INNOVATION IN SERVICES AND THE KNOWLEDGE CREATION PROCESS by Mauricio Manhaes

FEDERAL UNIVERSITY AT SANTA CATARINA Federative Republic of Brazil Post-Graduate Program in Knowledge Engineering and Management

Maurício Cordeiro Manhães

INNOVATION IN SERVICES AND THE KNOWLEDGE CREATION PROCESS: a proposal for a service design method.

Florianópolis - SC August 2010

MAURÍCIO CORDEIRO MANHÃES

INNOVATION IN SERVICES AND THE KNOWLEDGE CREATION PROCESS: a proposal for a service design method.

Dissertation presented to the Graduate Program in Knowledge Engineering and Management of the Federal University at Santa Catarina, as a partial requirement for obtaining the title of Master in Knowledge Engineering and Management.

Advisor: Prof. Gregório Varvakis, Dr. Co-Advisor: Prof. Tarcísio Vanzin, Dr.

Florianópolis – SC August 2010

MAURÍCIO CORDEIRO MANHÃES

INNOVATION IN SERVICES AND THE KNOWLEDGE CREATION PROCESS: a proposal for a service design method.

This dissertation was judged and approved for achievement of a Master‘s degree in Knowledge Engineering and Management by the Graduate Program in Knowledge Engineering and Management of the Federal University at Santa Catarina. Florianópolis, June 2010.

_______________________________________ Prof. Roberto C. S. Pacheco, Dr. Course Coordinator

Examining Board:

Prof. Gregório Varvakis, PhD. Advisor

Prof. Birgit Mager, Dr KISD - Germany

Prof. Neri dos Santos, Dr UFSC

Prof. Fernando Antonio Forcellini, Dr UFSC

I dedicate this work to my son, my wife, my brother, my sister and my mother and father.

In media vita 324. In media vita. — Nein! Das Leben hat mich nicht enttäuscht! Von Jahr zu Jahr finde ich es vielmehr wahrer, begehrenswerter und geheimnissvoller, — von jenem Tage an, wo der große Befreier über mich kam, jener Gedanke, dass das Leben ein Experiment des Erkennenden sein dürfe — und nicht eine Pflicht, nicht ein Verhängnis, nicht eine Betrügerei! — Und die Erkenntnis selber: mag sie für Andere etwas Anderes sein, zum Beispiel ein Ruhebett oder der Weg zu einem Ruhebett, oder eine Unterhaltung, oder ein Müßiggang, — für mich ist sie eine Welt der Gefahren und Siege, in der auch die heroischen Gefühle ihre Tanz- und Tummelplätze haben. "Das Leben ein Mittel der Erkenntnis" — mit diesem Grundsatze im Herzen kann man nicht nur tapfer, sondern sogar fröhlich leben und fröhlich lachen! Und wer verstünde überhaupt gut zu lachen und zu leben, der sich nicht vorerst auf Krieg und Sieg gut verstünde? Friedrich Nietzsche, in Die fröhliche Wissenschaft

In media vita [In mid-life].— No, life has not disappointed me! On the contrary, I find it truer, more desirable and mysterious every year,— ever since the day when the great liberator came to me, the idea that life could be an experiment of the seeker for knowledge—and not a duty, not a calamity, not a trickery!— And knowledge itself: let it be something else for others, for example, a bed to rest on, or the way to such a bed, or a diversion, or a form of leisure,—for me it is a world of dangers and victories in which heroic feelings, too, find places to dance and play. "Life as a means to knowledge"—with this principle in one's heart one can live not only boldly but even gaily and laugh gaily, too! And who knows how to laugh anyway and live well if he does not first know a good deal about war and victory?

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

As someone who collects diamonds, I would like to mention and thank the following names: Marco Chaga, Eleanor Schroeder, Jacqueline Iensen, Carlos Castillo, Fialho and Cristiane, Marina Nakayama, Ricardo Rabelo, Airton Santos, Henry Berg, Jane Santos, Gustavo Rhode, Donizete Reina, Paul Maurice Selig, Neri dos Santos, Roberto Pacheco, Fernando Forcellini and Maria Augusta Orofino. I must also thank all the friends, colleagues and staff from the Department of Engineering and Knowledge Management â&#x20AC;&#x201C; UFSC that herculeanly embraced the challenges of interdisciplinarity. To my Professors Vanzin and Grego, whom are the true responsibles for this work, I offer my indelible aknowledgements. I would like to thank also Prof Birgit Mager, not only for her acceptance to visit FlorianĂłpolis and been one of the juries, but also for the enormous work she have been doing to spread the word about service design. To those not explicited by these printed letters, the tacit embrace will serve as kindly regards. The unreasonable encouragement and patience that was offered to me made possible this journey as a means to knowledge. To all, my most fond memories. Always at your service.

ABSTRACT MANHÃES, Maurício C.. INNOVATION IN SERVICES AND THE KNOWLEDGE CREATION PROCESS: a proposal of a service design method. 201p. Dissertation (Master‘s in Knowledge Engineering and Management) Post-Graduate Program in Knowledge Engineering and Management, UFSC, Florianópolis, Brazil. Given the competitive contemporary global scenario, innovation in services is an issue that demands to be studied in greater depth and breadth. To collaborate to increase the number of these studies is one of the main reasons that this work was proposed. Although there is a variety of types of research about innovation and design, and about knowledge and collaboration, proportionally there are few studies that articulate these concepts from the perspective of services and propose an artifact as a result. Thus, the way in which organizations can create knowledge from value networks for the generation of new service propositions is what this research seeks to investigate. The research proposed adopted the Design Science Research Method (DSRM). An interdisciplinary bibliographic review of the terms Innovation, Service, Design, Knowledge and Management made it possible to articulate and present an integrated knowledge base. This served as a foundation for proposing a method for collecting qualitative information and generating knowledge with the participation of a given value network. These are considered inputs that allow proposing new concepts and values, a process that occurs at the beginning of new service development. The method proposed seeks to articulate, among other issues, the concepts of co-evolution between the spaces of problem and solution, the knowledge creation process and of multimodal communication. The method was applied, demonstrating its validity in a pragmatic form. Finally, the work helped to fill the need identified by articulating a body of interdisciplinary literature, proposing an artifact in the form of a method and creating opportunities for future studies about the scenario presented. Key words: Innovation, Service, Design, Knowledge, Management.

RESUMO MANHÃES, Maurício C.. A INOVAÇÃO EM SERVIÇOS E O PROCESSO DE CRIAÇÃO DO CONHECIMENTO: uma proposta de método para o design de serviço. 201p. Dissertação (Mestrado em Engenharia e Gestão do Conhecimento) - Programa de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia e Gestão do Conhecimento, UFSC, Florianópolis, Brasil. Dado o cenário competitivo global contemporâneo, a inovação em serviços é um tema que demanda ser estudado em maior abrangência e aprofundamento. No sentido de colaborar para o aumento do número dessas pesquisas é que foi proposto este trabalho. Embora exista uma diáspora de pesquisas sobre inovação e design, sobre conhecimento e colaboração, proporcionalmente são poucas as que procuram articular esses conceitos sob o signo do serviço e propor um artefato como resultado. Assim, a forma pela qual as organizações podem criar conhecimento a partir de redes de valor para a geração de novas proposições de serviço é o que procura investigar esta pesquisa. Para a referida investigação, este estudo adotou o método de pesquisa da ciência-design ou DSRM (Design Science Research Method). Através de uma revisão de literatura de abrangência interdisciplinar, cobrindo os termos Inovação, Serviço, Design, Conhecimento e Gestão, foi possível articular e apresentar uma base de conhecimento integrado. Esta serviu de fundamento para a proposição de um método para a coleta de informações qualitativas e geração de conhecimento com a participação de uma rede de valor determinada. Estes são considerados insumos para a proposição de novos conceitos e valores, que ocorre no início do processo de desenvolvimento de novos serviços. O método proposto busca articular, entre outros, os conceitos de co-evolução entre os espaços problema e solução, o processo de criação do conhecimento e o de comunicação multimodal. Ele foi aplicado e demonstrou, de forma pragmática, a sua validade. Este trabalho, por fim, colaborou para preencher a lacuna identificada ao articular um conjunto de literatura interdisciplinar, ao propor um artefato na forma de um método e ao criar oportunidades para futuras pesquisas sobre o cenário exposto. Palavras-Chave: Inovação, Serviço, Design, Conhecimento, Gestão.

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - Co-evolution of the spaces of problem and solution .............. 2 Figure 2 - Map of the context ................................................................. 4 Figure 3 – Graph of the occurrence of the works by group .................. 26 Figure 4 - Model of the design process. ................................................ 34 Figure 5 - The SECI model ................................................................... 56 Figure 6 – Proposal for conceptual integration ..................................... 77 Figure 7 – Phases of the Pre-Field and Field Stage of the method ..... 103 Figure 8 – Field and Post Field stages of the method ......................... 108 Figure 9 – Summary of the Proposed Method. ................................... 113

LIST OF CHARTS AND TABLES Table 1 – Illustration of the interdisciplinary bridge ............................ 13 Table 2 – Determining the source literature.......................................... 23 Table 3 – Occurrence of works by group .............................................. 24 Table 4 – Definitions of service ............................................................ 40 Table 5 – Foundational Premises .......................................................... 42 Table 6 – NHS Tool Box ...................................................................... 50 Table 7 – Compilation of the conditions for ba. ................................... 60 Table 8 – Definitions of service design. ............................................... 62 Table 9 - Categories of activities for service design. ............................ 64 Table 10 – Compilation of service design tools. ................................... 65 Table 11 – Definitions of NSD ............................................................. 70 Table 12 - Examples of the proximities between KM/SD .................... 92 Table 13 – Preliminary proposal of objectives for the method ............. 95 Table 14 – Comparison of the conceptual models ................................ 97 Table 15 – Alignment for the architecture of the method ..................... 98 Table 16 - Items of the pre-field stage .................................................. 99 Table 17 – Items of the Field stage of the method .............................. 101 Table 18 – Duration of each phase...................................................... 106 Table 19 – Items of the Post-Field stage ............................................ 109 Table 20 – Possible registers.............................................................. 110 Table 21 - List of participants ............................................................. 116 Table 22 - Texts of reflections and questions ..................................... 119 Table 23 –Return of the reflections..................................................... 120 Table 24 – Analysis of Phase 2.3.1 ..................................................... 121

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................1 1.1 Contextualization ...............................................................................1 1.2 Theme and problem ...........................................................................5 1.3 Objectives ..........................................................................................8 1.3.1 General Objective .......................................................................... 8 1.3.2 Specific Objectives ........................................................................ 8 1.4 Justification and importance of the study ..........................................9 1.5 Limits and scope of the research ......................................................11 1.5.1 Creativity and Innovation ............................................................ 12 1.6 Adherence to PPEGC and interdisciplinarity of the theme ..............13 1.7 Structure of the work .......................................................................18 2 THEORETICAL FOUNDATION...................................................21 2.1 Review of the Literature ..................................................................21 2.1.1 Identification of the Gap .............................................................. 27 2.2 Innovation in Services......................................................................28 2.2.1 Innovation and Design ................................................................. 30 2.2.2 Design .......................................................................................... 31 2.2.2.1 Multimodal Imagery ..................................................... 34 2.2.2.2 Ethnography and Empathic Design .............................. 37 2.2.2.3 Design Thinking ........................................................... 38 2.2.3 Service ......................................................................................... 39 2.2.3.1 A Unified Theory of Services....................................... 41 2.2.3.2 Service-Dominant Logic .............................................. 41 2.3 Knowledge and Innovation in Services ...........................................47 2.3.1 Knowledge management .............................................................. 48 2.3.1.1 Elements of the Knowledge-Creation Process ............. 52 2.3.1.2 Necessary Conditions ................................................... 58 2.3.2 Service Design ............................................................................. 61 2.2.2.1 The Routines of Service Design ................................... 63 2.3.2.2 New Service Development and Service Design ........... 69 2.3.2.3 Simultaneous Engineering and Service Design ............ 71 2.2.3.2 Patterns of Interaction and Complexity Theory ........... 74 2.3 Articulation of theories and tools in a method .................................75 3 METHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURES ........................................79 3.1 Conceptual factors of the study ........................................................79 3.2 Methodological Outline ...................................................................83

3.2.1 Points of Entrance of DSRM........................................................ 84 3.2.2 DSRM Activities .......................................................................... 85 3.2.3 Results of Design Science ............................................................ 87 3.2.4 Orientations for Design Science ................................................... 88 3.3 Research Application Procedures ................................................... 89 3.3.1 Participant Observation and Design Science ............................... 89 3.3.2 Principal Parameters for the Analysis of Design Research .......... 89 4 PROPOSED METHOD ................................................................... 91 4.1 The Design Process of the Proposed Method................................. 91 4.2 Identify Problem and Motivation .................................................... 92 4.2.2 The Problem ................................................................................. 93 4.2.3 The Motivation ............................................................................. 93 4.3 Objectives of the Proposed Method ................................................ 93 4.3.1 The Objectives ............................................................................. 93 4.4 Juxtaposition of knowledge design and creation............................. 95 4.5 Description of the Proposed Method ............................................... 98 4.5.1 Pre-Field Work............................................................................. 99 4.5.1.1 Identify the Participants in the Value Network .......... 100 4.5.2 Field Work ................................................................................. 101 4.5.3 Post-Field Work ......................................................................... 109 4.6 Registers Generated by the Method .............................................. 110 4.7 Summary of the Proposed Method ................................................ 111 5 DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS ............ 115 5.1 Application of the Proposed Method ............................................ 115 5.1.1 Initiation of the Discovery and Socialization in the Pre-Field ... 116 5.1.2 Conclusion of the Discovery and Socialization in the Pre-Field ................................................................................................. 116 5.1.3 Discovery and Socializing in the Field ..................................... 117 5.1.4 From Discovery and Externalization to Definition and Combination............................................................................. 117 5.1.5 Conclusion of the Definition and Combination in the Field ...... 118 5.1.6 Definition and Internalization ................................................... 118 5.1.7 Develop, Deliver, and Socializing.............................................. 120 5.2 Evaluation of the Demonstration .................................................. 120 5.2.1 Partial Analysis of the Textual Registrations ............................. 121 5.2.2 Identification of the Problems .................................................... 122 5.2.3 Inferences of Possible Solutions ................................................ 124 6 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................ 125

6.1 Communication of the Research ....................................................126 6.2 Limitations of the study .................................................................126 6.3 Recommendations for future study ................................................127 REFERENCES...................................................................................129 ANNEXES ..........................................................................................149 Annex I – Illustration of the DSRM Method .......................................150 Annex II - Large-Group - Register Phase 2.1.1 ...................................151 Annex III - Sub-Group 01a - Register Phase 2.1.2 ..............................152 Annex IV - Sub-Group 01a - Register Phase 2.1.3 ..............................153 Annex V - Sub-Group 02a - Register Phase 2.1.2 ...............................154 Annex VI - Sub-Group 02a - Register Phase 2.1.3 ..............................155 Annex VII - Sub-Group 03a - Register Phase 2.1.2 .............................156 Annex VIII - Sub-Group 03a - Register Phase 2.1.2 ...........................157 Annex IX - Sub-Group 04 - Register Phase 2.1.2 ................................158 Annex X - Sub-Group 04 - Register Phase 2.1.3 .................................159 Annex XI - Sub-Group 01b - Registration Phase 2.3.1........................160 Annex XXI - Sub-Group 02b - Register Phase 2.3.1 ...........................161 Annex XIII - Sub-Group 03B - Register Phase 2.3.1 ..........................162 Annex XIV – Message of reflection referring to Phase 2.4.2 ..............163 Annex XV – Communication sent to the participants - Phase 2.4.2 ....165 Annex XVI - Reflections sent by the Participants - Phase 2.4.2..........166

1 INTRODUCTION This study was born from the finding that service providing represents a confluence of human knowledge and action. The majority of the arts and sciences, in their greatest expressions, find a space of action in this cognitive field, which is simultaneously a social and economic, artistic, mechanical, biological and innovative field. Innovation in services is a field that has been little studied. Although there are a variety of types of studies about innovation and design, about knowledge and collaboration, there are few that seek to articulate these concepts from the perspective of service. There are even fewer that seek to develop artifacts to serve those that venture into this vast and unknown field. This research intends to provide this service. 1.1 Contextualization Organizations confront a global scenery of accentuated competitiveness with a growing rise in services, as reported in various studies (BITNER; BROWN, 2008; CHESBROUGH; SPOHRER, 2006; JONES; SAMALIONIS, 2008; LEIPONEN, 2006; LUSCH ET AL., 2007; MAFFEI ET AL., 2005; STEVENS; DIMITRIADIS, 2005). This research points to the fact that gross domestic product and new jobs in developed nations today are increasingly generated by services (BERRY ET AL., 2006; GALLOUJ, 2002). In this context, innovation in services becomes one of the essential capacities for obtaining and maintaining competitive advantage by these organizations (BITNER; BROWN, 2008; LEIPONEN, 2006; LUSCH ET AL., 2007; NONAKA ET AL., 2000; PATON; MCLAUGHLIN, 2008). The term â&#x20AC;&#x2022;serviceâ&#x20AC;&#x2013; is understood to mean the application of the competencies (knowledge and abilities) of an entity in benefit of itself or another, according to the definition provided by Vargo (MERZ ET AL., 2009). Innovation, in this study is understood as a social phenomenon that generates a qualitative change in products and processes, obtained through the creation of new knowledge and perceived as a new value by a social network (BALDWIN ET AL., 2006; FAGERBERG, 2003; POPADIUK; CHOO, 2006; SPOHRER; KWAN, 2008; VARGO, 2008), occurs from a dynamic analogous to the processes of knowledge creation (NONAKA; VON KROGH, 2009) and design (EDMAN, 2009a).

The knowledge creation process is a model proposed by Nonaka, Toyama and Konno (2000) to understand the dynamic of knowledge creation. This, is understood as ―true justified belief‖ and the proposed process, as a ―social justification of beliefs‖ (ICHIJO; NONAKA, 2007). The knowledge creation process, according to the proposal mentioned, is composed of three elements: (i) BA – or the context of knowledge sharing, (ii) SECI – the knowledge conversion process and (iii) Knowledge Assets – such as inputs, outputs and moderators of knowledge conversion. The design process, understood as an activity of reasoning conducted to face ―weak problems‖ (BUCHANAN, 1992; COYNE, 2005) and which begins with a concept and expands to new concepts and or new knowledge (HATCHUEL; WEIL, 2008). It can occur through a process of co-evolution between the spaces problem and solution (DORST; CROSS, 2001). An illustration of this dynamic can be seen in the following figure.

Solution Solution Solution Problem

Time

Problem

Figure 1 - Co-evolution of the spaces of problem and solution Source: based on Dorst and Cross (2001). The scholarly literature has countless registrations of the relationships between the constructs innovation and knowledge creation (POPADIUK; CHOO, 2006) and innovation and design (JAHNKE, 2009). Some researchers reach the point of affirming that the latter is of decisive importance for innovation (BALDWIN; CLARK, 2005, p. 3): ―Behind every innovation lies a new design.‖

Moreover, in terms of the economy of knowledge, where the continuous iterations between innovation and competition require an unquenchable flow of new designs (BALDWIN; CLARK, 2005), Knowledge Management has the theoretical resources needed to clarify and assist in the understanding of the innovation processes in the organizational context (NONAKA; VON KROGH, 2009). This study of the dynamics that generate innovation, and particularly innovation in services, is needed because, despite the clear importance of the service sector in the Gross Domestic Product of developed countries (BERRY ET AL., 2006; BITNER; BROWN, 2008; GALLOUJ, 2002; SAMPSON; FROEHLE, 2006), there is little scientific research about the process of developing new services as a whole and of the stage of conceptualization of new services in particular (ADAMS ET AL., 2006; DREJER, 2004; MENOR ET AL., 2002). This analysis of a preliminary scenario, illustrated in Figure 2 - and the initial idea for which is the need organizations have to develop new services - is the starting point from which it is proposed to expand the field of vision and establish relations between innovation in services, the knowledge creation process and design. The following illustration uses the competitive global situation to establish these relationships, the need for innovation in services and the consequent need for organizational change. The inseparability between the latter two factors and the possibility that cognitive conflicts could arise due to the scenario as a whole, established the need to have an integrated perspective for the treatment of these issues. One of the possible perspectives is that of service-dominant logic. At the same time that this encompasses the potentiality of systemic, knowledge-intensive solutions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; through integration between goods and services - it allows the interdisciplinarity needed by the process to create new knowledge. This creation is stimulated by antithetical interactions that are facilitated by the use of multimodal images, which can lead to new intangible assets, new concepts of services and new propositions of value. In fact, these are the initial elements needed for the development of new services to generate the sustainable competitive advantage that allows organizations to navigate in the current competitive global scenario.

Figure 2 - Map of the context Source: author.

1.2 Theme and problem Although the capacity for the development of new services takes on increasingly greater importance (STEVENS; DIMITRIADIS, 2005), in most cases, the logic adopted for the development of new products is still very much supported by a narrative1 aimed at tangible products (ALAM, 2006; BECKMAN; BARRY, 2007; DROEGE ET AL., 2009; MENOR ET AL., 2002; ORDANINI; MAGLIO, 2009; ROSENTHAL; CAPPER, 2006; VON KOSKULL, 2009). The work of Vargo and Lusch (2004) proposes a service-dominant logic to conceptualize products, which are understood to be tangible produced units (goods) and or processes executed by or between entities (services) (VARGO; LUSCH, 2007). With the advent of this logic, it became possible to study proposals with new conceptual bases that go beyond a mentality sustained basically by tangible goods. The change of a paradigm based on tangible goods to a logic based on intangible goods in an innovative and dynamic global scenario, can lead organizations to confront a series of unexpected situations (BHATT, 2001). In these situations, even tacit knowledge, considered as one of the bases for competitiveness, can become obsolete (AMBROSINI; BOWMAN, 2001). In this context, the break from individual and organizational routines 2 – required for the process of innovation in services – allows cognitive conflicts to occur (STEVENS; DIMITRIADIS, 2005). In this situation, the theoretical and practical framework offered by Knowledge Management can be of great value. As described by Bhatt (2001, p. 73), one of the ways to work with these unexpected situations is precisely to coordinate patterns of interaction in organizations: ―Yet by coordinating the pattern of interaction between its members, technologies, and culture, an organization can work with a novel and complex situations.‖ This context with a scarcity of scientific research (GOLDSTEIN ET AL., 2002), justifies the fact that many proposals for innovation in services do not achieve success in the market. In some cases, this can be explained by a lack of holistic understanding, by the ones responsible 1

The term ―narrative‖ is understood as a set of rules and standards considered self-evident by a given community (GREENHALGH ET AL., 2005). It can be considered analogous to the ―paradigm‖ proposed by Thomas Kuhn. 2 The term "routine" is defined in this study as a standardized procedure and composes, interconnected to various other tangible and intangible elements (documents, physical and mental activities, things and their uses, know-how, knowledge, emotions, behaviors), the concept "practice"(HALES; TIDD, 2009; KIMBELL, 2009; RECKWITZ, 2002).

for the new service development process, of the context in which the new value proposal is inserted (BROWN, 2008a). Innovation in services, understood as a proposal to format and ―possess‖ a market (VARGO, 2009), presents various difficulties that can lead to potential failures (BERRY ET AL., 2006). Some of the difficulties that the creation of new markets confronts can be analyzed from the market-design perspective3 (ROTH, 2008). Market design is based on the premise that three principal tasks must be conducted that are closely related to the principal failures that can occur in new markets: a) Provide thickness: attracting a sufficient quantity of buyers and sellers; b) Overcome congestion: establishing ideal levels of fluidity; c) Make it safe and simple: supplying those interested in participating in the market the means and security necessary. These three tasks that a market needs to perform involve a myriad of decisions that the organization responsible for the creation of new markets and services must take (GOLDSTEIN ET AL., 2002; KIM; MAUBORGNE, 2005). These decisions can increase the risks to which this new service would be exposed. One of the ways to mitigate these risks is through the adoption of tools that expand the understanding of a given opportunity (JAHNKE, 2009; KIMBELL, 2009; PRAHALAD; RAMASWAMY, 2004). In opportunities to change the rules of a game in a market, or to create a new market, it is essential to be able to transcend that which is immediately found and imagine the new as Fraser (2007) affirms. Among the various possible alternatives for the holistic understanding of a given market situation, two present more immediate results, and celerity is an essential factor for the current competitive situation. One of them is empathic design (ICHIJO; NONAKA, 2007; LEONARD; RAYPORT, 1997) and the other is the use of multimodal images (BURGI; ROOS, 2003; RYLANDER, 2008). The involvement of users is essential in both of the possibilities for increasing the holistic vision of innovation in services, and in this 3

