, F. (2009). Bringing the Everyday Life of People intoDesign. Delft: Technische Universiteit Delft.Sparagen, S. L., & Chan, C. (2008). ong>Serviceong> Blueprinting: When CustomerSatisfaction Numbers are not enough. International DMI EducationConference. Design Thinking: New Challenges for ong>Designersong>, Managersand Organizations. Cergy-Pointose, France.Tassi, R. (2009). ong>Serviceong> Design Tools | Communication methodssupporting design processes: http://servicedesigntools.org/ Accessed10/8/2009.Vanstone, C., & Winhall, J. (2006). Activmobs. London: Design Council.Voss, C., & Zomerdijk, L. (2007). Innovation in Experiential ong>Serviceong>s – AnEmpirical View. In DTI (Red.), Innovation in ong>Serviceong>s (pp. 97-134).London: DTI.Whyte, J. (2008). Visualization and the design of services. In L. Kimbell, &V. P. Seidel (Eds.), Designing for ong>Serviceong>s - MultidisciplinaryPerspectives: Proceedings from the Exploratory Project on Designingfor ong>Serviceong>s in Science and Technology-based Enterprises, SaïdBusiness School (pp. 47-48). Oxford: University of Oxford.Winhall, J. (2009). Design für öffentliche Dienstleistungen. In B. Mager &M. Gais, ong>Serviceong> Design (pp. 78-86). Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink GmbH.Wreiner, T., Mårtensson, I., Arnell, O., Gonzalez, N., Holmlid, S, &Segelström, F. (2009). Exploring ong>Serviceong> Blueprints for Multiple Actors:A Case Study of Car Parking ong>Serviceong>sFirst Nordic Conference on ong>Serviceong> Design and ong>Serviceong> Innovation, Oslo.First Nordic Conference on ong>Serviceong> Design and ong>Serviceong> Innovation, Oslo 24 th – 26 th November 2009 page 12


Appendix 1Appendix 1 consists of a tabulation of Figure 1. The reasons forvisualizing user research which connect to more than one group areplaceat the lower end of the table.Table 2 - List of arguments for using visualizations sorted in categories according to type of reasoning.Articulate insights Keep empathy CommunicateinsightsSummarize data Inspiration Transfer feelingPresent general impression Create empathy Transfer insightsFramework for interpretingdataRemember usersMake data accesibleFind patternsTell an interestingstoryPresent insightsTranslate data into usableinsightsHumanize dataKeep data alivePresent researchTo use in workshopsVitalize storiesCapture raw data visuallyDepends on the goalFabian Segelström – ong>Communicatingong> ong>throughong> ong>Visualizationsong> page 13

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines