Andrea bedoya dissertation by Andrea Bedoya Echeverry

SERVICE DESIGN

to o

l ia

m u

De s

ise

co m

ic e

So c

Se rv

pr ter En

g in

sig De

i th

crea pro tive-pr cess oble m

Andrea Bedoya Echeverry 1224826

Contents Acknowledges……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 05 Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………..……………..06 Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………....07 1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….09 1.1 The Emergence of Social Enterprise………………………………………………………………..…….….10 1.1.1 Community-‐based Social Enterprise……………………………………………………….………..11 1.2 Changing circumstances in Communities…………………………………………………………..……..12 1.3 Collaboration in the Public Sector………………………………………………………………….…….……11 1.4 Design Thinking, Social Design and Service Design…………………………………………….….….13 1.4.1 From Industrial Design to Design thinking………………………………………………………….13 1.4.2 Design Thinking in Social Innovation………………………………………………………………….13 1.4.3 The emergence of Service Design in the Public Sector……………………………………….14 2. Key research question, aim and objectives………………………….…………………………………..16 2.1 Key Research Question………………………………………………………………………………………………16 2.2 Aim…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….16 2.3 Objectives………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….16 2.4 Potential Outcomes……………………………………………………………………………………………………16 2.5 Beneficiaries………………………………………………………………………………………………………………17 2.5.1 Social enterprise organisations………………………………………………………………………….17 2.5.2 Community-‐based Social Enterprises…………………………………………………………………17 2.5.3 Public Sector organisations………………………………………………………………………………..17 2.5.4 Communities……………………………………………………………………………..………………………17 2.5.5 Design Sector……………………………….……………………………………………………………………17 3. Research methodology………………………………………………………….…………………………………...18 3.1 Research Methods……………………………………………………………………………………………………..19 3.1.1 Secondary Research…………………………………………………………………………………………..19 Literature Review………………………………………………………………………………………………19 Case Studies………………………………………………………………………………………………………19 3.1.2 Primary Research……………………………………………………………………………………………….19 Expert Interviews……………………………………………………………………………………………….19 Observation………………………………………………………………………………..……………………..22

4. Findings…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………23

4.1 The role of community-‐based Social Enterprises in the Public Sector………………………..23 4.2 Barriers and key drivers within the Public Sector for Innovation……………………………….24 4.3 Service Design…………………………………………………………………………………………………..………25 4.3.1 Service Design process and tools……………………………………………………………………..26 First stage. Explore……………………………………………………………………………………………27 Second stage. Create………………………………………………………………………………………..27 Third stage. Reflect…………………………………………………………………………………………..28 Four stage. Implement……………………………………………………………………………………..28 4.3.2 Transformative Services and transformation design…………………………………………28 4.3.3 Service Design Levels………………………………………………………………………………….…….29 Interface Level. Service Interaction Design………………………………………………….…......30

System Level. Service Design Interventions……………………………………………….………..32 Strategy Level. Service Transformation…………………………………………………….………...33 4.3.4 A transformational change within organisations……………………………….………….…..34 4.3.5 Challenges in Service Design…………………………………………………………….……….….……35 4.4 The Service design profession in the Public Sector………………………………………..…………..36 4.4.1 Embedded Designer in the Public Sector……………………………………………………………36 4.4.2 Internal Service Design Agency within the Public Sector……………………………………36 4.4.3 External Service Design Agency working with the Public Sector…………………………36 4.4.4 Brokered Intervention……………………………………………………………………………………….38 4.4.5 Design-‐led Startup Service…………………………………………………………………………………39 4.4.6 Non-‐design work……………………………………………………………………………………………….39

5. Discussion……………………………………………………………………………………………………….40

5.1 From challenges and key drivers in public sector to opportunities through design…..…40 5.2 Service Design Principles to enable collaboration………………………………………….……………41 5.2.1 Empathising with communities. A human-‐centred approach……………………………..41 5.2.2 Enabling interactions and interventions. A multidisciplinary approach……………….44 5.2.3 Encouraging dialogue in the Public Sector. New ways of working……………………….44 5.3 The Value of Service Design to enhance collaboration:…………………………………….…………46 6.Recommendation…………………………………………………………………………………………………………48 7. Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………51 8. References………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….52 9. Appendix…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….58

List of Figures Figure 1. Social Enterprise Organizations in the UK……………………………………………………..………09 Figure 2. Research Methodology………………………………………………………………………..……………….18 Figure 3. Case Studies……………………………………………………………………………………….………………..19 Figure 4. Service Design Process………………………………………………………….………………………………26 Figure 5. Service Design tools……………………………………………………………………………………………..27 Figure 6. Design for Services model…………………………………………………………………………………….30 Figure 7. Co-‐design Workshops………………………………………………………………………………………..…31 Figure 8. Visualisation in Co-‐design Workshops…………………………………………………………………..32 Figure 9. Prototyping services………………………………………………………………………………………..……34 Figure 10. Transformational change within organisations…………………………………………………..35 Figure 11. From Challenges and key drivers in Public Sector to Opportunities through Design…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………40 Figure 12. Service design principles…………………………………………………………………………………….41 Figure 13. Service design model……………………………………………………………………………………..…..48

Acknowledgements This report was possible by the advice and directions from different people who have supported me since I started to develop my research idea. Firstly, I would like to thank David Humphries, my personal tutor, who have support me in developing further my research and find my ‘sweet spot’. His advices have guided me to be focused. My gratitude to all lecturers in special to Youngok Choi, Busayawan Ariyatum, John Boult, Chris Holt and Patrick W. Jordan for their constructive critics and support during this journey. Finally, but not least important, my sincere thank you to my family, who believe in me and have always supported me in the decisions that I have made.

Executive Summary Social Enterprises are increasingly playing an important role in the public sector by building strong relationships with local communities. Conversely, in order to build long-‐term sustainability they are struggling in collaborating with public sector organisations. Thus, the possibility of embarking on innovation approach through design to enhance collaboration should not be underestimated. This project is based on a qualitative study with the aim of formulating a strategy for employing service design to enhance collaboration to social enterprises in the public sector. The findings of this research highlight the broader scope of service design from a user interface level (service interaction design), to a system level (service design intervention) and finally to a strategy level (service transformation) where new collaborative practices can be fostered.

Abstract

Social enterprises are playing an important role in the public sector by building value and creating strong relationships with communities. In order to provide a long-‐term sustainability, they are looking to have a greater impact by collaborating with public sector organisations. Nonetheless, the public sector is struggling to enable conditions to collaborate due to the internal structure of public service organisations to work in silos, a slow culture towards innovation, a difference in culture and language, among others. Moreover, within the public sector there is not a strong recognition of service design as solution of the current challenges. Thus, it is necessary provide evidence and new knowledge about how service design can act as a catalyst of collaborative practices in the public sector. Having in mind all above, the following question arises: How service design can enhance collaboration to social enterprises in the public sector? Based on this question this project aims to formulate a strategy for employing service design as an enhancer of collaboration in the public sector. In order to achieve the aim, the following objectives are formulated: (i) to explore the four areas of the research (social enterprise, communities, collaboration in the public sector and service design); (ii) to investigate and define the role of social enterprise in the public sector; (iii) to investigate and identify the main challenges faced within the public sector for innovation; (iv) to explore service design tools and process; (v) to review best practices of employing service design in the public sector; (vi) to identify service design principles to enhance collaboration and (vii) to formulate a strategy for employing service design as an enhancer of collaboration to social enterprises in the public sector.

This report explored the four main areas of the research based on literature review, conferences and case studies. Expert interviews were conducted and service design case studies were identified, to understand service design practices and the role of social enterprise in the public sector. The role of service designer was understood based on observations in different design-‐led workshops. Information from literature review, interviews, case studies and observation was gathered and analysed to provide insights that helped in the development of the service design model. Finally, this model was developed based on validations and suggestions from a second round of interviews. This research findings of the project are focused on exploring service design as an emerging discipline that involve an iterative process of exploring, creating, reflecting and implementing services; based on a proliferation of tools that help to understand people’s behaviours, visualise ideas, prototype concepts, communicate insights and implement ideas. Service Design has broadened to different levels of impact. It has been broadening from a user interface level (service interaction design), to a system level (service design intervention) and finally to a strategy level (service transformation). These three levels are the engine of a transformational change within the organisations, from a change in the core processes, to change in the culture and mission and finally to a paradigmatic changes The discussion on this report is based on the formulation of three service design principles that are identified within the three service design levels: (i) empathising with the

communities, (ii) analysing interventions and (iii) enabling dialogues. In this sense, organisations are focusing to understand user’s experiences, behaviours and needs; to be able to visualise the service as a system of elements, interactions and interventions; to finally enable dialogues and forge new interventions that lead to new ways of working. These design principles drives to the developing of a service design model leading to formulate a strategy for employing service design to enhance collaboration.

1. Introduction An exploration of the four research areas

Contemporary social, cultural, economic and environmental problems are complex and it is not a surprise that – single organizations often struggle when they try to solve these problems on their own (Kania and Kramer, 2011). Social Enterprise has increased their role in delivery better services in the public sector, but a collaborative approach with public service organisations would provide them better resources to have a greater impact. Moreover, the range of public services now available has made communication and collaboration between departments and sectors more important (Design Council Research Team, 2008). In this sense, Service Design provide an iterative process and human centred approach that can enable better collaborative practices while the user is putting at the centre of the design process. In order to get an overview of the research topic, these four areas were identified to be the core of the project: Social Enterprise, Creative Communities, Collaboration in the Public Sector, and Service Design. In this chapter the four areas were explored and explained to provide a strong base for the following chapters.

1.1. The Emergence of Social Enterprise An increase interest in the Public Sector Over the past decade, interest in the UK’s Social Enterprise Sector has grown steadily (Villeneuve-‐Smith and Chung, 2013).. It has emerged from a large number of different initiatives. One of them was the co-‐operative sector with its origins in the Rochadale pioneers in 1844, where twenty-‐eight workingmen opened their own shop with £28 to combat inflated prices charged by shop owner by the time. In the 1970, new initiatives based on community business flourished and by the 1990, the modern icons of social enterprise – such us The Big Issue and Ealing Community Transport were founded. (Angove, 2007). According to Social Enterprise UK (2013) a Social enterprise is a business that trades for a social and/or environmental purpose whose surplus is principally reinvested for that purpose in the business or in the community. In other words, Social Enterprise acts as change agents in the social sector. There are some 68,000 social enterprises in Britain today, 57% of them are predicting to growth (compared to 41% of SMEs), 74% actively involve their beneficiaries in decisions about their business, 82% reinvest profit back into communities and 38% of them are more concentrated in the most deprived communities (compared to 13% of standard business). The proportion of social enterprises that trade with the public sector is increasing and attracting a higher proportion of social enterprise start-‐ups. More than half (52%) of social enterprises do some trade with the public sector; this is twice the proportion of SMEs (26%) that trade with the public sector (Villeneuve-‐Smith and Chung, 2013). Social enterprises are concentrated in certain industries – particularly service industries, with business support (16%), education (16%), employment and skills (14%) and housing (13%) the most frequently cited (Villeneuve-‐Smith and Chung, 2013).

There are several important organizations that have grown up around social entrepreneurship in the UK, many of them investing in practitioner-‐driven research. (See Figure 1)

Ashoka

uk.ashoka.org

CAN Net Impact RSA

School for Social Entrepeneurs http://www.the-sse.org/

UnLtd Social Enterprise Figure 1. Social Enterprise Organizations in the UK

1.1.1 Community-‐based Social Enterprise. ‘Focusing on the community’ Social Enterprises operate under a range of labels and legal structures, including development trusts, community-‐based enterprises, housing associations, social firms, leisure trusts and co-‐operatives. Community-‐based Social Enterprises, are businesses explicitly focused on improving wellbeing of community members and not just on business goals offering a new strategy for people-‐centred local economic. They generate a lot of contributions to the communities by creating jobs, providing training and improving skills, providing goods and services where state/market will not, generating surplus for community benefit, providing physical assets, involving the community and combating exclusion. (Samllbone, Evans, Ekanem and Butters, 2001). According to Hunter (2009), Social enterprises are able to build trusting relationships with service users, developing services specifically designed to meet their needs. This benefits not only the service users but also the wider community as a whole. Engaging the consumer is

key to creating responsible, ethical and affordable services that do what they were meant to do: provide some of the most crucial aspects of a successful society. This report refers to social enterprises as companies focused on the community.

1.2 Changing Circumstances in Communities

Creative and autonomous communities A common definition of community emerged as a group of people with diverse characteristics who are linked by social ties, share common perspectives, and engage in joint action in geographical locations and settings. The idea of community touches people’s lives in many ways, forming a significant influence of how they live and relate to one another (Day, 2006). Society is growing more complex. We have witnessed significant shifts in the way the world operates, from the financial crisis, to an ageing population, the growing gap between the rich and the poor and climate change among others. (Birkholzer and Wendland, 2013 Besides of the complexity of challenges, people are becoming more creative and taking greater control over their own lives contributing to a change in how services could be delivered. It has been seen how individuals are more motivated by non-‐monetary rewards and go the extra mile to contribute time, skills and intellect for personal satisfaction and social goodwill. Crowdsourcing is becoming a new way where people can gather physically or virtually to generate and implement ideas in a bottom-‐up and hierarchy-‐free manner to solve complex, multi-‐dimensional problems. People are more conscious of the role that time plays in shaping their quality of life. Therefore, they are prioritising experiences, connections with others, health, holistic well-‐being and creativity over the speed and pace of life. (Birkholzer and Wendland, 2013). Jordan (2012), states that community development is needed to achieve prosperity by having actions that help people to recognize and develop their ability and potential and organize themselves to respond to problems and needs in which they share. These actions enable community and public agencies to work together to improve the services they are providing and receiving.

1.3 Collaboration in the Public Sector The public sector consists of governments and all publicly controlled or publicly funded agencies, enterprises, and other entities that deliver public programs, goods, or services (Dube and Danescu, 2011). Hunter (2009) states that public services form the backbone of our society. Without the assurance of reliable energy, water, transport and waste collection, our communities would collapse; without successful healthcare, employment and housing services, the most vulnerable would be abandoned. Therefore, the delivery of public services is one of the most important matters facing us not only today, as we confront one of the most extreme economic situations for 25 years, but far into the future. In difficult economic times, the effect that the quality of these services has on the general population cannot be underestimated.

Public services are facing a generational challenge of rising demand and declining resources. These trends are set to continue for the foreseeable future. At least one pound in every four of existing public spending will have to be cut in the coming years. By 2019/2020 the total shortfall would be £14.4bn. (RSA, 2013). The UK is said to be facing some of its biggest economic, social and environmental challenges in decades (Leinonkoski, 2011). Growing number of authorities are now adopting a more fundamental approach to public service reform. Local service providers and leaders should be encouraged to develop ‘more with more’ thinking. This approach relies on the importance of collaborative working in order to release the community and business energies of a locality. If public services can be co-‐created by state and civil society working together more creatively it may be possible to expand the total resources available to improve quality of life in an area, even with state spending in decline (Hambleton and Howard, 2012). Therefore, a great number of interactions between services and citizens – schools, GPs, public transport – are already structured to avoid behaviours or choices which, in the longer term, would cost more and have a negative impact on individual and community wellbeing (RSA, 2013). Collaboration is defined as the linking or sharing of information, resources, activities, and capabilities by organizations to achieve jointly an outcome that could not be achieved by the organizations separately (Bryson, Crosby and Middleton Stone, 2006). Moreover, Cross-‐ sector collaboration thrives on the fact that organisations from different sectors are committed to a common agenda for solving a specific problem (Kania and Kramer, 2011). The most effective collaborative arrangements capitalize on this, using each member’s strengths as appropriate to the particular circumstances (Collaborate, 2013). The shared missions of social entrepreneurs and the public sector mean that a relationship between the two is not only inevitable, but also necessary. There are huge benefits to be reaped from such partnerships: user involvement, innovation, increased reach, fit-‐to-‐ purpose solutions, increased active citizenship (Hunter, 2009). Moreover this type of working can enable to share learning and knowledge about best practices across organisations, to share skills, resources and capabilities across organisations, to win contracts that organisations might not be able to win alone, to tackle problems that span sector and organisational boundaries, among others (Langford, Baeck and Hampson, 2013). For the main barriers continue to reside primarily in people: in contrasting culture and mind-‐ sets, in gaps in skills and knowledge (Hunter, 2009), in inequalities in expectations and in the level of commitment of senior leaders. Organisations need to be aligned in their values and broad objectives or tensions in the partnership can arise. (Langford, Baeck and Hampson, 2013). Therefore, there is much to do on both sides to encourage dialogue, foster understanding, provide relevant and appropriate support, and create frameworks and funding for local innovation and risk taking (Hunter, 2009). In this sense, Innovation is essential to overcome barriers and empower key drivers. Hence, Service Design has now becoming a discipline that can provide the process, tools, and skills to empower innovation and enable collaborative practices.

1.4. Design Thinking, Social Design and Service Design 1.4.1 From industrial Design to Design thinking Traditionally, designers focused their attention on improving the look and functionality of products. In recent years designers have broadened their approach, towards design thinking. (Brown and Wyatt, 2010). Design thinking is a term originally used by some design leaders and others in the business academia world, to refer to the qualitatively different thought process, and approach to problem solving, that comes from having had a design training and career, and working in the culture of design (Quirk and Kingsmill, 2013). The design thinking is best thought as a ‘system of overlapping spaces (inspiration, ideation and implementation) rather than a sequence of orderly step’. (Brown and Wryatt, 2010). In this perspective, design no longer ‘designs something’ but rather ‘designs for something’ (or to get something to happen)’: it designs entities in the making, whose final characteristics will emerge only in the complex dynamics of the real world (Manzini, 2011). Employing a design approach brings with it a number of crucial benefits. These include a mechanism for placing the person – ‘the user’ at the heart of a solution; a means for experts to collaborate equally on complex issues; a rapid, iterative process that can adapt to changing circumstances; and a highly creative approach to problem-‐solving that leads to practical, everyday solutions (Burns, Cottam, Vanstone and Winhall, 2006). This focus helps avoid the common problem of enthusiastic “outsiders” promoting inappropriate solutions and ensures that solutions are rooted in the needs and desires of the community (Brown, 2011). 1.4.2 Design Thinking in Social Innovation Simultaneously, the design field has evolved new forms-‐service design, social design, interaction design – that build on the structured creativity of design, but incorporate ideas and practices from other areas, the social sciences in particular. It has been seen an interesting parallel development of design in non-‐commercial fields (Brown and Wryatt, 2010) due to the complex problems that our society is facing and the imperative need of enhancing collaborative practices to tackle in more efficient ways those challenges. Therefore, Social Design has emerged as a discipline where traditional practices and methods of design are applied in a social context (Quirk and Kingsmill, 2013). Social designers are using strategic processes to tackle critical issues such as sustainability, unemployment, mental health, homelessness and poverty. Although the term is used in an array of contexts and subsequently put to very different users, social design exists as a way of thinking about what, why and how design (product and/or process) can or does address the ever-‐changing needs of a society (Andrews, 2013). There is clearly a continuing role for research and academia to drive the development of thinking and practice around non-‐ commercially viable design applications. The international Design for Social Innovation and Sustainability (DESIS) network is a good example (Design Council, 2013). Moreover, universities such as Harvard, Stanford, Oxford have started to set up their own Social Innovation Centres to empower research in the field. Social design expertise has also been developed by large commercially oriented organisations branching out into social practice. The Design Agency Ideo is a good example, with their recent expansion into ideo.org and OpenIdeo. Ideo.org is a non-‐profit organisation focused solely on Social Innovation allowing Ideo to make an even bigger impact on global

poverty. They solve problems in Water and Sanitation; Agriculture; Health; Finance; Gender; Community. (Ideo.org, 2013). OpenIdeo is an open innovation platform for social good where people from everywhere drawing upon the optimism, inspiration, ideas and opinions of everyone to solve problems together (Open Ideo, 2013). Frog Design is another Design Agency focused on projects that create a meaningful impact by partnering with organisations such as Unicef. This particular interest in providing design capabilities into Social Sector has driven an interesting approach in Public Sector, a sector that has experienced transformations, creating opportunities for motivated designers to apply creative problem-‐solving and user-‐ focused methods into policymaking and public service process. A new design field is playing an important role in shaping public services delivery: Service Design. 1.4.3 The emergence of Service design in the Public Sector Service Science, service engineering, service design… although not interchangeable, these are all terms for an emerging discipline that attempts to join the worlds of business, design, change, management, and the service economy for a multi-‐sided approach to the introduction and sustainability of services. (Saco and Goncalves, 2008). Service Design has seen designers developing tools to support the creation of better services. Its practitioners take a human-‐centred design that focuses on customer experience and quality of encounter, identifying and improving the individual ‘touch-‐points’ where a user experiences a service. The process is systematic, iterative and driven by interdisciplinary teams (Design Council Research Team, 2008). Service design not only accepts that service is different, but also acts on this premise by employing features that include co-‐creation, constant re-‐framing, multidisciplinary collaboration, capacity-‐building, and sustaining change (Saco and Goncalves, 2008). The Service design Network, a loose coalition of academics, practitioners, and other interested parties, emerged precisely to explore Service Design field. Inspired by service designer pioneer Birgit Mager at the Koln International School of Design (Saco and Goncalves, 2008), the network states that Service Design aims to create services that are useful, useable, desirable, efficient, and effective; is a human-‐centred approach that focuses on customer experience and the quality of service encounter as the key value for success; is an holistic approach that considers in an integrated way strategic, system, process, and touch-‐point design decisions; is a systematic and iterative process that integrates user-‐ oriented, team-‐based interdisciplinary approaches and methods in ever-‐learning cycles. Therefore, according to Design Service Network (2013), Service design is the activity of planning and organizing people, infrastructure, communication and material components of a service in order to improve its quality and the interaction between service provider and customers. The purpose of service design methodologies is to design according to the needs of customers or participants, so that the service is user-‐friendly, competitive and relevant to the customers. Therefore, Service Design approaches help to close the gap between what people want and need, and what organisations do. It helps to generate a shared, single view of system priorities that connects actual experiences with the setting of those priorities. Service design focuses minds on the deeper purpose of service – to generate deep forms of satisfaction and wellbeing. And it builds the capacity of organisations and groups of organisations to adapt and morph, as people’s needs change. In these terms, service design can offer a vision for transformation, as well a set of tools and a model of change from bringing it abour. (Parker and Heapy, 2006).

The UK is regarded as a pioneer of service Design and the field has grown rapidly over the last decade, driven by consultancies such us Live/Work, Engine, Participle, Think Public, Snook, Innovation Unit, Social Value Lab (Bason, 2013). The development of an innovation agenda and the expression of design as a key driver of innovation, allowed organisations such as Design Council, Nesta, the Young Foundation, the Social Innovation Lab for Kent and the NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement to champion design as a lever in the innovation process. These organisations brokered design projects, de-‐risking an untested approach for public sector clients, and acted as commissioners to the design market, shaping new kinds of agency and offer (Quirk and Kingsmill, 2013). In conclusion, these four areas (Social Enterprise, Community, Collaboration in Public Sector and Service Design) conform the core of the research. Definitions, characteristics and current situation of the four areas were explored in this chapter in order to understand the real problem and formulate the key research question, aim and objectives.

2. Key Research Question, Aim and Objectives

The exploration of the four main areas (Social Enterprises, Communities, Collaboration in the Public Sector and Service Design) entails the formulation of the following key question: 2.1 Key Research Question How Service Design can enhance collaboration to community-‐based Social Enterprise in the Public Sector to improve the services delivered into the communities? Based on the Key Research question, the following aim is proposed: 2.2 Aim To formulate a strategy for employing Service Design as an enhancer of collaboration to community-‐based Social Enterprise in the Public Sector. In order to achieve the aim, the following objectives have been formulated: 2.3 Objectives 1. To investigate relevant theories of the four main areas identified as the core of the project: Community-‐based Social Enterprise, Creative Communities, Collaboration in the Public Sector, and Service Design. 2. To investigate and define the current Role of Social Enterprises in the Public Sector. 3. To investigate and identify the main challenges and key drivers faced in the Public Sector towards led-‐innovation practices. 4. To explore tools, methods and process involved in Service Design field to enhance collaboration practices. 5. To review best practices in terms of using Service Design in the Public Sector to identify challenges and opportunities. 6. To define service design principles to enhance collaboration to community-‐based Social Enterprises in the Public Sector. 7. To formulate a strategy for employing Service Design as an enhancer of collaboration to community-‐based Social Enterprise in the Public Sector. 2.4 Potential Outcomes – Why it is needed and what is to be done with the results? This report will suggest a strategy for employing service design to enhance collaboration to Social Enterprise in the Public sector. The need stands in raising the Role of Design, specifically Service Design, in the Public Sector where there is a need of collaborative practices. The research will move towards a guideline (new strategy for employing Service Design) for a group of people involved in the public sector: Social Enterprise organizations, Community-‐based Social Enterprises, Public Sector organisations, Communities and Design Sector.

2.5 Beneficiaries – Who the report is for? 2.5.1 Social Enterprise Organizations. Social Enterprise organisations such as Ashoka, Social Enterprise UK, UnLtd are aiming to look at better collaborations in Social Enterprise Sector. This report will provide them with a new strategy for employing service design into their strategies. 2.5.2 Community-‐based Social Enterprises. They are looking to be sustainable in the long-‐ term basis and delivering better solutions into communities. This report will give them a strategy to achieve better collaboration practices that can help them to be sustainable. 2.5.3 Public Sector Organisations. They are starting to look at innovation as the answer from the current economic crisis they are facing. The report will guide them to see innovation as an enhancer of new ways of working. 2.5.4 Communities. They are facing a cultural and behavioural shift in terms of becoming more aware and responsible of the products they are buying and services they are receiving. This report will provide them with a Service Design Model that will put community at the heart of the process with the aim of meeting their current needs. 2.5.5 Design Sector. Design organizations such as Design Council; and External and Internal Service Design Agencies in the public sector such as Social Innovation Lab for Kent and Participle among others, are looking to define the role of Service Design in the Public Sector. This report will provide them with a service design model that explains the role of Service design as an enhancer of collaboration within the Public Sector. This model will help to further research in the same context. Different research methods were used to accomplish the aim and objectives stated in this chapter. In the next chapter, the research methodology will be explained in order to provide a better understanding of how the information was collected, how the insights were generated and how the model was developed.

3. Research Methodology

Explore

Literature Review Case studies Conferences

Scope of the Research >Key Research Question >Aim >Objectives

Analysis and integration

>Challenges in the Public Sector >Role of Social Enterprise >Service Design in Public Sector

Literature Review 10 Case Studies

Deliver

Develop & Validate

Research subjects >Social Enterprise >Collaboration in Public Sector >Service Design >Community

Discover Define

The research methodology is designed to accomplish each of the objectives proposed previously (See Figure 2). The methodology is based on the Double Diamond Design process developed by Design Council. However, the five stages proposed in this research methodology are defined according to the purpose of the research and the expected outcomes in each stage. The first stage, explore, is an exploration of the key areas identified: Community-‐based Social Enterprises, communities, collaboration in Public Sector and Service Design. The second stage, define, is an analysis of the information gathered from the first stage in order to formulate the key research question, aim and objectives; and identify the main beneficiaries of the project. The third stage, discover, is a deep understanding of current challenges and key drivers faced within the Public Sector for an innovation approach; the definition of the role that community-‐based Social Enterprises are playing within Public Sector; and the understanding of Service Design discipline by identifying its process, methods and describing cases studies. The fourth stage, develop and validate, is a definition of the role of Service Design in the public service and a developing of a Service Design Model to enhance collaboration to be validated by experts and practitioners. The final stage, deliver, is the formulation of a strategy for employing service design to enhance collaboration to Community-‐based Social Enterprise within the Public Sector, following by conclusions for further research. Areas Secondary research Primary research

12 Interviews 5 Workshop Observation

3 Second Round

>Role of Service Design to enhance colaboration

of interviews

Analysis and integration Strategy for employng service design

Conclusions Recommendations

Figure 2. Research Methodology

Different research methods were selected within the five stages in order to carry out a process of exploring, defining, discovering, developing & validating and delivering. As there is a little research done about this topic, most of the research is based on qualitative methods.

3.1 Research Methods 3.1.1 Secondary Research Literature Review During the first stage (Explore), different sources were used in order to have a better exploration of the five areas. These sources are: books, articles, dissertations, websites, blogs, magazines, video interviews, online newspapers and social media (Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin). Moreover, the assistance of different conferences held by UnLtd, RSA, Young Foundation and Brunel University were fundamental to gain an understanding of the areas. Particularly, during this year, different articles were released referring to the role that Service Design is playing in the Public Sector. Articles mainly written by Design Council, Nesta, UnLtd, etc. These articles were essential in the third stage (Discover) to understand the process and the tools used in Service Design and to identify case studies from the Service Design profession. Case studies In the third stage (Discovery) different case studies were chosen with the purpose of having an overview of the service design’ practice (Collins, 2010) from organisations and service design agencies that are designing, improving, delivering services into the Public Sector; and from community-‐based Social Enterprises that are playing an important role in the Public Sector.

Figure 3. Case Studies

3.1.2 Primary Research Expert Interviews As there is little research done about the topic, the interviews were essential in the third stage of the research methodology (Discover) to gain knowledge about the role that Social Enterprises are playing and the emerging approach of service design in the Public Service. The interviewees are experts, practitioners, and researchers from Social Enterprise, Service

Design discipline and Public Sector. They shared different perspectives, points of view and practices that helped to make an interesting discussion in this report. Moreover, in the fourth stage (Developing and Validate), a second round of interviews were held to validated and shape the service design model that was been developed. Pathik Pathak is Lecturer in Sociology in Southampton University. His recent work is characterised by a strong policy and practice orientation, and a desire to bring social innovation and academic research into dialogue trough action research, research-‐based social Enterprise and knowledge exchange. (Southampton, 2013). Maria Ana Neves Botelho is a Social Entrepreneur, Idea-‐driven systems thinker as well as a design strategist, working in innovation projects for business and social change in parallel to lecturing and research projects. Collin Crooks is a Social entrepreneur for more than 20 years. He have created and operated six social enterprises and advised and assisted many more in strategy development and implementation. He is the author of the Book "How to Make a Million Jobs -‐ A Charter for Social Enterprise" Sarah Tucker supports and manages the RSA's Social Entrepreneurs Network, a growing network focused on peer-‐to-‐ peer learning, aiming to solve some of the challenges faced by the sector. Megha Wadhawan is Design Research assistant in the STBY London Office. She is particularly interested in methods of engagement and capacity building which she has been exploring and refining by organising and facilitating the London chapter of the Global Service and Sustainability Jams for the past three years (STBY, 2013). Emma Barrett is the programme manager of Social Innovation Lab for Kent (SILK). She has leaned towards multi-‐agency and cross-‐ sector working within SILK.

Simon Berry is the founder and CEO of ColaLife. He is the key visionary behind ColaLife, and brings a life-‐time’s experience in cross-‐sector stakeholder relations, rural development, open innovation and new media. He has won a number of awards and nominations in social enterprise and open innovation. Laura Talsma is the founder of The User's Advocate working in social innovation management. By human centered design and research, new innovations or technologies are developed with the input of end users -‐ creating a more successful market proposition. Adele Liddle is Co-‐designer in The Australian Centre for Social Innovation. She is a is a ‘career hopping generalist’ who’s found her place in the community sector. Fabian Segelstrom is a PhD student in Service Design at Linkoping University (Sweden), focusing on stakeholder involvement and visualisations. Kate Burn is a Design Development Lead in Participle. During her time with Participle, she has moved between design and research roles that have included mapping the UK benefits system, scoping for the ever-‐growing Circle movement and researching the effects of people’s social networks. She currently works on Social Health designing new kinds of support for living well. Ness Wright is a Junior Service Designer in Engine. Ness is interested in creating innovative and fun ways to improve services and customer experiences. Her background in Graphic Design has developed her communication and visualisation skills to help her communicate and develop successful services and experiences.

Daniel Idowu works in the Networks team at UnLtd. Daniel is part of the Pro Bono & Volunteering team as well as manager of the Star People Programme. This double role gives him very good insights on how to design social services involving different type of stakeholders, from private companies to local communities and public bodies. Observation Observations were used to record behavioural patterns of people, objects and events in a systematic manner (Collins, 2010). In order to observe and understand behaviours, attitudes and skills when people collaborate and work in multidisciplinary teams, the following co-‐ design workshops were visited: LaunchBox Workshop is a four days Multi-‐disciplinary innovation workshop, developed by Ecole des Mines de Saint-‐Etienne in collaboration with Brunel University. Human Centred Approach (HCD) Workshop led by PDD a Product and Service Design Innovation consultancy working across multiple sectors. They use Human-‐Centred Design (HCD) to help many of the world’s leading organisations achieve business success by applying the HCD skills for facilitating creativity: Looking, Understanding and Making. MakeSense Hold-‐ Up Workshop Led by MakeSense an open project that invite people to join in creative sessions and help to solve challenges fro Social Enterprises. The workshop was about solving the Challenge of Future First’s Back to School Week (BtSW). Future First is a Social Enterprise that aims to turn alumni from secondary schools into Role Models. Paper Prototyping Workshop Led by creative geniuses Hellicar&Lewis, that work with clients such as Nike, Samsung and Coca Cola as well as hacking into existing technologies and who develop disruptive innovations. It’s about learning to test any idea, service or product, through a creative process. CrowdStorm Workshop led by Crowdguru, a Social Enterprise that provide a platform to connect third Sector with people who are aiming to help them in specific tasks. The workshop was about helping a small great charity with a challenge. After identified research methods, the following chapter will highlight the main findings of the research project.

4. Findings After exploring the four areas – Social Enterprise, Community, collaboration in the Public Sector and Service Design, it is important to understand what is the role that Social Enterprises are playing in the Public Sector; what are the challenges and key drivers within Public Sector for Innovation and how service design is employing in the Public Sector.

4.1.The role of community-‐based Social Enterprises in the Public Sector Social Entrepreneurs are passionate individuals with the ideas, knowledge, links and drive to develop practical solutions to local needs. Different sectors, such as public sector are increasingly seeing social entrepreneurs as part of the solution to the challenges they face, and they are testing ways to work together (Unltd, 2013). In the Public Sector, Social Enterprises operate across a very wide range of services from housing and leisure, to recycling and health and social care. They enable communities to take a more active in shaping their local environments, developing people-‐led services, creating employment, and embedding skills and wealth at a local level. They have been identified as having huge potential to respond to some of the most entrenched social and environmental issues facing communities today (Local Government Improvement and Development, 2010). Talsma (2013) argues that, currently, there are more and more Social Enterprises taking over services in the public domain, specially if the service is worth something for the consumer. Smaller enterprises are often more flexible and adaptive to consumer needs than large governments or corporations. According to Burn (2013), the role of Social enterprise within public sector is all about valuing and building relationships. Community-‐based social enterprises are in an ideal position to create and nurture the kinds of relationships that bring together different skills and capabilities and give people a voice in shaping the infrastructure of their neighbourhood in a way that fits the network of individuals, families, groups, services, social enterprises within it. They know how to respond and develop in way that fits the local community and environment. Firstly, Social Enterprises are able to demonstrate their strength at connecting with service users, client groups and community members. Secondly, they place great value on the engagement and empowerment of staff. This includes involving staff in the decision making process and in designing services resulting in a better, higher quality and more cost-‐effective service (Local Government Improvement and Development, 2010). The sector in which social enterprise is already poised to have a large impact on public service delivery in the near future is healthcare. The case for increasing the role of social enterprise in the delivery of health and social care comes directly from the Department of Health, after studying existing social enterprises in health and with guidance from the Social Enterprise Coalition. The opportunities that lie ahead are momentous and demonstrate that it is possible to influence a public service delivery system that might have been perceived as resistant to change. Moreover, what has already happened with health can serve as an example for other public service sectors (Hunter, 2009). Recent years have seen increased recognition of the role social enterprise can play in delivering public services. This has been set out in a number of policy commitments that recognise the important and growing contribution that social enterprises make to the future of sectors including health and social care, recycling and offender management. (Local

Government Improvement and Development, 2010). Based on a roundtable organised by Unltd in June 2013 with local authorities, national government departments, social entrepreneurs, local support organisations and other stakeholders, it was stated that Social entrepreneurs can help local Authorities in Public sector to step back and look at the service delivery differently, which can result in innovations that see the beneficiaries as part of the solutions. Moreover, they can also help local authorities to build trust within communities that enable services to reach those that need them. Being outside any single public service body can allow social enterprises to develop services, that address the needs of an individual or the community in a much more innovative, holistic or joined-‐up way (Local Government Improvement and Development, 2010). Some local authorities are establishing seed fund to foster social innovation and social start-‐ ups. Furthermore, they are testing other ways to facilitate change. For example, Lambeth Council has appointed a ‘Social entrepreneur in residence’ whose role is to combine grassroots development and strategic policy work to support social enterprise in the Borough (Unltd, 2013).

4.2 Barriers and Key drivers within the Public Sector for Innovation Among the dozen of definitions of Public Sector Innovation, the simplest is ‘new ideas that work at creating public value’ (Design Council Research Team 2008). According to Berry (2013), innovation happens of the edge of organisations and sectors, creating value by overlapping these edges. Hence, in order to create valuable ideas within public sector, it is relevant to identify what are the challenges faced within Public Sector to Innovation and what are the key drivers than can enable the transformation of ideas into strong initiatives. Looking at internal structure, Public Sector organisations tend to work in silos; meaning new ideas cannot flow around organisations or cut across departmental boundaries. (Design Council Research Team, 2008). Government departments often find it difficult to work together and to engage relevant specialists and users from outside government (McNabola, Reed, Anne, Jossiasen, Melander, Whicher, Hytönen and Schultz, 2013). A transformational change must to happen in they way of working. In terms of collaboration, culture is a main challenge when Social Enterprises and Public Sector organisations aim to collaborate. According to Neves Botelho (2013), by nature entrepreneurs person is not patient, is someone who wants to make the things quicker and driven by “I can do” attitude, meanwhile, Public Sector Organisations are slower, they need more approvals to make a decision and they do not take risk. There is a huge gap on the culture where both need to be more flexible. Moreover, Public Sector is beginning to recognise disconnects between analysis of problems, creation of solutions and implementation. (McNabola, Reed, Anne, Jossiasen, Melander, Whicher, Hytönen and Schultz, 2013). Looking at the design practice within the public sector, design techniques are used informally-‐ not strategically. Service providers are often unfamiliar with strategic approaches to service design (Design Council Research Team, 2008). Although new entities (“labs”, “centres”, and “spaces”) are created to help design take root, there is still a formidable challenge in embedding this approach. Many of the initiatives are still struggling to find their place as a legitimate part of the policy-‐making infrastructure (Bason, 2013).

People are changing faster than organisations. Decades of expanding choice and growing health have left people looking for more than simply quality products and services. The search for meaning and recognition, autonomy and control is a defining part of our collective psyche in the twenty-‐first century (McNabola, Reed, Anne, Jossiasen, Melander, Whicher, Hytönen and Schultz, 2013). Therefore, there is a latent need to connect this transformed society with public organisations in order to understand them and to provide meaningful services to their current needs. If citizens have not been consulted about service and policy innovations, there is no guarantee that their actual needs will be met. Furthermore, there is an increasing emphasis on putting users at the heart of public service delivery. At a national level, user involvement is firmly on the agenda of all political parties, and policy makers talk about the value of engagement in public service transformation Although this sometimes feels like rhetoric, there are signs of a shift in culture and practice as public services gradually become more responsive to the people they serve. Progress remains patchy, and the challenge is to find ways of helping services across the board, not just those at the leading edge, to implement engagement strategies (Hunter, 2009). According to Neves Botelho (2013), the current economic situation within Public Sector has driven to consider new initiatives that could have much more impact with less money, by maximising resources. Less money available has become in a driver to start thinking creatively about solutions. This current situation has become in an incentive of engaging and include different stakeholders in designing new solutions. Therefore, Social Enterprises have started to realise about the importance about doing good but also about providing sustainable models that can engage different organisations into their process. Those challenges and key drivers described above leads to the following consequences. First, learning how to create deeper forms of satisfaction and wellbeing through service is the priority for public service reform. Second, a distinctive approach to ‘service Design’, which seeks to shape service organizations around the experiences and interactions of their users, presents a major opportunity for the next stages of public service reform: a route to get there. (Parker and Heapy, 2008). Finally, the latent need of shifting in culture, power and finance within society. The shift in culture means public services must engage and enrol citizens, families, communities, enterprises and the wider society as partners. (Leinonkoski, 2011). Therefore, the notion of co-‐production has become part of the new consensus about future approaches to public service reform. (Parker and Heapy, 2008).

4.3. Service Design Since the middle of the 1990s, service design has experience a rapidly increasing growth in knowledge and practice leading to a strong community that creates solutions that are useful, usable, desirable, efficient, effective and different. (Birgit Mager,2013), The emergence of Service Design has encouraged a wide range of new design practices in multi-‐disciplinary collaborative projects in public service sector. According to Han (2009), there are two drivers behind this emerging design phenomenom. •

The fast-‐growing service sector in the current socio-‐economic environment where the experience-‐focused and knowledge-‐intensive nature of services necessitated a service-‐ dominant logic in order to understand the human factors in public policy making.

•

Designers had been developing implicit practical knowledge about integrating experience and technologies, but now recognised their value in contributing and sharing knowledge from design explicitly with experts from other disciplines to develop services.

As a result, an emerging profession has developed rapidly over the past decade, consisting of people from different design-‐related background who share the ambition of introducing design methods and approaches to service development and innovation. Collectively, they call themselves ‘service designers’ (Han, 2009).

4.3.1 Service Design Process and Tools

re plo

ate Cre

One of the first tomes dealing with service design was Bill Hollins’s 1991 Total Design. He argued that Service Design is more practical craft than a formal science, with its focus on hypothesis-‐building and experimentation (Saco and Goncalves, 2008). There is not a formal Service Design process, since the process depends on the context of the service being designed and thus the process varies from project to project (Stickdorn, 2011). However, Stickdorn (2011) proposes an iterative four steps of exploration, creation, reflection and implementation. Iterative means that at every stage of a service design process, it might be necessary to take a step back or even start again from scratch. Literature and practice refer to various other frameworks such us: identify-‐build-‐measure (Engine, 2009), insight-‐idea-‐ prototyping-‐delivery (live/work, 2009), Discover-‐design-‐development (STBY) (Wadhawan, 2013).

ent em

Most deprived communities

t ec

Im pl

Figure 4. Service Design Process

Different tools are been identified to accomplish the aim set within each stage. These tools are drawn from social anthropology, linguistics, market research, organizational design, and all sorts of quality management approaches, such as process management, customer experience, and “voice of the customer.” Even though, the tools are identified within each stage, the application of them is situational and depends on the type of service design project, the resources available, and the objectives. (Saco and Goncalves, 2008). The tools illustrated here do not cover all the existing tools in the service design process, but they provide a good overview of the kind of methods that are currently applied in the field (Meroni and Sangiorgi, 2011). According to Tassi (2008), the service Design tools not only can be classified within the Service design Process, but also it is important to recognise that them can be used when it is needed to create a certain type of representation; when it is important to understand or work with a specific recipient and when a specific content needs to be analised.

Service Design Stage

Exploring

Tools

The Five Whys, Cultural Probes, Mobile Ethnography,

StoryBoards, Desktop Walkthrough,

ideas

Figure 5. Service design tools

First Stage -‐ Explore A service designer will typically begin by trying to understand the needs of service users (McNabola, Reed, Anne, Jossiasen, Melander, Whicher, Hytönen and Schultz, 2013) and the context where the service is commissioned and delivered. Firstly, it is about understanding culture and goals of the company providing service. Secondly, it is about identifying real problems by gaining a real understanding of the situation from the perspective of current and potential customers of a certain service. Thirdly, it is about visualizing these findings. The tools in this stage help in collecting, recording and sharing contextual information, using different media such as videos, sound, images or text. They can be supplied to users or used in interaction with project participants to explore their perception and experiences. (Merioni and Sangiorgi, 2011). Observation helps uncover some of their more latent needs and desires. Immersing themselves in context helps designers to gain empathy and allows them to observe, analyse and synthesize simultaneously (Burns, Cottam, Vanstone and Winhall, 2006). Ethnography approaches from the social sciences have thus been adopted as one of the most commonly employed research approaches in the design of services (Stickdorn, 2011) to study mainly human behaviour. Second stage -‐ Create Based on insights from research, the designer can begin to sketch solutions (McNabola, Reed, Anne, Jossiasen, Melander, Whicher, Hytönen and Schultz, 2013). Creation is where the insights are visualised into new ideas and concepts (Van Dijk, Raijmakers and Kelly, 2011). Designers make problems and ideas visible, creating frameworks to make visual sense of complex information, and quickly sketching ideas to share work-‐in-‐progress with others. According to Wadhawan (2013), service design gives people actionable tools that are visual and seem to bring things on a clear front. Making even intangible ideas into visual concepts helps to create a common platform for discussion, avoiding misinterpretation and building a shared vision. Artefacts created can include concept sketches, representational diagrams,

scenario storyboards, plans, visual frameworks and models or physical mock-‐ups. (Burns, Cottam, Vanstone and Winhall, 2006). Third Stage -‐ Reflect Once a solution has been designed, Reflection involves testing these ideas and concepts to find out how they can be improved. These will generally be simple, low-‐cost mock-‐ups of the service, allowing the designer to quickly and cheaply see what works for the user and what does not and then make improvements (McNabola, Reed, Anne, Jossiasen, Melander, Whicher, Hytönen and Schultz, 2013). Moreover, holistic solutions require the involvement of a wide range of stakeholders. (Dijk, Raijmakers and Kelly, 2011). The tools for reflection allow the ideas for solutions to be developed into prototypes, and tested against the insights generated in the exploratory phase (Dijk, Raijmakers and Kelly, 2011). They help in constructing a shared meaning out of collected experiences through direct or mediated conversations with project participants. Tools for prototyping provide modes to quickly test out new service ideas during workshops or in real settings with people. They allow people to experiment with new service models, reducing the risk of failure and enhancing the possibility of generating more meaningful and desirable futures. Service Design thinking uses different staging and role-‐play approaches from theatre to play through certain service situations and helps incorporate the emotionally important aspects of personal interactions with the service proposition. (Stickdorn, 2011). Fourth Stage-‐ Implement The implementation of new service concepts demands a process of change. The change should be based on a consistent service concept formulated and tested during the previous stages. A clear communication of this concept is essential and needs to include the emotional aspects of a service. Besides customers, the employees are also important actors from now on in the process. Their motivation and engagement is crucial for a sustainable service implementation. (Stickdorn, 2011). The tools provide ways to transfer the new or improved service design to all sections of an organization. They are about engaging new audiences, involving staff in the innovation process, and making a convincing and compelling case for change. (Dijk, Raijmakers and Kelly, 2011) In conclusion, these four stages stages are the spine of the Service design process. It is a joined-‐up process from analysis to problem solving to implementation. It mitigates risk while increasing the chances of success by using end user needs as a touchstone. (McNabola, Reed, Anne, Jossiasen, Melander, Whicher, Hytönen and Schultz, 2013) 4.3.2 Transformative services and transformation design. Engine for wider societal transformations It has been seen, that nowadays most important modern problems are complex rather than complicated. Complex problems are messier and more ambiguous in nature; they are more connected to other problems; more likely to react in unpredictable non-‐linear ways; and more likely to produce unintended consequences (Burns, Cottam, Vanstone and Winhall, 2006). According to Birkholzer and Wendland (2013), there is an increased discussion – both in the consumer as well as the business context – about the need to “transform organisations’ and deliver ‘transformative services’, those services that can change the way individuals or

groups behave in order to foster wellbeing and satisfaction. It will be transformative services that drive value creation and delivery in the future while delivering business value at the same time. A further shift seems to be happening as services are no longer conceived of as an end in themselves, but are increasingly considered as an engine for wider societal transformations. Services are less discussed as a design object, but now more as means for supporting the emergence of a more collaborative, sustainable and creative society and economy (Cottam & Leadbeater, 2004; Meroni, 2007). Design has recently focused increasingly on investigating the transformative role of services as a way to build a more sustainable and equitable society (Sangiorgi, 2011). In this sense, transformation design acknowledges that ‘design is never done’. Because organisations now operate in an environment of constant change, the challenge is not how to design a response to a current issue, but how to design a means of continually responding, adapting and innovating (Burns, Cottam, Vanstone and Winhall, 2006).

The contemporary debate on the redesign of public services has similarly emphasised the role of co-‐production and collaborative solutions. (Sangiorgi, 2011). Recognising that complex problems cannot be addressed from a single point of view, and are rarely the sole responsibility of one department, set of expertise or knowledge silo, the design process creates a neutral space in which a range of people, whose expertise may have a bearing on the problem in hand, can work together (Burns, Cottam, Vanstone and Winhall, 2006). Co-‐ design workshops are an ideal space where ideas can be generated and concepts can be developed. Therefore, transformation design seeks to leave behind not only the shape of a new solution, but the tools, skills and organisational capacity for on going change. Transformation design builds on the intuition of ‘expert’ designers, but with some initial guidance and mentoring it can be practised by non-‐designers too (Burns, Cottam, Vanstone and Winhall, 2006). Service design practitioners have been moving from providing solutions to specific problems, to providing organisations with the tools and capacities for human-‐ centred service innovation (Sangiorgi, 2011).

In 2001, the UK Design Council formed RED—essentially a research and development team—to explore, debate, and research the impact of design on social issues. RED projects ranged from preventing ill health, managing chronic illness, reducing home energy consumption, and revitalizing democracy to improving learning in schools. RED calls its approach transformation design, but it looks like, feels like, and sounds like service design applied to social systems. (Saco and Goncalves, 2008)

4.3.3 Service Design Levels

The focus of Service Design has been broadening from service interactions to consider interactions within and among organisations, working on the systems and networks therein, while designers have been increasingly approaching issues of organisational and behavioural change (Sangiorgi, 2009). In this evolution design for services, instead of service design, has gained more credibility, reflecting the interdisciplinary and emergent qualities of this discipline (Kimbell, 2009; Meroni and Sangiorgi, 2011). In this sense, Service Design projects can be classified within three levels.

IMAGINING FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR SERVICE SYSTEMS

A HUMAN-CENTRED APPROACH

Engaging and connecting people Ap an plyi me d ex ng t th per ran od im sfo s en rm tal at io

na l

EXPLORING NEW COLLABORATIVE SERVICE MODELS

o pp

c ati ph ns em actio g r rtin inte

DESIGN FOR SERVICES

NG S NI ION SIG CT DE ERA T IN

Promotiong new value configurations

Understanding people’s behaviours, experiences and practices

new ng ls e ypi tot mod o r P vice ser

ENHABLING COLLABORATIVE SERVICES

M fu anife tu re stin sce g na rio s

Building and sharing visions

lita ti co ng cr llab ea ora tive tio ns

im Eva pr lua ov t an ing ing a d i se nd nt rvi er fac ce es

DESIGNING FOR CO-EXPERIENCE

PR O BE PO HA SIN VI G OU NE RS W

a ed ing tr ot cen re om n- ltu Pr ma e cu hu rvic se

DESIGNING INTERACTIONS, RELATIONS AND EXPERIENCES

Fac i

a ing e d ply ntr h Ap Ce roac ity p un Ap m n m sig Co De

DE CO SIG -C NIN RE G AT FO IO R N

GENERATING FUTURE SCENARIOS

L NG A RI ON TE ATI E S Z FO NI NG GA HA OR C

SHAPING SERVICE SYSTEMS

DESIGNING INTERACTIONS TO SHAPE SYSTEMS AND ORGANIZATIONS

Figure 6. ‘Design for Services' model

Interface Level (Mager, 2013). Service Interaction Design (Sangiorgi, 2011). Designing interactions, relations and experiences (Meroni and Sangiorgi, 2011): The projects within this area report on the capacity of designers to understand experiences through empathic conversations and research methodologies based on three main contributions (Meroni and Sangiorgi, 2011): • An understanding, visualising and interpreting of people’s behaviours, experiences and practise as an starting point to improve services. • An evaluation and designing of the contributions for more emphatic interactions among users and staff (or users and users). • A facilitation of co-‐design processes among people directly or indirectly affected by the service in order to generate meaningful design solutions as well as to augment people’s participation and engagement into service improvement processes. When the problem is identified and shared among people, solutions can be better delivered. MakeSense, Crowdstorm and Launch Box workshops invite people from different disciplines to come together and generate ideas from specifics problems previously established. Designers are facilitators and leaders of the sessions encouraging people to generate ideas and guiding tem through a creative process.

Figure 6. Co-‐design Workshops

Therefore, Service Design is focused on improvements and innovations connected to customer experience (Mager, 2013): touchpoints, channels, architectures and journeys describe services from the starting point of the interface (Parker and Heapy, 2008). Touchpoints are the people and tangible things that shape the experience of service. Those touchpoints are crucial to communicate the essence of an organisation or company (through their brand proposal). Touchpoints are the way in which users feel engaged to an organisation or feel frustrated about it. An important touchpoint is the service environment. The idea of a service environment extends beyond the built environment to encompass any space and place in which service takes place. Spaces are not empty vessels; they are socially constructed and as such can communicate powerful messages about value, the importance of users and the extent to which they can play an active role in service. This requires start thinking these spaces as architectures. It means thinking about the complex and dynamic arrangements of objects, dialogues, information, content, processes and navigation within the space. Moreover, people interact to find services through different channels. Understanding the interaction between these channels, when each is used, as well as what each one looks like, is another important element of being able to see the service from a person’s perspective. Any attempt to create an ‘integrated channel strategy’ needs to start with people’s experiences and preferences for different channels, rather than efficiencies alone. After understanding the touchpoints and channels, it is important to think about the journey: how all the touchpoints and channels come together over a period of time and interact with people’s lives, needs, interest and attitudes. Services need to be understood as a journey or a cycle – a series of critical encounters that take place over time and across

channels. This is key to integrating the organisation of services around their user, and to combining distributed organisational resources to create experiences and outcomes (Parker and Heapy, 2008). Most of the tools used in this area support designers in their observation of people and in the collection and visualisation of stories such as design documentary, storytelling, video-‐ blog, emotional map, and customer journey map, etc (Meroni and Sangiorgi, 2011). Generating positive outcomes requires engagement, and real engagement comes through experiences. Therefore, being able to map and shape those experiences is the only way that public service organisations will be able to create strategies for genuine improvement and ultimately the transformation of services. (Parker and Heapy, 2008). System Level (Mager, 2013). Service design intervention (Sangiorgi, 2011). Designing interactions to shape systems and organisations (Meroni and Sangiorgi, 2013). These Service Design projects focus on structures, processes, performances and props (Mager, 2013) considering the redesign of service interactions as main driver for innovation organisational change and business development (Meroni and Sangiorgi, 2011). As Meroni and Sangiorgi (2011) suggests, the main contributions within this level are the following: • An evaluation and improvement of service interaction and interfaces at different levels, within and among service systems. In order to evaluate, it is important a visualisation or representation of the important elements of the service for a better understanding. In LaunchBox, Makesense and PDD workshop, the visualisation of the ideas and important elements helped to develop strong solutions to the established problems (Figure 7).

Figure 8. Visualisation in Co-‐design Workshops

•

A promotion of new service system configurations by exploring new service ideas that better answer people’s needs and by looking at new potential or improved collaborations and interactions within and among stakeholders. A fostering of organisational change by promoting a human centred service culture.

In this level, Service designers apply knowledge and tools from interaction and system design to look at issues of usability and system complexity (Meroni and Sangiorgi, 2011). Stakeholder maps, systems maps, blueprints, flowcharts and organizational aspects will be in the centre of service design projects. The back stage is integrated as a crucial part of service improvement and innovation (Mager, 2013) that help redefining service values, norms or philosophy (Sangiorgi, 2011). Strategy level (Mager, 2013). Service Transformation (Sangiorgi, 2011). Exploring new collaborative service models (Meroni and Sangiorgi, 2011). According to a mini-‐poll that Mager (2013) have conducted in the service design community shows that more than 90% of the participants do not place their priority on the issues that drive the business of their clients. They place the priority on customers. It should be a balance between the value of the service for customers but as well for clients and stakeholders in order to shape the service system in a way that can provide better outcomes. Shaping the system means identify the main figures involved, deepen the actors features and the existing relations between them, specify their activities and aims in taking part into the service process (Sangiorgi, 2011). In order to improve user-‐service interactions, designers often reach into the organisation, participating in deeper transformation processes and suggesting new business configurations and service models (Meroni and Sangiorgi, 2011). Hence, Design projects in this level focus on strategic innovation, improvement and innovation on strategic positioning and USPs (unique selling proposition) or new business development (Mager, 2013). As Meroni and Sangiorgi (2011) suggests, the main contributions within this level are the following: • Engaging people to experiment with new service models and more collaborative solutions. With the co-‐creation model, Cottam and Leadbeater (2004) suggested examining the open source paradigm as the main inspiration, which implies the use of distributed resources (know-‐how, tools, effort and expertise), collaborative modes of delivery, and the participation of users in “the design and delivery of services, working with professionals and front-‐line staff to devise effective solutions” (This, in turn, requires a significant transformation in both organisations and citizens’ behaviours and engrained cultural models) (Sangiorgi, 2011). • An application of transformational and experimental approaches to generate the space for change to happen. Designers use pilot projects and service prototypes as a way to allow people to inhabit and co-‐create new collaborative solutions, exploring resistances and motivations for change. In the Paper Prototyping workshop, multidisplinary groups came together to imagine the use of different technologic innovations to design better services. Through theatrical performances, the teams imagined using the services. These activities allowed them to understand how they could feel or how they could react or behave with the service (See Figure 8).

•

Figure 9. Prototyping services An exploration and proposition of new behavioural patterns that challenge existing sustainable lifestyles. Designers here observe and interpret current social trends, in order to get inspiration for conceiving new behavioural models and for identifying promising examples to be replicated and supported by adequate solutions and policies.

Designing a Service System requires input from all stakeholders, which include internal stakeholders from different organizational functions, as well as external stakeholders such as user groups and supply teams. When design specialists are involved, they are expected to bring skills and approaches that not only balance complex stakeholders requirements but also create embodied solutions to meet these needs. To achieve the best solution, acknowledgment and input from multiple stakeholders are essential to designer’s decision-‐ making (Han, 2009). Moreover, building strong relationships are essential to build long-‐term collaboration. Acoording to Talsma (2013), the first demand of a long-‐term collaboration is mutual interest in the end goals of cooperation. Co-‐design or brainstorms can be organised to get together and bring ideas to the table. This is all useless if the interests (financially, vision/mission, intrinsic motivation) are not aligned. Co-‐design sessions are a tool, not an endpoint. The sessions work well if the audience is well chosen, sometimes they fail when expectations are too high (potential customers think they can get all results immediately. One of the important ways of enhancing collaboration in long-‐term is by starting to commissioning together. Commissioning is about enabling an effective dynamic with communities and individuals to understand their needs, their assets and their aspirations in order to fund and guarantee effective, meaningful and efficient support (Hampson, Baeck, and Langford, 2013). 4.3.4. A transformational change within organisations Levy (1986) visualises an integrated model of the perspectives of which contents in a organisation could change towards a qualitative change to the system itself, moving from core processes, culture, mission to paradigm. In order to achieve a paradigmatic change that entails change in the core assumptions and worldview of an organisation, companies need to change all the other levels, including the organisational philosophy, mission and purpose, culture and core processes (Sangiorgi, 2011). In this sense, the three Service Design levels can be identified within this organisational change. A change of the core processes of the organisation could happen when the user’s interactions are identified, analysed and improved. When services are analysed as a system of interactions and interventions and new culture could be generated in the way of analysing

services and identifying opportunities. When new collaborations are encouraged new missions could be generated. New ways of working led to a change of paradigm (new thoughts) within the organisations.

Paradigm Strategic Level

Mision System Level

Culture

Interface Level

Core processes

Figure 10. Transformational change within organisations (Source: Sangiorgi, 2011)

4.3.5 Challenges in Service Design One of the challenges that need to be met is to bridge the gap between theory and practice in an environment hungry to see service design changes that make it real for staff and customers. To achieve this, it is important to allow people to grow and learn whilst delivering key outcomes in a timely fashion. It is about providing the structure and support to allow the discipline of design. (Buursink, 2013). Another biggest challenge practitioners are facing is about communicating the value and impact of transformation design. Stakeholders who have participated in transformation design projects are enthusiastic champions of the work. But in order to inspire those at a company board or ministerial level, there is a need to build up an appropriate shared language and evidence base. (Burns, Cottam, Vanstone and Winhall, 2006). Designers are not necessarily trained to work on highly complex issues or to direct their work toward transformational aims. The traditional design consultancy may need to change its practice and relationship with clients and reconsider its identity within design interventions (Sangiorgi, 2011). Some design groups have found that transformation enables them to connect with clients on a new level as ‘design partners’ (Burns, Cottam, Vanstone and Winhall, 2006). As yet there are few designers equipped to work in this way. Design organisations, whether they are consultancies within industry, or academic research bodies, have a largely commercial orientation, with a poor understanding of public services issues of the broader government policy context. (Burns, Cottam, Vanstone and Winhall, 2006). Also, an understanding of appropriate methodologies and an articulation of key design principles are still missing. When designers engage in transformational projects they have a huge responsibility, especially when engaging with vulnerable communities (Sangiorgi, 2011). There is a need to share and develop better tools and techniques for multidisciplinary collaboration, and the induction of non-‐designers into its practice. (Burns, Cottam, Vanstone

and Winhall, 2006). In addition, the quality and effectiveness of such interventions are hard to evaluate in the short term and within traditional design parameters (Sangiorgi, 2011).

4.4 The service design profession in the Public Sector Quirk and Kingsmill (2013) propose six different categories in which service design profession has started to in the public sector. In this section different case studies have been identified and classified within each category of service design profession as follows:

4.4.1 Embedded Designer in the Public Sector Currently, some public sector organisations have started to include full time strategic-‐level employees responsible for developing organisational design capacity, as well as for specific service redesign programmes. Some good examples are: Cornwall Council, Capita, Helsinki Design Lab, Exhange Project, Scottish Government. Chief Designer in Cornwall Council Andrea Siodmok joined Cornwall Council as a Chief Designer for service design and innovation at Cornwall Council, an unusual role in the social and service design world, but one intended to help design public services with citizens’ future needs in mind (Bailey, 2012). Having led a Design Council programme on developing local services and increasing social productivity in Cornwall (Dott Cornwall), Andrea joined the Council in 2011 to help embed design-‐led innovation in the local authority itself (Bailey, 2012). She worked to spread good design practice by advising and helping officers and teams, developing an innovation methodology (called ‘Thinking Room’) and initiating some large-‐scale public engagement projects such as Shapeb by us (Quirk and Kingsmill, 2013). 4.4.2 Internal Service Design Agency within the Public Sector Going beyond of having internal designers within public service organisations is the tendency of setting up Service Design Unit or Labs (Normally multi-‐disciplinary) that works with other parts of the organisation on a project-‐by project basis. Social Innovation Lab for Kent (SILK) There was a realisation at the senior level of Kent County Council about a serious disconnect between people’s day-‐to-‐day lives and the way policies were made. The Social Innovation Lab for Kent (SILK) team was set up as an in-‐house innovation unit to respond to this challenge, and to establish a way of working that places citizens at the very centre of everything the council does (Leinonkoski (2011).

4.4.3 External Service Design Agency working with the Public Sector There are plenty of Service Design agencies working in projects in both Private Sector and Public Sector. The majority of Service Design Agencies works in a project-‐basis with Public Sector organisations, starting in small scale with small problems.

Snook and the Scottish Government Glasgow-‐based Service Design Agency with a passion for public service design. Snook’s motto is “transforming people” by giving them responsibility and empowering them in new ways. Co-‐design and Co-‐production is the ultimate relationship between designers and the public involving every single stakeholder in the design process. Snook was commissioned by the Strategy Unit in the Scottish Government to explore the experience of a post 16 learners – developing new insights into Scotland’s education system by understanding the human stories of those within it through visualisation techniques (Quirk and Kingsmill, 2013). Live/work and Sunderland City Council One of the first London-‐based Service Design Consultancy that claim to devote specific effort to Service Innovation and Design focusing on both public and private sectors (Han, 2009). The design team worked with Sunderland City Council, a group of end users, and a range of people working for local service providers, so as to develop services to help jobless people from that community to get back to work. The combined framework of services costs an average £5.000 per person to move them towards employment. The Department for Work and Pensions currently estimates the cost of helping a person out of long-‐term unemployment at £62.000. (Design Council Research Team, 2008). Engine and Kent County Council Service Design agency that support organisations in the innovation, design and delivery of better services. They work to enhance customers’ experiences and to improve business performance across a wide range of industries and sectors. In partnership with the team in Kent County Council, Engine developed a tailored project management framework and an accompanying toolkit to enable Social Innovation Lab for Kent (SILK) to stimulate and support innovative practice amongst council staff. Innovation Unit and Lambeth Living Well Collaborative Not-‐for-‐profit social enterprise committed to use the power of innovation to solve social challenges. They have a strong track record of supporting leaders and organisations delivering public services to achieve radically different solutions that offer better outcomes for lower costs. Innovation Unit is working with the Lambeth Living Well Collaborative; a group of service users, GPs, providers and commissioners dedicated to transforming Lambeth’s mental healthcare system. They are running a series of workshops to generate insights from both professional and service users to help Innovation Unit create a framework which will help

create a cultural change and evolve co-‐production organically amongst Lambeth’s workforce. (Innovation Unit, 2013).

4.4.4 Brokered Intervention

Organisations, such as Design Council or Nesta, are brokering design work into public sector bodies in order to address a perceived market failure. Thereby, they are introducing new expertise in a de-‐risked way, and they are supporting design business through procurement. Design Council and Dott Cornwall Design Council is an enterprising charity. They place design at the heart of creating value by stimulating innovation in business and public services, tackling complex social issues. They inspire new design thinking, encourage public debate and inform government policy to improve everyday life and help meet tomorrow’s challenges (Design Council, 2013). Dott (Designs of the time) was started in 2007 by Design Council in the North East as a year of community projects, events and exhibitions about how design could help people live in a more sustainable way. Afterwards, Dott Cornwall was established as a program of design-‐led community engagement. The Design Council was involved in helping to steer the subjects tackled by the Dott projects and appoint key people to run Dott and the projects Young Foundation and Social Life Young Foundation is a think tank that takes practical action on the issues they research, specialising in social innovation and social enterprise. Young Foundation set up Social Life, a Social Enterprise created to build socially sustainable places by making people and social needs central to the way cities and communities are planned, developed and managed by working with housing providers, planners, arquitects, publics agencies and governments. Nesta and People Powered Health Programe Nesta is an independent charity with a mission to help people and organisations bring great ideas to life. They do this by providing investments and grants and mobilising research, networks and skills. People Powered Health is a program designed by Nesta, working with the Innovation Unit, to support the design and delivery of innovative services for people living with long-‐term health conditions. It was an eighteen-‐month program involving teams from hospitals, GPs practices, community organisations and patients groups across England (Nesta, 2013).

4.4.5 Design-‐Led Startup service Design-‐led teams move outside of the traditional public service institutions to start services that meet a specific public need independently. Participle and Circle In 2007, Service Design Participle started a unique public-‐private partnership with southwark Council, Sky and the Department for Work and Pensions, to design a new service to improve the quality of life and well-‐being of older people in Southwark. Working with over 250 older people, they developed Southwark Circle, a social enterprise that works as a membership-‐based service open to anyone over the age of 50, supporting individuals and communities to lead the lives they want. It represents a cultural shift in the relationship between older people and state sponsored support. 4.4.6 Non-‐designer design work Another important type of work is about those organisations that do not use a formal structure of design process, but even so, they are having a great success of delivering services into the communities by working in a collaborative way. Colalife – Cross-‐sector collaboration ColaLife is a not-‐for-‐profit organisation working to leverage the distribution network of the Coca-‐Cola Company (TCCC) to get simple medicines, such as rehydration salts and high-‐dose vitamin A tablets, to the most remote areas in developing countries. (Andrews, 2009). Although, they do not use formally service design approach, this is a great example of a non-‐for profit company towards innovation. The innovation relies on a well understanding of its stakeholders and end-‐consumer; that drives to a well developing a supply chain, a well-‐ designed packaging and a well-‐developed service. Open Door Open door was established in 2007 by the Grimbsy Care Trust with the stated objectives of improving health, reducing inequalities and tacking the determinants of health, such us homelessness or inappropriate housing, unemployment, addictions. Open door aims to bring vulnerable people closes to mainstream society.

6. Discussion

After defining the role of Social Enterprises into the Public Sector, identifying challenges for innovation within Public Sector, and exploring in deep Service Design Discipline with relevant case studies. It is important, firstly, to understand how these challenges can be transformed into opportunities through Service Design. Secondly, to identify the main service design principles that can enhance collaborations. Finally, to define the role of design as an enhancer of collaboration.

5.1 From challenges and key drivers in Public Sector to Opportunities through Service Design

The challenges previously identified are analysed in order to understand opportunities through design (Figure 9).

Public Sector working in Silos

Multidisciplinary teams working together

Cultural differences of working between Social Enterprises and Public Sector

Enabling dialogue through co-‐design

Lack of Understanding of citizen needs

‘Humanize research’ through empathic techniques

High risk of implementing new solutions

Low-‐cost prototyping techniques

Social Enterprises need to have sustainability in the long-‐term basis

Co-‐design, co-‐ production and co-‐ delivery with current and future stakeholders

Figure 11. From Challenges and key drivers in Public Sector to Opportunities through Service Design.

5.2 Service Design Principles to enable collaboration The opportunities identified previously drive to highlight the following three service design principles (Figure 10).

Anal sin gi nt

ons

ena bli n

e ogu ial gd

n ve er

Service Design

principles

ing with commun this i e pa em

Figure 12. Service design principles

5.2.1 Empathising with communities. A human-‐centred approach

Policymaking often begins with cost savings and does not engage with the user. This is skipping a step. A measure that does not meet the needs of the people it is intended to serve is no saving (Design Council Research Team, 2008). In this sense, many of today’s more complex problems arise because the latent needs and aspirations of ‘end users’ – those individuals who will receive the benefit of a given service or system – are not being met by the current offer. End users are, of course, complex individuals. Their underlying needs are rarely evident or articulated at the outset, and are unlikely to be identified through traditional market research. (Burns, Cottam, Vanstone and Winhall, 2006). Designers, then, need to create situations where service participants can realise and express their emotional status, being recognise for their attitude, capacities or needs (Meroni and Sangiorgi, 2011). Shaped by Us, a project leaded by the Chief designer of Cornwall Council, surveyed council members and local people in trying to determine which problems everyone was most bothered by, and were therefore ripe for some collaborative problem-‐solving. The engagement steered away from traditional questionnaires. Instead they spread helium balloons around the town centres with key questions attached to them. Two huge white armchairs were positioned in the town to encourage people to sit down and talk (Quirk and Kingsmill, 2013). Therefore, it is more relevant nowadays a user-‐centred approach, which demands significant rethinking of an offer or service in order to place the user at the heart of the process (Bruns, Cottam, Vanstone and Winhall, 2006). Here, emotional considerations are equal to practical ones. Designers aim to generate ‘emphatic conversations ‘ among project participants gaining insights into people’s experiences and interactions with the services and imagining new (or improved) service experiences and interaction mode (Meroni and

Sangiorgi, 2011). Over the years the user-‐centred design community has become expert at designing from the point of view of the individual, rather than the architecture of the system. The groups highlighted here find themselves in the position of championing the interests of the end-‐users; often counter to the original assumptions of the institution or client organisation. (Burns, Cottam, Vanstone and Winhall, 2006). Snook work with people to improve the things that determine the quality of their life: Education, Health, Welfare and Social Care. They give people the opportunity to take more control over these services, or at the very least ensure the services are suited to the needs and reality of their lives. In order to explore the experience of a post 16 learners, Snook used design-‐led research tools to visually map individual’s journeys and dig deeper into the reasons why people make decisions, progress and don’t progress, and what leads a learner journey to positive destinations (Quirk and Kingsmill, 2013). In order to put the user at the centre of the Design process, the research has to be ‘humanised’. Although quantitative data, percentages, numbers are important in order to understand certain patterns in the user’s interactions, It is more important go deeply and understand their emotions, feelings, context, etc. Different techniques help to humanise user research. Designers’ observations are particularly effective because they go beyond the focus group or survey to observe real user behaviour, often identifying needs and behaviour people are not aware of themselves (McNabola, Reed, Anne, Jossiasen, Melander, Whicher, Hytönen and Schultz, 2013). Another important tool is Emotional Map. This tool describes emotional touchpoints as people journey through the service. It helps all the subjects involved in a design process to understand the experiences of the users, their challenges and where priorities for improvement the experience lie. The result is a paper map evidencing the different touchpoints and the related emotions (Meroni and Sangiorgi, 2011). In this sense, services need to be understood as a journey or a cycle – a series of critical encounters that take place over time and across channels. The biggest mistake that organisations can make is assuming that they know what their service users and customers want. The common challenge of service – the emotional distance between the board and its customers, between local authorities and their citizens – is reflected in low levels of trust and satisfaction. If the primary cause of dissatisfaction people have with service organisations is that they misunderstood, ignored, and treated as faceless and nameless, then service organisations need to find new ways of getting to know their users, in all their messy complexity. (Parker and Heapy, 2008). Therefore, transformative services should have social relevance, be deeply integrated into a social community and empower that community to achieve its own goals (Birkholzer and Wendland, 2013). Responsive, relational models of service must find ways of visualizing users and understanding their needs, fears, aspirations and preferences. Hence, it has been a growing interest in segmentation, and in understanding how to turn raw data into useful insight that improves and targets particular forms of service (Parker and Heapy, 2008). The customer journey map provides a vivid but structured visualisation of the service user’s experience. The touchpoints where users interact with the service are often used in order to construct a ‘journey’-‐ an engaging story based upon their experiences, providing a high-‐level overview of the factors influencing user experience (Van Dijk, Raijmakers and Kelly, 2011). After Like/work was commissioned by Sunderland, they worked with a diverse team of local employment specialists to track the experience of unemployed people. They found a disjointed and complex system that they struggled to navigate because most people had other barriers to overcome first such as social and health issues. Once they understood the

customer journey, they designed a service approach to take people back to work one step at a time. People would go into mainstream jobs programmes only once they had first dealt with their social or health barriers (Live/Work, 2013). Hence, in order to design or re-‐design a service, it is important to have a real engagement with the community. By working in co-‐design workshops with communities and users groups, organisations can understand the scope of the solution they are aiming to provide and define the right problem. Social Life project in Brixton is actively involving the people who live around a specific run-‐down strip of land to design and developing a way that reflects the vibrancy of the area as well as focusing on housing, safety, belonging, neighbourliness, wellbeing and resilience (Burn, 2013). They run several action planning workshops with the community to develop detailed realistic plans to help make the area the best it can be. Moreover, staff and employees play a crucial role in delivering better services into communities. Through staff, values of the organization are transmitted into communities. A successful engagement of users and employees could warrantee that services are being delivered in a positive way. Therefore, service innovators invest in the design of people’s jobs – and the systems that surround them – to ensure that frontline staff are free and supported to act as guardians of the customer experience outcomes. In this sense, service innovators should design excellence profiles rather that job descriptions, which describe service roles in terms of aspirations, values and behaviours that can guide staff to deliver quality service. They are designed to enable organisations to distribute the responsibility for holding people to account on offering excellent service through being treated as an open resource freely accessible to anyone in the organisation (Parker and Heapy, 2008). Hence, Service designers see services not as static but as dynamic architectures of dialogues, systems, procedures, resources and so on – through which people have experiences and achieve outcomes. Using design techniques to visualise this complex picture often represents a turning point for organisations focused on improving their services: it helps people to see where the priorities are and where the service can be improved (Parker and Heapy, 2008). The Service design profession is working with the public service organisations to improve he understanding of the community, and therefore to encourage and engagement from the beginning of the design process. The majority of the external service design agencies interviewed, argued that every service design project start with an initial question that organisations defined after feeling struggling with a particular issue, but that most of the times, this question is re-‐defined after co-‐designing within the community. This insight from their experiences demonstrates the importance of engaging communities at the beginning of the design process. The Design Profession has being expanded within the public sector, and the opportunity of setting up design-‐led social enterprises aiming to meet uncovered needs is arising. A great example is the Social Enterprise Circle, an initiative by the Service Design Agency Participle. Their success relies on a real understanding of the community by co-‐designing with over 250 older people and family members generating insights into their hopes, fears, needs and aspirations. Based on these insights, they generated over 50 ideas for new services. They decided to focus on a service that would create a rich third age, hence, they redefined their proposition, developing prototypes of the service and co-‐designing with older people and families (Participle, 2013).

5.2.2 Enabling interactions and interventions. A multidisciplinary approach

Designers aim to reduce service interactions, breakdowns, improving service usability, generating clearer processes, seamless experiences and effective communications (Meroni and Sangiorgi). Hence, there is one important element within Service Design that can help to identify and empower interventions within the delivery of services in Social Enterprises: visualisation. It helps to represent the service using service design tools that illustrate all the components of the service including physical elements, interaction modalities, logical links and temporal sequences (Tassi, 2008). In this sense, it allows to make current and future features more tangible and translating them into visual interpretations or representations. Consequently, these visual techniques facilitate multidisciplinary teamwork. By mapping a user’s journey around a system’s touchpoints, organisations are able to see quickly which departments and areas of expertise are relevant, how they might be better joined up and who the relevant personnel are (McNabola, Reed, Anne, Jossiasen, Melander, Whicher, Hytönen and Schultz, 2013). Visualisations techniques help these teams to understand problems and synthesise their insights into viable solutions. Therefore, they might look at entire ecosystems rather than at isolated problems. The complexity of doing so requires a holistic view that unites practitioners across disciplines (Saco and Goncalves, 2008). Then, these individuals can then be included in the design process. Teams might include representatives from different government departments or agencies. One important tool to visualise the service as a system is Service Blueprints. This tool creates a visual schematic incorporating the perspectives of both the user, the service provider and other relevant parties that may be involved, detailing everything from the points of customer contact to behind-‐the scenes processes (Van Dijk, Raijmakers and Kelly, 2011). After Live/work mapped the customer journey of unemployment people in Sunderland City and realised the need of different service interventions (such us health) before offering them an employ, they brought the identified local specialist services together and help them to develop individual service blueprints that suited their own operation and segment (Han, 2008). They joined the system up so that when someone entered it at any point, they could easily reach and be reached by the services they needed. (Live/work, 2013).

5.2.3 Encouraging dialogue in the Public Sector – New ways of working

One important thing is understanding and identifying possible interventions in the service, but another important aspect afterwards is enabling a proper environment where interventions can happen. Environment refers to all the conditions that can encourage future interventions and foster a new way of working led by a collaborative approach. Networks and partnerships are critically important for People Powered Health – they provide a mechanism by which different sectors and levels of NHS can come together, each bringing their own unique set of skills and work to create services, pathways and systems that are more than just clinical. People powered Health teams have shown how networks can support the integration of care and services in different ways including: commissioning services together, providing services together and delivering services together (Langford, Baeck and Hampson, 2013). Hence, in order to encourage collaboration, it is important firstly to establish a common purpose and set of goals for the collaboration, secondly to understand and value other people’s roles and the realities of their working lives to develop a shared culture based on

building relationships and trust, and finally to enable information sharing and open dialogue. Anyone working in collaboration with others needs to find ways to create an open flow of information and dialogue with their partners (Langford, Baeck and Hampson, 2013). Hence, these three main principles of collaboration are better accomplished if they are held in co-‐ design and co-‐creation sessions. Designers role relies on developing platforms, often based on social and mobile technologies, that enable people to connect and collaborate in new ways, using existing and more distributed resources, while transcending more traditional service delivery models (Meroni and Sangiorgi, 2011). One of the key elements of success of the Lambeth Living Well Collaborative is the fortnightly breakfasts it holds for the collaborative to come together and problem-‐solve as a group. They have encountered a place of open dialogue having the “right range of people in the room’, encouraging the honesty and focused solely in solving problems (Langford, Baeck and Hampson, 2013). Encouraging people to work together and experiment with fresh approaches to meeting people’s needs can increase staff satisfaction and create more positive service experiences (Parker and Heapy, 2008). To maintain the momentum of innovative in harnessing customer insight and designing new services that better meet customer needs, people-‐capability development within the department and across sectors is key. Unlocking people’s skills and knowledge about design is only part of the puzzle. Achieving a shift to a design-‐thinking model and embedding an innovative and collaborative way of working is more challenging (Buursink, 2013). Firstly, -‐capability development requires a change in the culture of working by establishing and maintaining new habits. If new habits are formed, then transformation happens. Secondly, these new habits are based on prioritizing the community as the centre of the design process. Therefore, if users need to be put at the heart of public services, then providers, producers, departments, agencies and councils must step back, cede power and stop pursuing their own interests and preferences. Relational public services require dialogue, empathy and understanding. (Parker and Heapy, 2006). The most successful service organisations are finding ways of recognising people’s professionalism through being experts in-‐designing support collaboratively with people (Holmes, 2011). Professional expertise continues to exist, but it is deployed differently: rather than solving problems or telling people what to do, this expertise is used to uncover needs and help people navigate a complex network of possible support (Parker and Heapy, 2006). The Service Design Agency Engine produced a suite of communications helping Social Innovation for Kent (SILK) to define and promote its offer both internally and externally. Hence, from the beginning the SILK team was allowed to do things differently by facilitating and building a capacity for social innovation across sector boundaries through the offer and application of practical service design methods and tools. This approach allows SILK to narrow the gap between the council and the community, involving people (residents and staff) in the design of services to ensuring that Kent County Council (KCC) provides services that are valued, useful, easy to access, needed and wanted. Conversations and direct collaboration on projects with a cross section of council staff resulted in support of a growing team of SILK staff, helping them to build their capacity to be responsive and to engage communities, ensuring that they will continue to lead in public service delivery (Leinonkoski, 2011). Having this in mind, collaboration can happen by establishing a ‘platform’ where insights can be understand and solved having the right people in the right place. In this sense, internal agencies within Public Sector are becoming in an important space where Social

enterprises can improve their impact by fostering interventions within their service design process. Nonetheless, there have also been – and still are – challenges related to the way public sector organisations, have been set up and how they work. The recognition of these differences of working is critical for further success. The SILK Team understood that, hence they had to justify their existence by demonstrating that the different way of working can actually achieve changes for the better. This is changing the way of working from silos organization to multidisciplinary teams breaking barriers of hierarchical structures. The SILK Team has created a bottom-‐up, horizontal network inside the Council to share expertise and experiences, and hence to help people understand SILK’s way of tackling issues (Leinonkoski, 2011). One important aspect of enabling new ways of working is prototyping and measuring their impact into the communities. Prototypes are a low-‐cost and efficient way to ensure that solutions can work. As each prototype reveals more about what works, iterations can become more like a finished product. By the time one arrives at final prototype or pilot, unintended consequences and risk of failure will usually have been designed out (McNabola, Reed, Anne, Jossiasen, Melander, Whicher, Hytönen and Schultz, 2013). Practitioners should also make prototypes available to discussion and dialogue, both internally in relation to teamwork and externally in relation to clients. (Saco and Goncalves, 2013). In order to measure the impact of services, user experience metrics have to be identified. Experience metrics are derived through research with users and help organisations to design and measure the performance of a service against what people – rather than their organisation – value. Experience metrics are not measures of high-‐level outcomes but of the quality of the experience at the interface level (Parker and Heapy, 2013).

5.3 The value of service design to enhance collaboration: moving from interface level to a strategy level The service design principles previously mentioned have shifted the way that services can be designed and delivered. Firstly, there is not about quantitative data anymore, where people were reduced to numbers, graphs, diagrams and flow charts (Mager, 2013). People needs, behaviours and attitudes are bringing into the table, by understanding services and products as an encounters of emotions and interactions. Secondly, services traditionally delivered by the public sector consider their users to be passive recipients. Currently, there is a new generation of public services attuned to active and collaborative citizens (Manzini, 2013). Thirdly, services are not seen anymore as an endpoint, but a journey and an iterative cycle. Understanding the service as an encounter of interactions and interventions allows to organisations strength their relationship with the user and identify which resources, expertise and skills they need from their current and future clients and stakeholders. Finally, typically the design and development of public services has been based on top-‐down processes. A new generation of services emerges from a collaborative, largely bottom-‐up, design process (Manzini, 2013). The value of service design is related to a systematic change in perspective (Mager, 2013): from a focus on the interface level, where users are being understood and engaged in the service design process; to a system level where services are visualised and analysed in terms of interactions of users, interventions of clients and stakeholders, physical and online elements, logical links in order to identify opportunities to collaboration; and finally the system level drives to a strategy level, where actions are executed and a cultural shift

happens by enhancing a different way of working: from hierarchical fro heterarchical way, from silos to collaboration, from top-‐down to bottom-‐up. This strategy level needs to ensure long-‐term basis relationships, by having an iterative process, of exploring, creating, reflecting and implementing. Moreover, an enrichment of competences and skills are essential to promote the shifting from the interface level to strategy level. Firstly, the ability to delve deeply and to think broadly (Mager, 2013), as it has been seen, one of the main characteristics of Service Design is the Human Centred Approach. Nonetheless, putting the user at the heart of the process requires as well an understanding of the context. Service Designers not only focus on understanding the consumer by observing and researching their behaviours, attitudes and needs, but also they relate these conditions with the product and the service they are looking to improve or design. Secondly, the ability to synthesising trough visualisation, this is particular relevant when it is necessary to understand systems and interrelations. Visualization can make tangible services for a better understanding. Thirdly, Service Designers have the ability to create prototypes of not yet-‐existing realities and to enable their early evaluation and testing (Mager, 2013). Therefore, Service designers not only focused on generation of ideas but the co-‐evolution of the problem of solutions. Fourthly, they have the ability to lead and facilitate co-‐design and collaborative practices by empower people to share ideas, shape concepts and prototype solutions by working in multidisciplinary teams. Understanding the value of Service design to enable collaboration drives to recognise its limitations. Service Design is still an undefined field in itself (Wadhawan, 2013) and this allows that organisations make bigger claims that most of the times could be out of the scope of the field. Therefore, one important aspect that service designers need to take in account is balancing capabilities within Service Design and limitations, in order to see how to partner with people from other disciplines that might have other relevant capabilities and skills. In conclusion, the value of Service Design relies on provide a very interesting relationship between being local, being related to a certain context and at the same time being open and connected (Manzini, 2013).

7. Recommendations

7.1 A strategy for employing service design Based on the three Service Design Principles identified in the previous chapter, the following model is proposed to employ service design to enhance collaboration to community-‐based Social Enterprises in the Public Sector. building

system level

s oonns enn e v v err

ena bli n

new mission

e ogu ial gd

AAnnaalsl sining gini ntte

new culture

strategy level

Service Design

principles strategy

engaging community

new paradigm

measuring impact

ing with commun this itye pa em

interface level

new core process

Figure 13. Service Design Model

Three connectors were identified to link the service design principles: Engaging community, building capabilities, measuring impact and imagining future scenarios. Having in mind the Service design Principles and the connectors, this service design model provides seven stages that conform the strategy of employing service design as an enhancer of collaboration to Social Enterprises in the Public Sector. The strategy relies on a transformational change from a focus on the interface level to a focus on the strategy level. Hence, the role of service designer is fundamental as an expert, leader and facilitator of this transformational change. The first Service Design principle is focused on building trust and strong relationships based on the (i) empathy with the communities. Social Enterprises are in the best position to empathise with communities. They are aiming to tackle social problems rather than seek profit. This particular characteristic help them to build trust and strong relationships with the communities they are working for. User research is particularly important in order to maintain a constant relationship with communities. As it was stayed previously, the research

is valuable where the emotions, behaviour, attitudes are understood. Service design provides a range of tools that Social Enterprises can use to collect, record and share information of the communities. Firstly, collecting information by using ethnography methods, shadowing and interview communities, among others, where Social Enterprises can observe communities in their context, understand interactions with the service, and identify behaviours and attitudes to the service. Secondly, recording and sharing contextual information by using videos, sounds, images or text. (Meroni and Sangiorgi, 2011). In this stage, service designers provide the expertise of how to use user research tools in an efficient way. In order to maintain this relationship (ii) community engagement is key. Social Enterprises are in the place to have a more engaging approach within the communities they are working for. This is because of their nature of working for solving their problems, rather than seeking profit of it. This approach allows Social Enterprises build trust and create a proper environment of collaboration between staff and communities. Therefore, Social Enterprise’s staffs become a vital element to meet their needs and understand their real problems. Through consistent co-‐design workshops, staff and communities can share their own ideas, knowledge and expertise, and uncovering some of their latent needs and desires. In this stage service designers lead and facilitate creative process within co-‐design workshops. The second Service Design principle is focused on (iii) analyse interactions and interventions in the service. Although one of the strengths of Social Enterprises is building trust within the community, one of their more latent challenges is the willingness to understand their service as an encounter of interventions. If they go beyond of just providing services into the communities and start to understand their services as a journey where opportunities of collaboration can be enhanced, their impact could be much bigger. Social enterprises are encouraged to go beyond of providing a solution to the communities, by understanding and visualising the service as a system of elements, interactions and interventions. This is particular important if Social Enterprises are looking at long-‐term sustainability and they need resources, skills, expertise and another services that can strength theirs. Service Design provides visualization tools that Social enterprises can use in order to understand and analyse their services. Firstly, they can use these tools in order to understand current user’s interactions by identifying the touch points where users interact with the service; and connect these touchpoints together in a visual representation of the overall experience (Van Dijik, Raijmakers and Kelly, 2011). Secondly, they can understand interventions from current clients and stakeholders to make improvements by representing how different stakeholders are involved in the production, delivery and use of a service system as well as the flows of material, information and money that link the different partners (Meroni and Sangiorgi, 2011). Finally, they can identify future interventions by understanding in which parts of the service they need resources and expertise. In this stage, Service Designers are experts in synthetizing and analysing information by using visuals and representations. After Social enterprises have identified what resources, skills and expertise is needed to involve future stakeholders; they are aiming to start new dialogues based on (iv) building capabilities. The building of capabilities requires a systematic change in the way of working. Hence, requires continuous meetings, dialogues and new habits towards a collaborative work. In this stage Service designers are in the capacity to provide knowledge about the implementation of new design methodologies that can foster this capabilities.

The third service design principle is focused on (vi) enabling dialogue by establishing a common purpose, identifying roles and skills in the people and enabling information sharing. Social enterprises can then, re-‐design services with stakeholders identifying different roles, resources, skills and expertise and defining benefits of the collaboration. When the dialogue is enabled and there is a sharing of knowledge, resources and skills from different stakeholders in the public sector, the service could be transformed. Hence, prototyping and measuring impact back to the community can help to build better improvements. Prototyping tools allow mimicking the context and the service in order to further improvements. Prototyping is more effective when staff, stakeholders and community are involved. In this stage, different tools of roleplaying are used When the three Service Design Principles are integrated is when innovation can happen. Innovation means a change in the way services are imagined, designed, delivered and measured. By integrating the three elements, a new value of service design is emerged, putting at the heart communities by collaborating in the public sector. In this last stage, when social enterprises, public sector organisations and communities are collaborating for the same goal is when new future scenarios can imagined. Thinking in future scenarios of services can provide new insights about how new conditions for the future can be established in the present. The seven stages of the service design model are an engine of transformational change. Each stage demands a change within social enterprises structure in the core process, culture, mission and finally a paradigmatic change. Each stage is the consequence of the previous stage, thus, the transformational change is systematic, consecutive and iterative.

8. Conclusions This report has investigated an emerging discipline called Service Design focused on exploring, creating, reflecting and implementing services. Its human centred approach put the user at the centre of the design process by ‘humanising the research’ in terms of understanding user’s behaviours, attitudes, emotions and interactions with the service. The tools implemented by service designers are a compilation from diverse disciplines; and not only led to research the user, to visualise and prototype ideas; but also allow to use them in multidisciplinary teams, based on collaborative practices with the aim of having a broader perspective of problems and therefore of possible solutions The purpose of current study was to understand service design as an enhancer of collaboration to social enterprises in the public sector based on the identification of service design principles. The research has shown the broader scope of service design based on three levels of impact -‐user interface level (service interaction design), system level (service design intervention) and finally strategy level (service transformation). Thus, organisations are focusing to understand user’s experiences, behaviours and needs; to be able to visualise the service as a system of elements, interactions and interventions; to finally enable dialogues and forge new interventions that lead to new ways of working. The evidence from this study, suggests that these levels are the gear in which transformational change within Social Enterprises can be boosted towards collaborative practices. In order to move from an interface level to a strategy level, changes within the organisation must happen: from a change in the core processes, to change in the culture and mission and finally to a paradigmatic changes. Finally, this project emphasised the important role that ‘service design profession’ is playing in providing new value in the public sector. Thus, the success of design strategy models relies on the ability of service designers to provide new knowledge and expertise into the public sector either by working in external agencies or by working within the sector as leaders and facilitators of creative processes. The results of this report support the idea that further research should be conducted to a better understanding of the ‘transformational level’ through the evidence of case of studies and a measuring of impact of the collaborative practices.

9. References

Andrews, K., Stickdorn, M., Van Dijk, G., Raijmakers, B. and Kelly, L. (2011). This is Service design Thinking – Basics, Tools, Cases, Netherlands: BIS Publishers. Angove, S. (2007). ‘Social Enterprise in Cornwall’. Cornwall Rural Community Council. [Online]. Available at: http://www.cornwallrcc.org.uk/publications/. (Accessed: 22 April 2013). Ashton, C. (2012). Why are social enterprises thriving in the UK? BBC Radio 4, The World Tonight, 21 February [Online]. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-‐17104953. (Accessed: 20 April 2013). Balley, J. (2012). Andrea Siodmok/Cornwall Council – Report. [Online]. Available at: http://socialdesigntalks.org/2012/11/16/andrea-‐siodmok-‐cornwall-‐council-‐report/. (Accessed: 28 June 2013). Barret, E. (2013). Interviewed by Andrea Bedoya Echeverry [e-‐mail], 15 August Bason. C (2013). Design-‐Led Innovation in Government, Stanford Social Innovation Review [Online]. Available at: http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/design_led_innovation_in_government. (Accessed: 10 September 2013). Berry, S. (2013). Interviewed by Andrea Bedoya Echeverry [e-‐mail], 14 August Birkholzer, N. and Wendland, M. (2013). Designing Transformative Services, Touchpoint .The journal of Service Design, Vol.4 No.3, 66-‐69. Borzaga, C. and Defourny, J. (2001) The Emergence of Social Enterprise. London: Routledge. Brown, T. (2009) Change by Design – How Design Thinking transforms organizations and inspires Innovation, New York: Harper Collins. Brown, T., Wyatt, J. (2010). Design Thinking for Social Innovation, Stanford Social Innovation Review [Online]. Available at: http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/design_thinking_for_social_innovation. (Accessed: 7 May 2013). Brown, T. (2011). Why Social Innovators need design thinking, Stanford Social Innovation Review [Online]. Available at: http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/design_thinking_for_social_innovation. (Accessed: 9 April 2013). Breen, B. (2002) BMW: Driven by Design. Fast Company [Online] Available from: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/62/bmw.html (Accessed: 28/03/11) Bruns, C., Cottam, H., Vanstone, C. and Winhall, J. (2006). Transformation Design. RED Paper 02, London: Design Council.

Bryson, J., Crosby,B and Middleton Stone, M.(2006). The Design and implementation of Cross-‐sector collaborations: Propositions from the Literature, Public Administration Review. Vol.66, 44-‐55. Burn, K. (2013). Interviewed by Andrea Bedoya Echeverry [e-‐mail], 20 August Buursink, C. (2013) Department of Human Services. Service Design Journey, Touchpoint .The journal of Service Design, Vol.4 No.3, 42-‐45 Cottam, H., Leadbeater, C. (2004) Health – Co-‐creation Services, Design Council RED Paper 01. Collaborate. (2013). ‘Collaborating for better outcomes’. Collaborate at London South Bank University. [Online]. Available at: http://www.collaboratei.com/media/993/collaborating_for_better_outcomes.pdf. (Accessed: 23 April 2013). Cottam, H. and Leadbeater, C. (2004). Open welfare: designs on the public good, London: Design Council. Collins, H. (2010) Creative Research: The Theory and Practice of Research for the Creative Industries, Switzerland: AVA Publishing SA. Crooks, C. (2013) Interviewed by Andrea Bedoya Echeverry [e-‐mail], 1 august. Day, G. (2006) Community and Everyday Life, New York: Routledge. Design Council. (2013). About the Design Council. [Online]. Available at: http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/about-‐us/. (Accessed: 27 August 2013). Design Council Research Team. (2008). The role of design in public services. Design Council [Online] Available at: http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/briefing02. (Accessed: 19 August 2013). Dube, S. and Danescu, D. (2011). Supplemental Guidance: Public Sector Definition, The Institute Internal Auditors. [Online] Available at: https://na.theiia.org/standards-‐ guidance/leading-‐practices/pages/public-‐sector.aspx (Accessed: 20 September 2013). Hambleton, R. and Howard, J. (2012). Public Sector Innovation and Local Leadership in the UK and Netherlands, Joseph Rowntree Foundation. [Online]. Available at: http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/public-‐sector-‐innovation-‐uk-‐netherlands. (Accessed: 23 July 2013). Hampson, P., Baeck, P. and Langford, K. (2013). By us, for us: The power of Co-‐design and co-‐ delivery, Nesta [Online]. Available at: http://www.nesta.org.uk/areas_of_work/public_services_lab/health_and_ageing/people_p owered_health/assets/features/by_us_for_us_the_power_of_co-‐design_and_co-‐delivery. (Accessed: 25 August 2013).

Hampson, P., Baeck, P. and Langford, K. (2013). Networks that work: Partnership for integrated care and services, Nesta [Online]. Available at: http://www.nesta.org.uk/publications/reports/assets/features/networks_that_work_partne rships_for_integrated_care_and_services. (Accessed: 25 August 2013). Han, P. (2008). Managing Stakeholder Involvement in Service Design: Insights from British service designers. [Online]. Available at: http://servdes.org/pdf/2009/han.pdf. (Accessed: 25 July 2013). Harding, R. (2004). ‘Social Enterprise. The new economic engine?’ Business Strategy Review, 15 (4), pp. 39-‐43, [Online]. Available at: http://bsr.london.edu/lbs-‐article/430/index.html (Accessed: 20 April 2013). Holmes, B. (2011). Citizens’ engagement in policymaking and the design of public services. [Online]. Available at: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Libr ary/pubs/rp/rp1112/12rp01. (Accessed: 7 August 2013). Hunter, P. (2009). Social Enterprise for public service. How does the third sector deliver?, The Smith Institute. [Online]. Available at: http://www.tsrc.ac.uk/Research/ServiceDeliverySD/Publicservicesevidencereview/tabid/712 /Default.aspx. (Accessed: 13 July 2013). Ideo.org (2013). We are out to design a better world. [Online]. Available at: https://www.ideo.org/about. (Accessed: 20 September). Idowu, D. (2013). Interviewed by Andrea Bedoya Echeverry [e-‐mail], 30 August Jordan, P. (2013). Design Thinking for Addressing Social Issues [Rich Design Workshop presented to MA Design Strategy and Innovation]. 24 January. Jordan, P. (2012). The Good Society Framework. Understanding Quality of Life. Kania, J. and Kramer, M. (2011) Collective Impact, Stanford Social Innovation Review [Online]. Available at: http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/collective_impact. (Accessed: 24 April 2013). Langford, K., Baeck, P. and Hampson, M. (2013) Partnerships for integrated care and services, Nesta and Innovation Unit. [Online]. Available at: http://www.nesta.org.uk/publications/reports/assets/features/networks_that_work_partne rships_for_integrated_care_and_services. (Accessed 15 September, 2013). Liddle, A. (2013). Interviewed by Andrea Bedoya Echeverry [e-‐mail], 6 August Live/Work. (2013). Public Services, a better way to find job. [Online]. Available at: http://liveworkstudio.com/client-‐cases/415/. (Accessed: 28 August 2013). Leinonkoski, H. (2011). Service design. An Approach to better Public Services? A civil servant’s view. Available at: http://www.finnish-‐ institute.org.uk/media/W1siZiIsIjIwMTMvMDIvMDUvMTFfMTVfNTVfMThfc2VydmljZV9kZXN pZ24ucGRmIl1d/service_design.pdf. (Accessed: 30 July 2013).

Local Government Improvement and Development. (2010) Stimulating new markets – commissioning social enterprises [Online]. Available at: http://www.networks.nhs.uk/news/stimulating-‐new-‐markets-‐2013-‐commissioning-‐social-‐ enterprises. (Accessed: 22 August 2013). McNabola., Reed., Anne., Jossiasen., Melander., Whicher., Hytönen and Schultz. (2013). Design for Public Good. Design Council [Online] Available at: http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/our-‐work/Insight/Policy/Design-‐for-‐public-‐good (Accessed: 30 April 2013). Mager, B. (2013) From Shareholder Value to Shared Values, Touchpoint .The journal of Service Design, Vol.4 No.3, 62-‐65 Manzini, E. and Jégou, F. (2008) Sustainable everyday-‐ Scenarios of Urban Life. Milan: Edizioni Ambiente. Meroni, A. (2013) Community-‐centred Design [Guest lecture presented to MA Design Strategy and Innovation]. May Meroni, A. and Sangiorgi D. (2011) Design for Services. Design for Social Responsibility series, England: Gower Publishing Limited Michell Miller Business design (2013) What is your insight into collaboration?. Available at: http://mmbdconsulting.com/collaboration-‐insight. (Accessed: 5 May 2013). Miller, S. (2013). Unlocking local people’s potential to tackle local problems. Available at: http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/potential-‐problems-‐lessons-‐bradford. (Accessed: 5 July 2013). Mulgan, G. (2007). Social Innovation. What it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated. London: The Basingstoke Press. National Council on Aging (2013). Advantages and Barriers of Social Entrepreneurship. Available at: http://www.ncoa.org/get-‐involved/funding-‐sustainability/12-‐sources-‐ articles/source-‐9-‐advantages-‐and-‐barriers-‐social-‐entrepreneurship.html. (Accessed: 20 April 2013). Neves Bothelo, M. (2013) Interviewed by Andrea Bedoya Echeverry [in person], 20 may Nesta, (2013). People Powered Health. [Online]. Available at: http://www.nesta.org.uk/areas_of_work/public_services_lab/health_and_ageing/people_p owered_health/assets/features/people_powered_health. (Accessed: 9 September 2013). Openideo (2013). How open Ideo works. [Online]. Available at: http://www.openideo.com/how-‐it-‐works/full.html. (Accessed: 23 September 2013). Park, W. (2013). Forging ahead with Cross-‐sector Innovations, Stanford Social Innovation Review [Online]. Available at:

http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/forging_ahead_with_cross_sector_innovations. (Accessed: 5 August 2013). Parker. S, and Heapy, J. (2006). The journey to the interface. Demos. [Online]. Available at: http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/thejourneytotheinterface. (Accessed: 20 August 2013) Participle (2013). The Circle movement. [Online]. Available at: http://www.participle.net/projects/view/5/101/. (Accessed: 23 July 2013). Pathack, P. (2012). Social Enterprise, Social Capital and the University. Dr. Pathik Pathak Blog, 24 July. Available at: http://pathikpathak.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/social-‐ enterprise-‐social-‐capital-‐the-‐university/. (Accessed: 20 April 2013). Pathack, P. (2013) Interviewed by Andrea Bedoya Echeverry [skype], 7 May Quirk, B. and Kingsmill, B. (2013). Restarting Britain 2. Design and Public Services, Design Comission. [Online]. Available at: http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/our-‐ work/Insight/Research/2013-‐restarting-‐britain-‐2/. (Accessed: 4 May 2013). RSA (2013). Beyond Nudge to demand Management, RSA [Online] Available at: http://www.thersa.org/action-‐research-‐centre/community-‐and-‐public-‐services/2020-‐public-‐ services/beyond-‐nudge-‐to-‐managing-‐demand. (Accessed: 27 August 2013). Saco, R., and Goncalves, A. (2008) Service Design: An Appraisal. Design Management Review, Vol.19 No.1 Sangiorgi, D. (2011) Transformative Services and Transformation Design, International Journal of Design, Vol.5 No.2 Segelstrom, F. (2013) Interviewed by Andrea Bedoya Echeverry [e-‐mail], 11 August Smallbone, D., Evans, M., Ekanem, I. and Butters, S. (2001). Researching Social Enterprise. Final Report to the Small Business Service. Centre for Enterprise and Economic Development Research. Middlesex Universiy, London. [Online]. Available at: http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file38361.pdf. (Accessed: 21 April 2013). Talsma, L. (2013). Interviewed by Andrea Bedoya Echeverry [e-‐mail], 9 September Tizard, J. (2013). Collaborating across sector for better outcomes. Available at: http://www.publicservice.co.uk/feature_story.asp?id=21956. (Accessed: 22 April 2013). Tassi, R. (2008). Service Design Tools. [Online]. Available at: http://www.servicedesigntools.org/about. (Accessed: 18 August 2013). Tucker, S. (2013) Interviewed by Andrea Bedoya Echeverry [in person], 26 July. UnLtd (2013). How local Authorities can work together with social entrepreneurs. [Online]. Available at: http://unltd.org.uk/2013/08/15/local-‐authorities-‐roundtable/. (Accessed: 29 August 2013).

Villeneuve-‐Smith, F. and Chung, C. (2013). State of Social Enterprise Survey 2013. Available at: http://www.socialenterprise.org.uk/advice-‐support/resources/the-‐people-‐business. (Accessed 9 August 2013). Villeneuve-‐Smith, F. and Chung, C. (2013). Fightback Britain: A report on the state of Social Enterprise Survey 2012. Available at: http://www.socialenterprise.org.uk. (Accessed 9 August 2013). Wadhawan, M. (2013). Interviewed by Andrea Bedoya Echeverry [skype], 5 August Wheatley, M and Frieze, D. (2006) Using Emergence to Tackle Social Innovation to Scale. Available at: http://berkana.org/berkana_articles/lifecycle-‐of-‐emergence-‐using-‐emergence-‐ to-‐take-‐social-‐innovation-‐to-‐scale/. (Accessed: 7 May 2013). Wigglesworth, C. (2013). Getting social enterprise into supply chain. Social Enterprise UK Blog, 21 January. Available at: http://www.socialenterprise.org.uk/blog/getting-‐social-‐ enterprise-‐into-‐supply-‐chains/. (Accessed: 20 April 2013). Wright, N. (2013). Interviewed by Andrea Bedoya Echeverry [in person], 30 July

10. Appendix

Word Count: 17.638 included references

10.1 Questions to experts and practitioners Service Designers and practitioners of service design in public sector 1. How do you approach effective collaboration between stakeholders and Which are the most useful tools/techniques that can help you? 2. Do you have any experiences working with community-‐based social enterprises? If so, How do you see their role in providing better services/products into the communities? 3. What are the main challenges/frustrations faced in Design in order to work across different sectors and How to overcome those situations? 4. How do you see the role of Service Design in the future as an enhancer of collaborative practices and as a tool to provide better services into the communities? 5. Can you please comment freely in this model?. What are your first impressions? What is the main difference to how you currently work?. Social entrepreneurs 1. Based on your experience working with different sectors, especially with the private sector, What are the key drivers/facilitators to collaborate? 2. What are the main challenges that you have found when you start to collaborate? How you overcome those situations? 3. After starting to collaborate, how do you maintain a good relationship with your stakeholders? Any process that you might follow? (Specially, when Social enterprises/charities and other sector may have different scope, time, resources, etc) 4. Which tools, platforms, methods are you using to enable and enhance collaboration? (In order to understand and improve the current and future interactions with your stakeholders). Or which ones should be used? 5. How important do you think would be understanding the needs of communities you are working for? (In order to be able to collaborate efficiently and provide better services/products) 6. How do you see cross-‐sector Collaboration in the Future? Specially with the increase of Social Enterprises working into the communities, the interest of Private Sector of promoting CSR programs and the need of the governments to provide better services into the communities.

10.2 Versions of the service design model