The word ―design‖ (as a co-evolution of the space of problem and solution) in the term ―market design‖ suggests the possibility to define some markets based on the study of the evolution process of other markets from a design perspective (co-evolution of solution and problem spaces).

way, increase the probability for success (BETTENCOURT; ULWICK, 2008; DAY, 2003; FRANKE ET AL., 2006; ICHIJO; NONAKA, 2007; KUMAR; WHITNEY, 2007; LUTHJE ET AL., 2005; PASWAN ET AL., 2009; ROSENTHAL; CAPPER, 2006). In this sense, this involvement is an essential condition for there to be an explanation of the patterns of interaction between people, processes, technologies and space. The later, is characterized by the construct of proximity stemming from complexity theory. Axelrod and Cohen (2000, p. 49) explain that the ―[f]actors of proximity determine how the agents come to have probabilities of mutual interaction.‖ The importance of space is also affirmed by Nonaka and Toyama (2005) who, upon considering that knowledge is related to a context, propose the concept of ba (which, is a loose translation of the Japanese term that means ―place‖) and is understood as ―a shared context in motion.‖ Thus, studies point to the fact that a broader and more complex vision during the process of conceptualization of a new proposed service, possibly using methods analogous to – or specifically ethnographic (SEGELSTRÖM ET AL., 2009) such as empathic design, can help to increase the probability of success of a given innovation (GOLDSTEIN ET AL., 2002). This social dynamic of innovation (CAVUSGIL ET AL., 2003) during the conceptualization phase of a proposal, usually proceeds until it achieves a result considered satisfactory by the organization, as well as by the value network (PEPPARD; RYLANDER, 2006) in which this new product would be inserted. Thomke and Von Hippel (2002), upon studying the adoption of new methods that make the innovation process less expensive, affirm that the process of obtaining the information needed for the development of new products is based on ―trial and error‖ (THOMKE; VON HIPPEL, 2002). Although not raised explicitly, these authors address the phenomenon in which a client does not have the necessary understanding of the implicit and or tacit knowledge that he has about his own needs. These are implicit needs upon wich great market opportunities very often blossom (FRASER, 2007). This occurs in the case, for example of a functional sale4 or the sale of functions (SUNDIN; BRAS, 2005). The view of Cavusgil et alii (2003) also reinforces the understanding of innovation as a phenomenon linked to the tacit 4

In the sale of functions, the company that supplies the functions must decide the best way to comply with the function that the client is buying, while in leasing the physical product used for the function is defined and operated by the client [...] (SUNDIN; BRAS, 2005).

knowledge present in an organization. In this way, they affirm that organizations with a high capacity for innovation employ methods of learning and doing that are very difficult for competitors to copy. Thus, this study strives to investigate the way that organizations can create knowledge from value networks for the generation of new service proposals. In this context, this study proposes to respond to the following question: How can the routines at the initial phase of the new service development process be structured, based on concepts from the knowledge creation process? 1.3 Objectives With the intent of defining the scope of this study, it has to be stated that it is not to build a full articulation between the discipline of Knowledge Management and Design. Clearly stated, this workâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s scope is to articulate the knowledge creation process, particularly the conversion one known as SECI, and the design process called "Double Diamond". From this perspective, we present the following objectives. 1.3.1 General Objective Propose a method for the collection of qualitative information to be applied at the beginning of the new service development process. 1.3.2 Specific Objectives In the context of innovation of services: (a) Identify and articulate the interdisciplinary literature that contemplates the constructs: innovation, service, knowledge and design; (b) Identify the routines of new services development and establish relations with the knowledge creation process; (c) Verify the method proposed in an initial phase of a new services development process; The first specific objective was established based on the

understanding that only through the articulation of an interdisciplinary body of knowledge it will be possible to establish a solid foundation for the productive performance of practitionners and academics in the process of new services development (TETHER; STIGLIANI, 2010). The second objective responds to the challenge that, if with the previous objective was an attempt to map the explicit knowledge, with this one the purpose is to try to identify the tacit knowledge present in the routines adopted by practitionners engaged in new services developments. The third specific objective is, in fact, a requirement of the method adopted by this research (called DSRM and is described in Chapter 3) that an artifact is generated and tested in a given context. 1.4 Justification and importance of the study Despite the growing economic importance of services in recent decades, scientific advances have been timid in relation to the innovation processes inherent to the development of new services (DREJER, 2004; ADAMS ET AL., 2006). In this respect, Menor, Tatikonda and Sampson (2002, p. 135) write about New Service Development (NSD): Until recently, the generally accepted principle behind NSD was that ―new services happen‖ rather than arising through formal development processes.

Although this article was written in 2002, and cites previous articles on the same subject – such as Langeard, Reffait and Eiglier published in 1986 (apud MENOR, TATIKONDA & SAMPSON, 2002) – the text remains up to date, as emphasized by Droege, Hildebrand and Forcada (2009). According to these authors, the dominant goods bias (VARGO; LUSCH, 2008a) is due to a historic concentration of research about the development of tangible technological artifacts. Another factor that needs to be emphasized is that, as Levitt affirmed (1963, p. 138), ―[a]ll in all, ideation is relatively abundant. It is its implementation that is more scarce.‖ That is, the generation of ideas with an innovative potential is abundant. Nevertheless, it is possible to advance in the direction of formal processes to the development of new services as a whole and of the conceptualization process in particular (Goldstein et al. 2002).

In this situation of apparent scarcity of scientific resources, there is an additional factor: the dynamic of creative destruction that occurs in the cognitive domain of the service, typical of Kuhn‘s pre-paradigmatic steps (Greenhalgh et al. 2005). Although the notion that an innovative service simply ―happens‖ is still very strong (MENOR ET AL., 2002), a comparison can be made with what take places in music (ANDRIANI; HALL, 2002). Before the beginning of the Middle Ages, knowledge about music was acquired basically through experience. The code or language of the bass and treble clef were invented at the beginning of the Middle Ages. Since then, knowledge about music can be more easily communicated. These authors, Hall and Adriani (2002, p. 31), also make the following affirmation about the codification of tacit knowledge: It is not the case that tacit knowledge can never be codified: whether or not to codify will often depend on the payback anticipated from the time and resources which need to be invested in the codification process.

On the other hand, Hall and Johnson (2009) raise the following question in the title of an article: ―When should a process be art, not science?‖ The argument invokes the fact that scientific management of processes demands a ―blind‖5 decrease in variability. In other words, it seeks to reduce the dependence on tacit knowledge to a minimum. In certain situations, the cost of this reduction exceeds the probable return it will offer. This is the case, for example, of certain medical specialties and of fine crafts, such as that executed by luthiers. In the case of this study, the proposal to understand how a new value proposal - in other words, a service innovation - ―happens,‖ is based on the very nature of the activity of creating new services. Thus, since a new service must explicitly present its conceptual and practical structures in the form of scripts (COOK ET AL., 2002) and blueprints (BITNER ET AL., 2008), the very process of innovation in services must, in a certain way, count on the advantages that the standardization and the consequent decrease in the cognitive load of those involved can bring. The justification for this work lies in understanding the challenge that this kind of experience - the development of new services - requires 5

Hall and Johnson (2009) write that scientific management requires a blind reduction of variability in services. They advocate that, in some situations, the variability must be encouraged under penalty of compromising the quality of the product.

a considerable cognitive effort from those responsible for developing new services. The natural tendency is to seek ways to reduce the cost of the cognitive process (CROSS, 2001b). One way of addressing this challenge is by increasing the understanding of certain phenomena. The term "understanding" is defined here as the knowledge that can predict the behavior or some aspect of a phenomenon (VAISHNAVI; KUECHLER, 2004). Accordingly, this research is justified as a contribution, in the form of a method reasoned in the design process, for improving the understanding of the process of developing new services. 1.5 Limits and scope of the research This paper investigates innovation in services as a social phenomenon, and does not treat creativity as a form of individual expression. It considers innovation as a social phenomenon, which occurs within a value network. This is understood as a system of value creation, within which different economic actors – suppliers, partners, allies and clients – work together to co-produce value (PEPPARD; RYLANDER, 2006). This is similar to what Joseph Alois Schumpeter (1883-1950) understood after studying the dynamic of innovation, arriving at the conclusion that it depends as much on a minority ―breaking standards‖ as on social groups and the organizational context (FAGERBERG, 2003). In fact, much can be gained through research that studies innovation as a social phenomenon (MORELLI, 2007; SPOHRER; KWAN, 2008). Within this broad concept of innovation, this study concentrates on innovation in services. Based on the perspective of the spectrum as defined by Goldstein et alii (2002), the development of new services extends from the stage of generation of ideas to the complete development and realization of the service in the market. Nevertheless, this study is limited to the phase of the generation of innovative concepts in services in which there is explicit participation of various agents in the value network (PEPPARD; RYLANDER, 2006; LUSCH ET AL., 2009) who will use this new proposal. It should be emphasized that this study adopts the service dominant logic(BITNER; BROWN, 2006; CAUTELA ET AL., 2009; CHESBROUGH; SPOHRER, 2006; EDMAN, 2009; GRÖNROOS, 2008; KUUSISTO, 2008; LUSCH ET AL., 2007; PAYNE ET AL., 2008; SPOHRER ET AL., 2007; SPOHRER; KWAN, 2008; VARGO;

LUSCH, 2007; VARGO; LUSCH, 2008; VON KOSKULL, 2009), for which reason the understandin of the concepts products, services and goods (LUSCH; VARGO, 2009) should be made explicit, as follows: a) Goods: tangible produced units; b) Services: processes executed by or among entities; c) Products: goods and or services resulting from a production process. Within this logic, Vargo and Lusch (2009, p. 8) maintain that goods are mechanisms for the distribution for services. For this reason, there is no distinction between one and another, but an interrelationship: [...] S-D logic rejects the common distinction between goods and services (i.e. alternative forms of products) but rather considers the relationship between goods and services. S-D logic considers goods to be appliances, vehicles, or distribution mechanisms for providing services.

The limits of the study are established by the object resulting from the mapping of the processes of innovative conceptualization to a given proposal of value for a service. That is, within the entire spectrum of study offered by New Service Development (NSD), this study concentrates on the activities linked directly to the knowledge creation process responsible for the externalization of the concept of a new service. Or, according to the service-dominant logic, the externalization of a new value proposal. 1.5.1 Creativity and Innovation For the objectives of this dissertation, the concept of creativity is understood as the energy needed for the design process â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and thus that of innovation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; to occur. Although it is not within the explicit focus of this study, creativity will be approached indirectly from various perspectives and should be considered as the essential factor for all affirmations and results referring to the design and innovation processes mentioned. Creativity is understood to be a blind process of variation and selective retention (CAMPBELL, 1960; SIMONTON, 2010). This concept of creativity supplies the basic structure for the development of

the general objective of this study, although not explicity. 1.6 Adherence to PPEGC and interdisciplinarity of the theme The term service is an inherently interdisciplinary construction (NG; MAULL, 2009; SACO; GONCALVES, 2008; SPOHRER; MAGLIO, 2006; VARGO; LUSCH, 2008a). From the service-dominant perspective, it is primarily a knowledge intensive activity. The concept of design meanwhile has evolved in the form of a strategic, conceptual and multidisciplinary field (MORITZ, 2005). The gravitation from one to another can be understood as a natural process. It is in this scenario that this study proposes an interdisciplinary juxtaposition, supported by the service-dominant logic, among the cognitive domains of knowledge creation and innovation in services. In this way, the study will analyze the definition of new standards of interaction among agents of the value creation networks. The foundation of this academic construction is innovation in services, and more precisely, is based on the service-dominant logic. In synthesis, this defines service as the application of knowledge and abilities in benefit of an entity (VARGO; LUSCH, 2007). To the degree that, innovation is defined (in brief) as all new knowledge incorporated in products, processes and services (POPADIUK; CHOO, 2006). To the concept of innovation is added the understanding that this is only generated through a design process (BALDWIN; CLARK, 2005; BALDWIN ET AL., 2006). The concept of knowledge - understood by Western epistemology as a true and justified belief (NONAKA, 1996) - in this study serves as an interdisciplinary bridge (ABOELELA ET AL., 2006; HUUTONIEMI ET AL., 2009), given that it is present in the definitions of the two organizational constructs that will be analyzed here (see Table1). Table 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Illustration of the interdisciplinary bridge Source: author. Innovation

Is every new

Knowledge

incorporated in products, processes and services

Service

Is the application of

Knowledge

and abilities in benefit of an entity

The resulting composition points, on one hand, to Knowledge Management and on the other to Service Design. This is because, according to the definition of Knowledge Management that is adopted in this study, this is the art of creating value through leveraging of intangible assets (SALOJÄRVI ET AL., 2005). In this case, the ―value creation‖ component is totally adherent to a service-dominant logic that treats a service as a ―value proposition‖ (VARGO; LUSCH, 2007). In relation to Service Design, in brief, it is defined as the design process that begins from the generation of an idea and continues until the specification of a new service through graphs and texts (GOLDSTEIN ET AL., 2002). The generation of an idea, in this case, is based on the client‘s perspective (MAFFEI ET AL., 2005). The proposal for this work is based on the understanding that its scope is broad and that the body of literature is diverse, that different groups of scholars consider its various aspects based on different world views. This is the challenge of all interdisciplinary work (GREENHALGH ET AL., 2005). First, it is understood that there is knowledge externalized both by the practitioners of design, and by those of management, and that there is no theoretical body of consensus between researchers in these fields. This study intends to combine the explicit knowledge of the disciplines of Management and Design as did Nonaka, Toyama & Konno (2000). According to these authors, combination is a process of converting explicit knowledge into more complex and systematic arrangements of knowledge. These, collected in and outside of an organization, by the entire value creation network, are combined or processed to form new knowledge. Since one of the forms of knowledge creation is the composition between contradictory concepts, 6 the work of Johansson and Woodila (2008) based on the paradigms of Burrell and Morgan 7 offer a possible justification for the contradictory composition between Management and Design. While management, established principally in the Functionalist 6

―Knowledge is created in the spiral that goes through seemingly antithetical concepts […]‖ (NONAKA & TOYAMA, 2003). 7 Johansson & Woodila (2008) cite the work of Burrell and Morgan (Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis: elements of the sociology of corporate life. London : Heinemann Educational Press). The author had access to another article (LEWIS & GRIMES, 2005) which also cites the same work conducted by Morgan in 1980, as registered in references in this study.

framework, is more concerned with actuality than with potentiality, (JOHANSSON; WOODILLA, 2008), Design adopts a contradictory perspective. While Management principally represents a functionalist paradigm, Design evolved from a radical humanist paradigm (JOHANSSON; WOODILLA, 2008). With the boundaries of the large fields of study established, we can pass to the definition of the specific sub-fields, based upon which, in fact, the interdisciplinary nature of this study will be constructed. Although based on large fields supported by opposite paradigms, the juxtaposition between the sub-fields of Knowledge Management and Service Design, reveals a consistent alignment between the two. In particular, both adopt a very similar perspective concerning the conceptions of complex adaptive systems (AXELROD; COHEN, 2001). This can be exemplified, on one hand, when one who studies Knowledge Management such as Ganesh Bhatt (2001, p. 73) affirms that : [...] to manage knowledge, an organization will need to shape and redefine interactions between its people, technologies and techniques.

And, on the other, when Birgit Mager (2007, p. 355), who studies Service Design, declares that: A formal language for services empowers service designers to create interactions, spaces and processes on the basis of a solid knowledge of casual relationships.

And, finally, Axelrod and Cohen (2000, p. 24), in reference to the study of complexity affirm: If complexity is frequently enrooted in patterns of interaction among the agents, then we can expect that systems present an increasingly complex dynamic when there are changes that intensify interaction among the elements. This, of course, is exactly what the Information Revolution is doing: reducing barriers to interaction between processes that were previously isolated from each other in time or space.

It is precisely based on these different perspectives and world views, placed on the construct ―patterns of interaction,‖ that it is proposed that the creation of new knowledge needed for the achievement of this study occurs. This proposal is also supported by the understanding defended by Nonaka and von Krogh (2009, p. 640) that: [...] knowledge is created through the interaction between individuals with different biographies. Different biographies imply that individuals bring different knowledge and interests to the process, and these represent a specific challenge.

Moreover, following Nonaka and Toyama (2003, p. 2), it can be supposed that the juxtaposition between the paradigmatic sub-fields of Knowledge Management and Service Design present the characteristics needed for the creation of knowledge, and thus, are propitious to innovation: Knowledge is created in the spiral that goes through seemingly antithetical concepts such as order and chaos, micro and macro, part and whole, mind and body, tacit and explicit, self and other, deduction and induction, and creativity and efficiency. We argue that the key to understanding the knowledge-creating process is dialectic thinking and acting, which transcends and synthesizes such contradictions. Synthesis is not compromise. Rather, it is the integration of opposing aspects through a dynamic process of dialog and practice.

Nonaka and Toyama (2005, p. 429), when they treat intangible goods, advocate the expansion of the focus to beyond actual intangible goods (the knowledge created). They include among ―intangible goods‖ the radical humanist concept of potentiality when they add to that ―[...] the knowledge to create knowledge, such as the organizational capability to innovate.‖ This capacity to continuously innovate services is also essential because of the fact that the competitive advantage resulting from innovation, in the specific case of services, has a short term effect in the market (ARANDA; MOLINA-FERNÁNDEZ, 2002). That is, as Nonaka, Toyama & Nagata (2000, p. 2) maintain:

The raison d’être of a firm is to continuously create knowledge. This expansion is precise and necessary. As Leiponen affirms (2006, p. 239) when he defines innovation as the ability to combine existing intangible goods, and with this, create sustainable competitive advantages: Innovation – generation of novel combinations from existing knowledge – is a key process that underlies the creation of these kinds of unique capabilities to support sustainable advantage.

According to Drejer (2004), innovation depends on the processes of learning and codification of knowledge, in other words: socialization, externalization, communication and internationlization of knowledge. These processes are studied by Knowledge Management (NONAKA & TOYAMA, 2003). Based on the work of Schumpeter (1883-1950), Drejer (2004) affirms that learning occurs through innovation, or that is, knowledge is created in this process. This ability to learn and to generate new knowledge strengthens the potential for more innovation. This does not mean to say that to innovate is the same as to learn, given that for innovation to occur, it is necessary for the invention to be placed in practice. Drejer understand this as follows: (2004, p. 557): Learning is not a concept dealt with specifically by Schumpeter, but he does touch upon the creation of new knowledge in relation to invention and innovation in stating that this new knowledge is economically irrelevant if the invention is not carried into practice […].

In this sense, although Knowledge Management provides various elements needed to understand the processes involved in the development of new services (MASSA; TESTA, 2004), others need to be understood to obtain an application with economic success. Once this is accomplished, the knowledge to create knowledge – as a form of exploiting the potential for innovation that a company has at a certain point of time (NONAKA; TOYAMA; KONNO, 2000) – presents a certain adherence to the concept of Design that, through the combination of previous knowledge, winds up ―[...]creating what has never existed before‖ (JOHANSSON; WOODILLA, 2008, p. 12).

The interaction between design and management is complex, as the authors cited above affirm. On one hand, while design generates symbols of creativity, on the other, management seeks to generate symbols of rationality (RYLANDER, 2008a). Ever since the work of Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856–1915) management, from the spectrum of scientific management, strives to fit within an entity that celebrates rationality as a form of understanding the ambiguity inherent to the intensive work in knowledge. This search for rationality also facilitates communication with the market, to the degree to which one speaks a language that ―clients understand and feel comfortable with‖ (RYLANDER, 2008b, p. 11). Design, stemming from a different epistemological tradition, celebrates creativity. This may explain the differences in profitability between management consultants and design companies (RYLANDER, 2009a). In this regard, Theodor Levitt noted (2002, p. 138) that management treated creativity as a ―form of irresponsibility‖: Since business is a uniquely "get things done" institution, creativity without action-oriented follow-through is a uniquely barren form of individual behavior. Actually, in a sense, it is even irresponsible.

The principal disciplines investigated in this study are marketing, Engineering, Design and Management. From them are drawn the main narratives adopted in the context of the conceptualization of the innovative proposals in services. 1.7 Structure of the work This work has five chapters. Chapter 1 presents the introductory elements, as well as the contextualization and presentation of the theme and research problem, the general and specific objectives of the study, the justification and importance of the study, its limits and scope, and adherence to the requirements of the PPEGC and the interdisciplinarity of the subject. Chapter 2 presents the theoretical foundations of the study and the techniques used to make the literature review. It begins with a general vision of knowledge management and then presents the main characteristics of the knowledge creation process. Then, to contextualize knowledge in relation to innovation in services – specifically in the

19 organizational environment â&#x20AC;&#x201C; it presents some concepts and perspectives about innovation in services and describes the components innovation and service from the perspective of the service-dominant logic. In sequence, it presents the service-dominant logic in greater detail, as developed by Vargo and Lusch (2004). The chapter concludes with a description of the cognitive domain related to Service Design, presenting the theoretical concepts of design, the routines of design applied to services, distinguishes this application from the techniques of simultaneous engineering and the new service development process. This chapter also presents the specific objectives 1.3.2.a and 1.3.2.b. The first, throughout the chapter, and the second in items 2.2.1 and 2.2.2. Chapter 3 presents a detailed description of the factors related to the methodological base used to conduct the study. It begins with the presentation of the conceptual aspects of the research, the outline, the research participants, the procedures for data collection and analysis, and the main parameters considered in the analysis and interpretation of data. The specific objective established in 1.3.2.a, as a response to the need for a theoretical foundation that sustains the study in designscience, receives support from this chapter. Chapter 4, presents and analyses the method proposed as an artifact resulting from this study. The chapter begins with an epistemological contextualization and then describes the design of the method. Both the Research Question and the General Objective are treated in depth in this chapter. The second specific objective (1.3.2.b) is also addressed by item 4.4 Juxtaposition of knowledge design . Chapter 5 describes the application of the method and the context in which the study was conducted and presents the principal results of the knowledge creation process during the practice of innovation of services. The third specific objective (1.3.2.c) is treated by this chapter, and, as a result, in the documents presented in Annex. Finally, Chapter 6 presents the final considerations of the study, highlighting the limitations of the research. In addition, it indicates directions for the realization of future studies.

2 THEORETICAL FOUNDATION This chapter presents the theoretical-empirical basis for the study. It begins with a presentation of the literature review that supports this study. Taking a broad view about innovation in services, it separately analyzes the concepts of innovation and service, giving them the theoretical forms needed to support this study. With this theoretical construction established, it conducts an epistemological approximation between them through the dissection of the constitutive elements of innovation in services, according to the perspective adopted for this study. This approximation is based on two conditions necessary for the process of knowledge creation and the minimal conditions established for the production of innovation in services. Of the specific objectives established for this study, the first (1.3.2.a) is addressed throughout this chapter and the second (1.3.2.b) in items 2.2.1 and 2.2.2. 2.1 Review of the Literature Given the broad cognitive field to be covered - for an interdisciplinary treatment of the terms of innovation, design, service and knowledge - procedures for systematic search and selection of literature were adopted, as described below. The review of the literature began with the definition of a broad question for the initial research phase (GREENHALGH ET AL., 2005). Through informal and non-structured methods, various alternatives were developed. The broad question chosen for the literature review was: How does innovation in services take place? Based on this broad research question, the review of the literature began with a ―mapping of the territory‖ using informal and nonstructured methods. The review process adopted certain procedures suggested by the Meta-Narrative Review method because it proposes an interdisciplinary alignment, a synthesis of distinct narratives for similar concepts (GREENHALGH ET AL., 2005). At first, scholarly works about the issues ―innovation‖ and ―services‖ were collected and analyzed. The articles were suggested by professors and doctoral and master‘s students from the three areas of the graduate program in Knowledge Management and Engineering of the Federal University at Santa Catarina (Engineering, Management and Media). As the

knowledge bases suggested were explored, an overview was obtained of the given themes. The need for broad participation by various ―persons‖ in the services innovation process emerged in all the narratives found. Two concepts consolidate this factor: ―empathic design‖ (ICHIJO; NONAKA, 2007; LEONARD; RAYPORT, 1997) and the ―knowledgecreation process‖ (NONAKA; TOYAMA; KONNO, 2000). Based on these constructs8 the concepts9 referring to ―design‖ and ―ethnography‖ were related to ―innovation.‖ Based on a serendipitous combination of ―service‖ and ―design,‖10 the English term ―service design‖ arose from a reading of the article by Nicola Morelli ―Designing Product/Service Systems: A Methodological Exploration‖ (MORELLI, 2002a). An internet search led us to the Service Design Network – SDN.11 This internet site has a series of articles about: innovation in services‖ and the so-called ―empathic design‖ in a link called KNOWLEDGE. From this link it is possible to locate the LITERATURE link, which presents a set of articles, some with free access and others reserved only for paying members. Upon exploring the term ―service‖ within the conceptual field of ―design,‖ based only on articles that could be accessed at the SDN site, the construct of ―service-dominant logic‖ (VARGO; LUSCH, 2008b) emerged. According to the analysis conducted, this cognitive domain 12 acts as a conceptual attractor13 of various sub-themes, including some of great interest to this study: innovation in services, theory of service, and value-creation networks. At the conclusion of the survey of the literature, a universe was identified of 728 documents including articles, books, dissertations and 8

A ―construct‖ is the ideal result of a mental process. It is a ―purely mental construction, created from the simplest elements to be part of a theory.‖ Translated from the (HOUAISS) Portuguese language dictionary. 9 ―Concept‖ is a form of mental construct, such as laws or theories (ICHIJO; NONAKA, 2007). 10 The term serendipitous can be defined as a characteristic of something beneficial that results from an inspired discovery: ―may result in unanticipated discoveries‖ (DEW ET AL., 2008). Or ―the occurrence and development of events by chance, in a happy or beneficial way‖ (ICHIJO; NONAKA, 2007). 11 SDN‘s internet address is: www.service-design-network.org. 12 A cognitive domain can be understood as a scientific research field characterized by the overlapping of various disciplines (CAUTELA, RIZZO and ZURLO, 2009). 13 An attractor links a system to a behavior pattern. It can be an attraction to a stable point, to a regular cycle or to more complex forms of behavior. (AXELROD; COHEN, 2001)

theses. By determination of the author thogether with the supervisor and co-supervisor of this thesis, only those that presented the term ―innovation‖ (in English) would be considered for review. However, not all kinds of innovations were of interest for this study. It was necessary to select only the works that dealt specifically with respect to services innovation. Again, based on keywords found in several works identified as relevant to the scope of this research, it was determined that the selection of other works should be guided by the concomitant presence of the term "innovation" and one or more of the following terms. The additional terms are: i. ii. iii.

―PSS‖, ―Product/Service System‖, ―Service System‖ or similar; ―KISA‖, ―Knowledge Intensive Service Activity,‖ or similar; ―KIBS‖, ―Knowledge Intensive Business Service‖ or similar;

In Table 2 can be seen the search terms used for the selection of literatures relevant to this research.These reduced the number of selected works from 728 to 544 which had the term innovation, and later to 484 with the concomitant terms, as can be seen in the table below. Table 2 – Determining the source literature Source: author. Nº

Groups

Search terms

Occurences

Initial Group

728

Innovation

―innovation‖

544

KISS + KISA + PSS

―knowledge-intensive‖, ―knowledge intensive‖, ―systemic solution‖, ―service solution‖, ―service solutions‖, ―service systems‖, ―services activities‖, ―service activity‖, ―pss‖, ―product/service‖, ―product/service system,‖ ―service‖

484

The reading of more than one hundred of these works and the analysis of their key words led to the creation of 30 groups of narratives, which were placed in groups of search terms. These were composed of terms of effective searches that, when applied to the set of the 484 valid works, led to the emergence of thematic sub-groups. The quantity of occurrences of works in each group is presented in the following table: Table 3 – Occurrence of works by group Source: author. Nº

Groups

Search terms

Innovation

―innovation‖

544

KISS + KISA + PSS

484

Competitive Advantage Creativity

221

―knowledge management‖

158 142

4 5 6

Knowledge Management Knowledge Creating

Service Innovation

Multimodal Imagery + Embodiment

SSEM

Value Creation

Service Design

―knowledge-creating‖, ―knowledge creating‖, ―knowledge-creation‖, ―knowledge creation‖ ―service innovation‖, ―innovation in service‖ ―multimodal imagery‖, ―multimodal‖, ―multimodal communication‖, ―visual‖, ―journey map‖, ―touchpoint‖ ―service science‖, ―service management‖, ―service engineering‖ ―value creation‖, ―value creating‖ ―service design‖

Service Blueprint

―blueprint‖, ―service blueprint‖

Occurrences

244

141 135

125

124 105 86

Service Economy

―service economy‖

Ethnography + Anthropology

Tacitness & Stickiness

Design Research

Co-Creation

New Service Development Co-Production

Service Dominant Logic

Value Network

Design Theory

Customer + User centered

Design Thinking

―ethnography‖, ―anthropology‖, ―human centered‖, ―humancentered‖ ―tacitness‖, ―stickiness‖, ―sticky assets‖, ―sticky information‖, ―sticky knowledge‖ ―design research‖, ―design science‖ ―co creation‖, ―co-creation‖, ―cocreation‖, ―co creating‖, ―co-creating‖, ―cocreating‖, ―new service development‖, ―NSD‖ ―co-production‖, ―co production‖, ―coproduction‖ ―service dominant‖, ―servicedominant‖, ―service-dominant logic‖, ―sdl‖, ―s-d logic‖ ―value network‖, ―value net‖, ―value stream‖ ―design theory‖, ―design theories‖, ―C-K‖ ―customer centered‖, ―customer-centered‖, ―user centered‖, ―user-centered‖, ―client centered‖, ―clientcentered‖, ―design thinking‖

Experience Economy

―experience economy‖

Concurrent Engineering Nonaka + Toyama + Konno Unified Services Theory

―concurrent engineering‖

―nonaka toyama konno‖

18 15

73 73

69 65 45

39 38 38

Vargo + Nonaka

―unified service‖, ―service theory‖ , ―services theory‖ , ―service theories‖, ―services theories‖ ―vargo nonaka‖

Market Design

―market design‖

Vargo + Buchanan

―vargo buchanan‖

―functional Sales‖, ―functional selling‖

Functional Sales

The occurrence or not of works that contain one of the groups of narrative defined wound up revealing the existence and the form of a gap in knowledge. As can be seen in the graph in Figure 3, a polygon is highlighted, marking the knowledge gap to be studied in this dissertation.

31 Groups of Search Terms

28 25

22 19 16 13 10 7 4 1 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Number of Occurrences

Figure 3 – Graph of the occurrence of the works by group Source: author. For each work in each one of the groups of narratives, the following analyses were conducted in order to establish a priority for study and influence on the final document: (a) Quantity of citations in the Scopus data base: the works most cited of each group were read and analyzed; (b) Groups with many occurrences: the groups that occurred in more than 120 works were considered to provide a low opportunity to contribute and the study of the works, in these

cases, use was restricted to those more cited; (c) Evaluation of adherence to the proposal of this work: although certain works are not found in the data bases such as Scopus, the very origin of the work or of the source was considered sufficient for the respective study; (d) Snowball: in addition to the 484 works valid for the study, those that were effectively studied provided in their references indications of works that were not found in the initial group of documents. Of these, those considered adherent were directly included among the references for this dissertation. At the end of the literature review, about 150 works were selected and included among the references for this study. They represent a group with a strong interdisciplinary characteristic that allowed establishing the theoretical foundations of this research. Those foundations are presented in the following. 2.1.1 Identification of the Gap When analyzing Figure 3 in parallel with Table 3 it is possible to identify the emergence of a gap on the academic production about some of the selected terms. Regarding the initial group of 484 works collected and that dealt with a wide spectrum of subjects defined as "service innovation" (composed by groups of the search terms "innovation" and "KISS+KISA+PSS"), were identified six clear cuts in the quantity of academic output. The first cut occurs on the compound "Competitive Advantage", which features 244 productions in the selected group. The second level is found at 158 units and present the works that have the compound term "Knowledge Management". The first group below the level of 120 (see item "b" above), only 105 works contain the compound "Service Design", in the third level. It is worth emphasizing the fact that only 69 texts present the compound "New Service Development" or NSD, this is one of the leading terms adopted by this research concerning the development of new services. Another key concept for this study that has little production within the group of selected works is "Service-Dominat Logic", with only 45 items or less than 10% of the texts considered. This is the fourth level. The fifth level shows, among others, 18 works that cite the article by Nonaka, Toyama and Konno in 2000 entitled "SECI, Ba and Leadership: a unified model of dynamic knowledge creation". In the

fifth level are also 13 studies presenting in its references texts produced by Stephen L. Vargo and Ikujiro Nonaka simultaneously (search terms "Vargo" and "Nonakaâ&#x20AC;&#x2013;, respectively). The sixth and last level, can be illustrated by four papers that cite at the same time works produced by Stephen L. Vargo and Richard Buchanan (search term "Vargo" and "Buchanan", respectively). From these selections it is possible to see that the cognitive field of "innovation in services" (composed by groups of search terms "innovation" and "KISS KISA + + PSS) has a large overlap with the topic "Competitive Advantage" (244 records or 50.4% of the 484 items) and "Creativity" (221 records or 45%). The "Knowledge Management" is present in 32.6% of items (158 units). On the other hand, the impact that the service-dominant logic has on innovation in services has only 45 counts, or about 9.2% of selected works. However, one of the most important signals of the gap that this research is aimed to reduce is the fact that, although the selection displays 105 works containing the compound "Service Design", only 13 of them propose establishing a dialogue between the works of Stephen L. Vargo and Ikujiro Nonaka and only 4 allow an intellectual encounter with the presence of Stephen L. Vargo and Richard Buchanan. All three are renowned thinkers from the cognitive fields of Knowledge Management (Nonaka), Design (Buchanan) and Service (Vargo). In summary, the theoretical gap is in the Boolean operation between the cognitive fields of Design, Service and Knowledge Management within the universe of "innovation in services" represented by the 484 works selected. 2.2 Innovation in Services Innovation, for the purposes of this study, is understood as a social phenomenon that generates a qualitative change in products and processes, obtained through the creation of new knowledge and perceived as new value for a social network (VARGO ET AL., 2008; FAGERBERG, 2003; BALDWIN ET AL., 2006; POPADIUK; CHOO, 2006; SPOHRER; KWAN, 2008). Therefore, based on this perspective, innovation is a management process (TAKEUCHI, p. 86, 2006) that depends on interdisciplinary knowledge and abilities (VARGO ET AL., 2008). This interdisciplinarity is also understood to imply the involvement of a wide variety of people, including the final user as the fundamental contributor to the value generated and the originality of the innovation

(KRISTENSSON ET AL., 2004), principally in the cases of services. Normally, descriptions of innovation are based on a logic supported in tangible goods (VARGO; LUSCH, 2008a). Miles (2008) reinforces this finding and suggests that innovation in services is best analyzed in four dimensions. These dimensions are also adopted by this study. According to Miles, innovations occur in the following dimensions: (a) (b) (c) (d)

Concept of the Service Client Interface Supply System of the Service Technology

While the dimension ―concept of the service‖ basically involves a new value proposal, which occurs through innovation in the way that the client participates in the service. In dimension ―c,‖ it takes place through improvement in the way that service is provided. Technology innovation occurs precisely when the technologies involved in providing a certain service undergo improvements. According to Miles (2008), innovation in one dimension generates impacts in others. In the same way, in the concrete ―real time,‖ the failure or success of an undertaking are rarely assured by a single cause. More frequently, as Brugnoli (2009, p. 14) affirms, the results obtained by any system or organization are a point ―of a fragmented and random interaction flow.‖ In the current market context, where competitiveness of organizations increasingly resides in providing services, the relationship between the service provider and the client gains a new form of complexity (THOMKE; VON HIPPEL, 2002). To the degree to which the offerings dematerialize, the focus migrates from the good involved in the negotiation to the function that the client seeks to realize (LINDAHL; OLUNDH, 2001). This function is usually met by a service that often assumes specific characteristics for each client. This phenomenon, denominated as a ―functional sale,‖ ―servitization‖ or ―good-services system,‖ is characterized by placing the focus on the creation of value to a client by attending its specific needs (SUNDIN; BRAS, 2005). That is, in this scenario, companies need a tool to dialog with each client to be able to understand their needs, and, based on this understanding, from the acquisition of this new knowledge, define a systemic solution that satisfies them (MORELLI, 2002b). This type of dialog between different biographies, based on the need to resolve a concrete problem is fertile ground for innovation (NONAKA; VON KROGH, 2009). Various studies report the impact that client

participation in the definition of service offerings has on final technical quality and time of development (CARBONELL ET AL., 2009). This study is interested in the capacity to establish a dialog with a specific client and, based on this interaction, develop innovative concepts for providing service to the value network of which it is a part. That is, once again, we understand the concept of possessing the knowledge of creating knowledge as the key catalyst in the capacity to innovate (NONAKA; TOYAMA, 2005). Moreover, it establishes a dialog in which it is possible to co-produce the co-evolution of the spaces problem and solution (DORST; CROSS, 2001). In other words, create a space where it is possible to innovate in services through the design of systemic solutions that are knowledge intensive (MORELLI, 2002b). 2.2.1 Innovation and Design As presented in the introduction, this study adopts the perspective that every innovation is the result of a design process. It is worth quoting again the following sentence (BALDWIN; CLARK, 2005, p. 3): â&#x20AC;&#x2022;Behind every innovation lies a new design.â&#x20AC;&#x2013; The possibility that the processes of design have to create new value propositions from weak-problems and based on an empathic understanding of end users is essential to innovation and value creation processes (HATCHUEL, 2000; KIMBELL, 2009). Kristensson, Gustafsson and Archer (2004) afirm that the more cognitively remote the origins of shared information by a group in a given context, the more original will be the configuration obtained to a certain innovation proposal. In this way, dialog involving normal users, professionals and developers, appears to generate ideas of greater value as perceived by the final client. As a result of an experiment, the latter authors make the following affirmations concerning the result of participation of different types of people in the generation of creative ideas. (a) Normal users produce more new original ideas, indicating a greater tendency to a divergent style of thinking; (b) Normal users produce ideas that were evaluated

as having greater value than other ideas generated in the experiment; (c) Professional developers and users generate the most easily produced ideas. These affirmations are aligned to previous studies, suggesting that normal users must be considered as valuable sources of creative ideas (TODTLING ET AL., 2009; PRAHALAD; RAMASWAMY, 2004). The involvement of a social network in a process for the generation of innovative ideas does not guarantee the innovation (BJO; MAGNUSSON, 2009). Sarasvathy and Dew (2005, p. 539), through the concept of isotropy, reinforce the difficulty of determining ex ante the development of an innovation: Isotropy refers to the fact that in decisions and actions involving uncertain future consequences it is not always clear ex ante which pieces of information are worth paying attention to and which not […].

That is, a phenomenon that ex post appears to be a coherent result of certain events, may really be the result of an idiosyncratic sequence of actions realized by cognitively limited entities that were only trying to resolve immediate problems (SARASVATHY; DEW, 2005). This argument raises the possibility that in an innovation process, the attention to peripheral opportunities (BJO; MAGNUSSON, 2009) requires a process that allows for ambiguity, doubt, of the so-called ―wicked problem‖ (BUCHANAN, 1992). Roughly speaking, this problem is characterized by an incomplete definition and by the lack of a definitive solution. In addition, this contextual solution cannot be deconstructed. Various studies indicate that the competence for the resolution of this type of problem resides in a process called design (BUCHANAN, 1992; COYNE, 2005; EDMAN, 2009; JOHANSSON; WOODILLA, 2008; KIMBELL, 2009; RYLANDER, 2008; RYLANDER, 2009). 2.2.2 Design There is no precise definition that is able to encompass the

diversity of methods and ideas that constitute what is called design (BUCHANAN, 1992). A consistent approach to what comes to be design must indicate a continuous dynamic of interaction between a client and a designer14 (HATCHUEL; WEIL, 2008). Generally, it is defined as a method of trial and error, in which mistakes and solutions are identified in a process of successive approximation until the final solution (BECKMAN; BARRY, 2007). It also appears clear that the practice of design is not a monopoly held by those who call themselves designers (RITTEL, 1987). Rittel (1987, p. 2) affirms that ―[l]earning what the problem is IS the problem‖ for design. The analysis of the practice of design reveals that all decisions by the designer are defined by subjective judgment. This reveals a ―terrible epistemological liberty,‖ according to Rittle (1987). To the degree that the use of methods is a sine qua non condition for the practice of science, this is not so for design. While science tries to identify existing structures, design tries to create the components of new structures. In other words: the epistemology of science has very little to offer the epistemology of design. To conclude, Cross (2001a, p. 54) writes: […] that the study of design could be an interdisciplinary study accessible to all those involved in the creative activity of making the artificial world.

In practice, the design process consists in the alternation between steps of divergence and convergence and between the analysis and synthesis of the alternatives, as periodic alignments with a client. Moritz (2005), Fraser (2007), Brown (2008), Saco & Gonçalves (2008), Segelström, Raijmakers, and Holmlid (2009) and Kimbell (2009b) write that, in the case of Service Design, the main objective of this process is to create empathic connections with future users of the service. Nevertheless, the review of the literature also points to the design process through the metaphor of the ―dual diamond‖ as defined in 2005 by professionals of the Design Council in England (DESIGN COUNCIL, 2007a). As can be seen in Figure 3, this institution proposes a design process that is divided into four distinct phases that alternate activities to increase and reduce the spaces of problem and solution. The phases proposed are (DESIGN COUNCIL, 2007b): 14

Is hereby given that, in this study whenever used the term designer it should not be interpreted as some profession with a specific graduate degree in design. But, rather, as anyone running a co-evolution process between problem and solution spaces.

(a) Discover the first part of the model marked the beginning of the project. Normally, the beginning takes place as an idea or inspiration, often resulting from a discovery stage in which the needs of future users are identified. This phase includes activities such as: a. b. c. d.

Market research; Research about the user; Information management; Design-research groups.

(b) Define: this is the definition phase, in which the interpretation of the needs of the project and of the user are aligned with the objectives of the business. The main activities of this phase are: e. Project Development; f. Project Management; g. Approvals for the Project. (b) Develop: is the beginning of the execution of what was projected, where the solutions are developed and tested interactively. The main activities of this phase are: a. b. c. d.

Multi-disciplinary work; Visual Management; Development Methods; Tests.

(c) Deliver: phase in which the final product, whether it is a good or a service, is finalized and released in the defined Market. The principal activities of this phase are: a. Final testing, approval and launching; b. Evaluation of goals and feedback cycles. In a broader and simpler manner, Stempfle and Badke-Schaub (2002) propose four basic cognitive operations to address a space problem (STEMPFLE; BADKE-SCHAUB, 2002): (a) Generate (b) Explor

The first two serve to expand the space problem (generating and exploring ideas) and the latter two to reduce it (analyzing, comparing and selecting the ideas). Thus, returning to the concept of weakproblem, it is necessary to explain that this type of mental challenge demands a considerable cognitive load. The natural trend is to seek means to reduce the cognitive cost of the process (CROSS, 2001b). One of these means, adopted by various species of living beings, is called multimodal imaging, or simply, the use of multimodal images (OVIATT ET AL., 2004). Discover

Define

Develop

Deliver

Start

End

Figure 4 - Model of the design process. Source: Based on the Design Council (2007b). 2.2.2.1 Multimodal Imagery Multimodal communication is defined as a composition of signs that will be received through multiple sensory channels (PARTAN; MARLER, 2005). Multimodal communication is studied in various disciplines, such as psychology, neuroscience and zoology. The multimodal redundancy of signs is a form of guaranteeing communication in situations in which channels suffer interference. This interference can be physical or cognitive (OVIATT ET AL., 2004). The interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge is one of the factors needed so that the creation of new knowledge occurs (TAKEUCHI, 2006). Nevertheless, the discourse adopted by

organizations about knowledge is not only questionable in relation to practice, but also inherently mistaken (RYLANDER, 2008a). There is an excessive focus on intellectual knowledge, established from interactions based on verbal narratives, which neglects kinesthetic/spatial and pictorial/visual interactions. Strategies to explain knowledge that decompose and present information only through â&#x20AC;&#x2022;wordsâ&#x20AC;&#x2013; can distort the tacit representation that is crucial to the learning and resolution of a problem (WORREN ET AL., 2002). Studies in cognitive psychology demonstrate that human beings rarely seek the best solutions. To the contrary, they seek satisfactory solutions based on heuristics in order to allow fast action. Evolution appears to have given humans the ability to think and act quickly, even in complex environments, reducing information to administrative chunks (STEMPFLE; BADKE-SCHAUB, 2002). As Rylander maintains (2008a, p. 10): Richer sensory experience tends to reduce rather than increase ambiguity because these different forms of sense information have different properties. For example, narrative knowledge, which is vivid and plausible, often has ambiguous and multivocal meanings, whereas visual knowledge, which aggregates information into depictions and patterns, simplifies it.

To a certain degree, cultural organization itself tends to be better understood by its members when constructed through multimodal forms (BURGI; ROOS, 2003). One example of multimodal images can be metaphors. These do not exist as words in our memory, but as a network that connects a wide variety of abstract concepts (LEONARD, 2007). The combination of two or more concepts to create a single and new metaphor is in itself a creative process (SAWYER, 2006) and more specifically, one of knowledge creation. To learn a new task can demand moments of considerable cognitive effort at learning. Oviatt et ali (2004) argue that in the processes of learning and acquisition of new expertise, the use of multimodal formats of teaching and learning reduce the cognitive load demanded of the student. As a result, this type of communication is related to the following advantages (OVIATT ET AL., 2004, p. 130): Compared with unimodal perception, advantages in perceptual discrimination have been

documented for audio-visual multimodal stimuli in recent experiments […]. In addition, information presented via audio-visual means has been demonstrated to yield an intelligibility advantage during spoken communication […], as well as in the type of learning, retention, and transfer of learning tasks mentioned […].

The basic principle of multimodal communication is that ambiguous messages sent through one channel can be clarified by being composed together with signals sent and received by other sensory channels. Partan & Marler (2005, p. 233) provide as an example the following phenomenon: A common example is the ―cocktail party‖ phenomenon with human speech: it is easier, in noisy situations such as a crowded room, to understand a speaker who can be both seen and heard […].

The simultaneous use of multiple channels is facilitated when the interlocutors are interacting in the same physical space. For this reason, multimodal communication is ―particularly appropriate for short distance communication‖ (PARTAN; MARLER, 2005). Sarasvathy & Dew (2005), upon affirming how bounded cognition influences the creation of new markets, suggest that uncertainties should be limited by a given environment. This serves as a filter that would make information irrelevant that in another manner could interfere in decision-making processes. Nonaka, Toyama & Konno (NONAKA; TOYAMA; KONNO, 2000, p. 15) present it as follows: In knowledge creation, especially in socialisation and externalisation, it is important for participants to share time and space. A close physical interaction is important in sharing the context and forming a common language among participants.

This can reinforce the application of ethnographic techniques to the development of new services (SEGELSTRÖM ET AL., 2009; WASSON, 2000). Moreover, in this context, the considerations made by Dourish (DOURISH, 2006) about ―space and time‖ remain to be

considered, as well as the multiple spatialities that the flow of people, goods, capital and information help to create. 2.2.2.2 Ethnography and Empathic Design Ethnographic research normally includes (MILLEN, 2000): field work undertaken in a natural context, and a broad spectrum study that is rich in description of people, environments and interactions that help understand the activities researched, based on the informant‘s perspective. Using as a base the fact that new products are generally created in organizational environments, in most cases, the perspective that guides the beginning of the development process is similar to ethnographic practices. These practices are recognizedly useful for revealing tacit knowledge (LEONARD, 2007; LEONARD; RAYPORT, 1997). Leonard (2007) affirms that the techniques developed for use in anthropological studies have been appropriated by marketing and the development of new products in the form of empathic design. In simple terms, this application of design techniques seeks to construct a deep empathy with a certain public so that the designer can appropriate the perspective of this person or social group. This appropriation makes it possible to stimulate a design process that is more integrated to the users‘ world view based on which and for which the organization intends to develop a new product (SEGELSTRÖM ET AL., 2009; WASSON, 2000). The involvement of the user in the development of new services generates certain advantages for the organization that adopts this practice. As Pittaway et alii (2004) affirm, a more profound interaction with clients can help an organization avoid concentrating resources in technology excellence or marketing, which can have excessive impacts on final production costs. These authors compiled studies that reveal the following advantages in establishing a close relationship with clients during the innovation process (PITTAWAY ET AL., 2004, p. 152): (1) dialogue between key business customers and suppliers not only allows firms to learn of existing needs but also leads to the discovery of new needs in advance of the competition […]; (2) customers who are actively engaged in the early stages of product innovation will assist the development of ideas […];

(3) customer involvement reduces the risks of innovation […]; (4) the innovator learns from the customer the likely market potential of the product idea […].

Although ethnography in itself is a vast and fertile field, this study focuses on the role of design as a tool applied to the development of innovations in services. In this context, a series of restrictions apply that require an agility, which in a certain manner is incompatible with the correct practices of ethnography (MILLEN, 2000). Even if future studies are needed to better understand the interaction of design with ethnography, here it is sufficient to affirm that ethnographic practices together with design collaborate for profitable action. Nevertheless, in this ―partnership‖ it is design that utilizes ethnography and defines the rhythm of the work (SEGELSTRÖM ET AL., 2009). 2.2.2.3 Design Thinking Theoretical studies undertaken in the second half of the 20 th century point to a definition of design as a process of co-evolution between the spaces of problem and solution (BOLAND; COLLOPY, 2004; DORST, 2006; DORST; CROSS, 2001; HATCHUEL; WEIL, 2008; STEMPFLE; BADKESCHAUB, 2002). They do not consider design as a process for definition of a problem and a later search for a solution, even if a contextual one. Design is, in the first place, a reasoning process that results in the construction of a bridge between the spaces of problem and solution based on a key concept (DORST; CROSS, 2001). This key concept identifies the ideal pairing of problem and solution for a given context. Design is concerned with a particular type of problem: the so-called wicked-problem. The design approach of the wicked-problem was developed by German mathematician and designer Horst Rittel (1930-1990), in the 1960s. The characteristics defined by Rittel & Weber (1973) offer a better understanding of a wicked-problem (contrary to one that is benign or tamed): (a) There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem; (b) Wicked problems have no stopping rule; (c) Solutions to wicked problems are not true-orfalse, but good-or-bad; (d) There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem; (e) Every solution to a wicked problem is a "one-shot

(f)

(g) (h) (i)

(j)

operation"; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts significantly; Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan; Every wicked problem is essentially unique; Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem; The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained innumerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem's resolution; The planner has no right to be wrong.

Coyne (2005) proposes that wicked problems are the rule. He affirms that direction is lost when professional analyses result in precise formulations. In this sense, Johansson & Woodilla (2008) conclude that design – and research about it, should no longer be exploratory or descriptive, but to the contrary, must be considered experimental. Hatchuel and Weil (2008) add what they describe as a process of dynamic mapping between functions and solutions (a construct very close to that of ―co-evolution of the solution-problem spaces), the process of generation of new objects. That is, according to these authors, design is at the same time a dynamic mapping process and a process of generating new objects, whether they are tangible or not. In this study, the object is service as a final product of an innovation process. This is explained as a design process. As innovation, this occurs within a social context (RITTEL, 1987).

2.2.3 Service At the beginning of this 21 st century, a superficial analysis reveals that the concept of service has evolved from when it was considered a mere ―residue‖ of the production of tangible goods (SAMPSON; FROEHLE, 2006) and other activities that are not considered agriculture or industry (CHESBROUGH; SPOHRER, 2006). Nevertheless, Vargo and Lusch (2007) and Vargo, Maglio and Akaka (VARGO ET AL., 2008) demonstrate another perspective by reconstituting part of the history of the theoretical development of service as an object of study. In sum, the data presented are the following:

40 Table 4 – Definitions of service Source: author. Data Auhtor th Aristotle 4 century A.C. Galiani 1751 1776

A. Smith

1848

F. Bastiat

1894

L. Walras

1959

E. Penrose

1977

P. Kotler

1995

E. Gummesson

Concept Differentiates ―use value‖ and ―exchange value‖ Recognizes that only ―pleasure‖ has a price among men Recognizes the concept of value as an expression of the ―utility of an object‖ ―use value‖ or of the ―power of an object to acquire other objects‖ (exchange value) Services are the beginning, middle and end of economic science ―Providing service‖ has direct utility, the ―service of production‖ of goods has indirect utility It is never the resource itself that begins the production process, but the service provided by this resource The importance of the physical product is not in its property but in the service that it provides Clients do not buy goods. They buy offerings that provide services and that create value

One attempt to capture the concept of service resulted from the IHIP Model (intangibility, heterogeneity, inseparability and perishability), which is broadly used by scholars in the field to define service. Nevertheless, this model has been constantly questioned (EDVARDSSON ET AL., 2005). Edman (2009, p. 13), for example commented on the questioning this model has undergone: Another point of critique is the fact that the IHIP model is not true: many services are a) dependent upon tangible products – sms on mobile phones,

41 b) homogene – on internet services, c) are produced and consumed at different occasions – educational programs, d) are storable – many software services.

Nevertheless, none of the definitions appear to truly capture the essence of service (EDVARDSSON ET AL., 2005). Based on this finding, for the purposes of this study, we adopt the definition based on the service-dominant logic, in which service (VARGO; LUSCH, 2007, p. 26): [...] is defined as the application of specialized competences (operant resources — knowledge and skills), through deeds, processes, and performances for the benefit of another entity or the entity itself.

2.2.3.1 A Unified Theory of Services Although the definition given by Vargo and Lusch is consistent with the objectives of this study, it is necessary to clarify an essential point that is considered by Sampson and Froehle (2006). The proposal of a Unified Theory of Services (SAMPSON; FROEHLE, 2006, p. 331) explains that ―[t]he presence of customer inputs is a necessary and sufficient condition to define a production process as a service process.‖ That is, the ―application of specialized abilities,‖ in this work, would be equal to ―consumer inputs.‖ This establishes one of the relationships between the concept of service and the knowledge creation process through one of its elements: Knowledge Assets. Thus, the Unified Theory of Services defines service as a process that receives inputs from a client. According to the service-dominant logic, service is the application of specialized competencies to the benefit of an entity. The link between these concepts and the knowledge creation process takes places through the definition of service as the expansion of specialized competencies (knowledge and abilities) through knowledge assets. This can lead to the following synthesis: Service is the application of knowledge in benefit of oneself or another. 2.2.3.2 Service-Dominant Logic

In the first decade of this century, academic study about service received theoretical collaboration from Vargo and Lusch in 2004. The article entitled Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing (VARGO & LUSCH, 2004) introduced the concept of service-dominant logic (S-D). According to this logic, which will be adopted for this study, service is the application of competencies for the benefit of an entity. Moreover, preliminarily, the following constructs can be highlighted: (a) S-D logic says that the application of competences for the benefit of another party — that is, service — is the foundation of all economic exchange. (VARGO; LUSCH, 2008a, p. 4) (b) The service-for service foundation of S-D logic provides the motivation for interaction and network development. That is, we serve — use our network of resources for others‘ benefit — (individually and collectively) in order to obtain service from others. Service, as used in S-D logic, identifies the logic of interactivity. (VARGO ET AL., 2008, p. 32)

Upon presenting the bases of the service-dominant logic, these authors proposed a set of nine foundational premises in 2004. Between this year and 2008, adjustments were made to these and a new premise arose. There were thus ten premises according to the article entitled Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution (VARGO; LUSCH, 2008b). The table below presents the foundational premises (FP) based on the revisions of 2008. Table 5 – Foundational Premises Source: Based on Vargo & Lusch (2008b). FPs

Foundational Premises

FP1

Service is the fundamental basis of exchange

Comment/Explanation

The application of operant resources (knowledge and skills), ―service‖, as defined in S-D logic, is the basis for all exchange. Service is exchanged for service.

FP2

Indirect exchange masks the fundamental basis of exchange

FP3

Goods are a distribution mechanism for service provision

FP4

Operant resources are the fundamental source of competitive advantage All economies are service economies

FP5

FP6 FP7

The customer is always a cocreator of value The enterprise cannot deliver value, but only offer value propositions

FP8

A service-centered view is inherently customer oriented and relational

FP9

All social and economic actors are resource integrators Value is always uniquely and phenomenologically determined by the beneficiary

FP10

i. Operant Resources

Because service is provided through complex combinations of goods, money, and institutions, the service basis of exchange is not always apparent. Goods (both durable and nondurable) derive their value through use â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the service they provide. The comparative ability to cause desired change drives competition. Service (singular) is only now becoming more apparent with increased specialization and outsourcing. Implies value creation is interactional. Enterprises can offer their applied resources for value creation and collaboratively (interactively) create value following acceptance of value propositions, but can not create and/or deliver value independently. Because service is defined in terms of customer-determined benefit and co-created it is inherently customer oriented and relational. Implies the context of value creation is networks of networks (resource integrators). Value is idiosyncratic, experiential, contextual, and meaning laden

According to the service-dominant logic, there are two types of resources: the operant and the operated. The operated resources are those upon which an operation or an act is conducted to produce an effect. The operant resources are those that produce the effect (VARGO; LUSCH, 2004).Operant resources are invisible and intangible and most are dynamic and infinite. The operated resources are, normally, static and finite. The concept of operant resources (knowledge and abilities) as structuring elements of the concept of service, serve, for the purpose of this dissertation, as a semantic bridge between providing services and the knowledge creation. FP4, which affirms that ― Operant resources are the fundamental source of competitive advantage‖ and this is juxtaposed to the construct presented by Nonaka, Toyama and Konno (2000, p. 5) that ―[…]

continuous innovation and the knowledge that enables such innovation have become important sources of sustainable competitive advantage,‖ allows establishing a link between innovation and knowledge through service. This is precisely the tripartite perspective proposed by this study. ii. Co-creation of Value Edvardsson et alii (2005) propose that ―service is a perspective on value creation rather than a category of market offerings.‖ There are countless conceptualizations available that justify the study of disparate industries under the single title of service. (SAMPSON; FROEHLE, 2006). Taking as a basis the concept of cocreation of value, the following can be highlighted (GRÖNROOS, 2008, p. 303): Value for customers means that after they have been assisted by a self-service process (cooking a meal or withdrawing cash from an ATM) or a full-service process (eating out at a restaurant or withdrawing cash over the counter in a bank) they are or feel better off than before.

In other words, service is something that is done to an entity by itself or another, to make it be, or feel, better after than before. Since the presence of an input from the beneficiary is necessary for the characterization of service, we approach the finding that the participation or the beneficiary in the creation of the benefit is essential.

This leads to the conclusion that the beneficiary is always the co-creator of the benefit. Or, as determined by FP6, ―the client is always a cocreator of value.‖ iii. Value Network All of the fundamental premises in one way or another carry the implicit concept of collaboration between the supplier and the beneficiary of services. Or as Lusch, Vargo and O‘Brien (LUSCH ET AL., 2007) affirm, knowledge applied and collaboration are the principal factors for the success of companies competing ―through‖ providing services. In FPs 6-9, this collaborative condition is explicitly explored. Lusch, Vargo and Tanniru (2009) define the concept of value network15 as a broadly flexible spatial and temporal structure for the spontaneous detection and response to value proposals and which is composed of economic and social agents that interact through institutions and technology to: (a) co-produce service offerings, (b) offer services of exchange, and (c) co-create value. In the attempt to clarify the concept of value network, it is helpful to look at the considerations of Peppard and Rylander (2006). These authors find that organizations do not focus only on the value chain of a company or industry. The concept of value network should be understood in the context of a broad ―system of co-creation of value.‖ They affirm that where once there had been competition between companies or industries, the battle now occurs between networks of interconnected organizations. Literally, they write that the ―leaders must view the health and well being of their network and the individual partners that compose it to be as important as their own company‘s […]‖ (PEPPARD; RYLANDER, 2006, p. 132). Stevens and Dimitriadis (2005) point to studies that link the phenomenon of social networks to the success or failure of the new 15

According to the original definition (LUSCH ET AL., 2009, p. 20): A value network is a spontaneously sensing and responding spatial and temporal structure of predominantly loosely coupled value-proposing social and economic actors interacting through institutions and technology, to: (1) co-produce service offerings, (2) exchange service offerings, and (3) cocreate value.

product development processes. Fagerberg (2003), working with Schumpeter‘s concept, affirms that innovation is a phenomenon that occurs in groups and other organizational contexts. The question of determining networks of co-creation of value in the new service proposals can be juxtaposed to the issue of networks of effectuation raised by Sarasvathy and Dew (2005). The objective of this approximation is either to reveal what constitutes the real challenge of creating a new service, market or value proposal. From this perspective, Sarasvathy & Dew (2005) define networks that allow the creation of new value proposals (these authors use the term: new markets) as being the results of enterprising actions that transform reality through a chain of agreements in time. In any case, these authors advocate that a new market cannot be manufactured by the design and will of a single person. It is born in the form of chains of reciprocal commitments that create an interface between the internal and external environment to a network of effectuation. The definition of the limits of the network and of its participants can be made from the perspective of the exchange of service for service and of the wicked problem. This is essential for making the design process viable and for creating the knowledge needed for innovation (BUCHANAN, 1992; CROSS, 2001; EDMAN, 2009; JAHNKE, 2009; JOHANSSON; WOODILLA, 2008; RYLANDER, 2009). This is necessary because it is the first founding principal of the servicedominant logic (VARGO; LUSCH, 2004; VARGO; LUSCH, 2008). Thus, the participants in the network should be considered clients and service providers and the integration of each one of those defined can be determined in a rough manner. The principal criteria can be the ―weak‖ or nonspecific definition of who is the ―client‖ of each ―supplier.‖ To do so, the concept provided by Sampson and Froehle (2006, p. 332) can be used for the entity client as: […] customers as the individuals or entities who determine whether or not the service provider shall be compensated for production.

This definition captures the supplier-client relationship and the concept of purchasing decision, but also allows the inclusion of more complex decisions such as the compensation for value created.

2.3 Knowledge and Innovation in Services For the purposes of this study, as indicated previously, the development of new services is investigated only during the initial step of generating ideas, using the understanding defined by Goldstein et alii (2002). Takeuchi (2006), upon considering innovation when he refers to the practices adopted in Japan, often maintains that in this country, innovative processes are strongly based on tacit knowledge. He also affirms that the existence of tacit knowledge alone can impede the occurrence of the process of knowledge creation and therefore impede innovation. The conditioning of innovation on knowledge creation, or affirming that its â&#x20AC;&#x2022;sole business is continuous innovationâ&#x20AC;&#x2013; (NONAKA, 1991, p. 2) by knowledge creating companies, creates a research perspective that relates the knowledge creation process to innovation processes. In this sense, more than being client focused, the organization must have the capacity to continuously collaborate and learn from its clients in order to attend their changing needs (MATTHING ET AL., 2004). In other words, they must understand innovation as a Learning Process (BECKMAN; BARRY, 2007). This collaborative learning dynamic is described as a primary process of innovation by various authors, particularly when it occurs within a value creation network in knowledge intensive industries. As Leiponen (2006) maintains, innovation in services depends more on the integration of a variety of information from various sources than on the existence of a certain established structure, especially for the research and development of new services. This leads to the reasoning that innovation in services occurs through a form of dialog between various entities. This, on one hand, is supported by the dynamic of knowledge creation through the combination of others generated from different biographies (NONAKA; VON KROGH, 2009) or from contradictory concepts (NONAKA & TOYAMA, 2003). The relationship between the performance of innovative companies and the existence of social networks is reinforced by studies (TODTLING ET AL., 2009) that indicate that the generation of radical innovations is related to the existence of a social network based on weak or non-frequent contacts. Other studies reported by Todtling et ali (2009) indicate that formal research and development networks improve the technological performance of their participants.

Although service has gone beyond manufacturing for decades, at least concerning the generation of jobs and participation in the gross national product of countries, studies about innovation continue to emphasize the production of tangible goods (DREJER, 2004). The adoption of a perspective that works with new limits between goods and services is a natural advance that would allow eliminating the traditional dichotomy between innovations in the industrial sector and those in services. An example of the already externalized knowledge about service innovations, refers to the possible relationship between them and organizational innovation, through the consequent and necessary innovation of procedures. According to Stevens and Dimitriadis (2004, p. 176), contrary to the development of new goods (tangible technological artifacts), in the case of the development of new services ―[…] there is no separation between product innovation and organizational innovation.‖ Thus, the implementation of new services would require the creation of new procedures that, in turn, would cause changes in their standards of interaction, and, as a result, in the organization itself. Within this perspective resides the importance of the first cognitive field of this theoretical foundation: knowledge management. 2.3.1 Knowledge management In this study we use the definition of Knowledge Management given by Sveiby in 1997 and presented by Salojarvi, Furu and Sveiby (2005, p. 104) in the following text (using the acronym KM: Knowledge Management): [...] we will use the definition ‗‗KM is the art of creating value by leveraging intangible assets‘‘ (Sveiby 1997), i.e. KM is a perspective on management of the firm as a whole, encompassing activities in all relevant managerial.

Based on the sphere of Knowledge Management, the study will explore The Knowledge-Creating Process (NONAKA, TOYAMA and KONNO, 2000) through its components. To do so, it is necessary to understand that the use of knowledge-management systems, or that is service systems, can be seen as a series of events distributed in time, in which the users should supposedly interact with a predefined set of

elements (MORELLI, 2002b). Thus, a systemic vision is needed to deal with the ―dual challenge‖ of understanding the knowledge-management services system through a systemic view. This condition requires perceiving, as Brugnoli (2009, p. 8), affirms […] the ‗intelligence‘ of the platform is more important than the ‗intelligence‘ of the single device, which could be replaced or completed by other parts, applications and other services available within the network.

In this sense, Knowledge Management can be understood as a service, a platform of services, an intensive systemic solution in knowledge, or as Morelli (2002) denominates, Knowledge-Intensive Systemic Solutions. Broadly speaking, Knowledge Management can be seen as the application of specialized competencies through acts, processes and performances for the benefit of another, or the entity itself. In this case, benefit is understood as the leveraging of intangible assets. We can refer here to Axelrod and Cohen (2000), who discuss the ―leveraging points‖ of a system. These authors suggest that the study of complex systems – like that of an intensive systemic solution in knowledge – provides a well-founded basis for studying the leveraging points and the significant exchanges that can be more sensitive or resistant to intervention. Despite the fact that knowledge becomes ―the most important resource for the sustainable competitive advantage of a company‖ (NONAKA; TOYAMA, 2003), organizations know that it is risky to suppose that all the knowledge needed is in the right place, or that it is the ―right‖ knowledge (HENDRIKS; VRIENS, 1999). Despite extensive research about the development of methods, techniques and tools to generate knowledge, organizations do not know where and how to begin (EKIONEA; SWAIN, 2008). To address this issue, Géraud Servin (2005) collected a series of tools for the NHS National Library for Health (UK). This effort generated a utility box of the tools and techniques now most commonly used in knowledge management programs. The initial objective of this tool box was to provide an introduction and present a general view of the tools involved in knowledge management processes.

50 Table 6 – NHS Tool Box Source: Based on Servin (2005, p. 14). N Name Description A tool pioneered by the US army and now 1 After Action Reviews (AARs) widely used in a range of organizations to capture lessons learned both during and after an activity or project. Widely regarded as ―the killer KM 2 Communities of Practice application‘, communities of practice link people together to develop and share knowledge around specific themes, and are already being established in the National Health Services - UK. A systematic process to identify an 3 Conducting a knowledge audit organisation‘s knowledge needs, resources and flows, as a basis for understanding where and how better knowledge management can add value. Approaches to developing a formal 4 Developing a knowledge knowledge management plan that is management closely aligned with an organisation‘s strategy overall strategy and goals. A tool used to capture the knowledge of 5 Exit interviews departing employees. Approaches to capturing best practices 6 Identifying and sharing best discovered in one part of the organisation practices and sharing them for the benefit of all. Similar to libraries but with a broader 7 Knowledge centres remit to include connecting people with each other as well as with information in documents and databases. A tool used to capture the knowledge of 8 Knowledge harvesting ―experts‖ and make it available to others. A tool developed at BP-Amoco used to 9 Peer assists learn from the experiences of others before embarking on an activity or project. Mapping relationships between people, 10 Social network analysis groups and organizations to understand how these relationships either facilitate or impede knowledge flows.

Storytelling

White pages

Using the ancient art of storytelling to share knowledge in a more meaningful and interesting way. A step-up from the usual staff directory, this is an online resource that allows people to find colleagues with specific knowledge and expertise.

The tools listed in Table 6 do not constitute a complete inventory, they actually represent only those most commonly used by organizations. These tools, in the broad sense, are used to generate knowledge. Nevertheless, no tool has meaning without a proposal. If the objective is to generate knowledge, it can be used in one or more of the five activities of the knowledge management process defined by Bhatt (2001), which are: 

Knowledge Creation: this refers to the capacity of an organization to develop new and useful ideas and solutions;



Knowledge Validation: the capacity of a company to reflect on the existing knowledge and evaluate its effectiveness for a given organizational environment;



Knowledge Presentation: refers to the forms in which knowledge is presented to the members of the organization;



Knowledge Distribution: knowledge needs to be distributed and shared by the entire organization, before it can be explored at the organizational level;



Knowledge Application: in general, the organizational knowledge must be employed in products, processes and services of the organization.

Upon contrasting the descriptions obtained from Servin (2005) with the activities of Bhatt (2001), the tools he presents are dedicated to the validation, presentation, distribution and application of knowledge. In a certain way, this finding is consistent with the supposition of a predominantly functionalist view of management (JOHANSSON; WOODILLA, 2008). Nevertheless, it is possible to affirm that both the

tools as well as the activities of Knowledge Management involve a cultural change and organizational procedures for the sharing of information to occur (BHATT, 2001). Nevertheless, the importance of Knowledge Management for the innovation of services has yet to be exhaustively studied (ARANDA; MOLINA-FERNÁNDEZ, 2002). Leiponen (2006) cites some studies that indicate the existence of a positive relation between knowledge management practices and better service provision and greater celerity in the improvement and creation of new services. Empiric evidence demonstrates that the characteristics of organizations affect their practices in the development of new services (STEVENS; DIMITRIADIS, 2005). For this reason, the understanding has been consolidated that practices that seek to increase the sharing of information, decisions and authority, are needed to reduce the time it takes to develop new services. A greater communicational flow in the organization, with strong incentives for learning, generates a positive impact in the ability of new services and in the competitiveness of the organization (BLAZEVIC; LIEVENS, 2004). Within the set of management activities linked to the phase of knowledge creation, this study will concentrate on the knowledgecreation process. 2.3.1.1 Elements of the Knowledge-Creation Process A distinction to be made for the correct understanding of the theoretical foundation of this work concerns the difference between the ―knowledge-management process‖ and the ―knowledge-creation process.‖ The knowledge-management process, according to Bhatt (BHATT, 2001), is focused on the organizational processes aimed at promoting the sharing of information, and these are distributed in five phases: creation, validation, presentation, distribution and application. In the words of Bhatt (2001, p. 71): We refer to knowledge management as a process of knowledge creation, validation, presentation, distribution, and application. These five phases in knowledge management allow an organization to learn, reflect, and unlearn and relearn, usually considered essential for building, maintaining, and replenishing of core-competencies […].

The process of knowledge creation, in turn, as defined by Nonaka, Toyama and Konno (2000, p. 8), does not work only with phases, but also with spaces and agents and is focused on the principal needs of the knowledge-creation dynamic, as presented here: Knowledge creation is a continuous, selftranscending process through which one transcends the boundary of the old self into a new self by acquiring a new context, a new view of the world, and new knowledge.

In a broad sense, knowledge creation occurs through the interaction of antagonistic concepts such as micro and macro (NONAKA; TOYAMA; KONNO, 2000). Thus, these authors propose a knowledge-creation model composed of the following elements: i. ii.

The SECI process, constituted by stages of conversion between tacit and explicit knowledge; The ―ba,‖ as a shared context in which knowledge creation occurs; iii. The knowledge assets, which can be inputs, outputs or moderators that act in knowledge creation.

These three elements and their constitutive parts need to interact to form and generate the spiral through which, according to Nonaka, Toyama and Konno (2000) organizational knowledge is created. i. Ba As described previously, Nonaka and Toyama (2005) affirm that knowledge is linked to a context, and propose the concept of ba as a shared dynamic context. Although the understanding of ba as a physical space facilitates its understanding, the construct embraces a larger spectrum of concepts. Ba, in summary, can be understood as ―tendencies of interaction that occur in a specific time and space‖ (NONAKA; TOYAMA, 2003). It can be considered as a place where the participants share their contexts and create new meanings through interaction. Although this construct is similar to that of ―communities of practice‖ there are important differences. To the degree that this one a stable space where

members learn from the knowledge embedded in a given organization, the other is a dynamic context where new knowledge is created. According to Nonaka and Konno (1998), ba has four characteristics, which are: (a) Originating ba: this is the primary ba where the knowledgecreation process begins and represents the socialization phase. It is the physical space where the face-to-face experiences of conversion and transfer of tacit knowledge take place; (b) Interacting ba: this is the space where tacit knowledge is made explicit. It represents the process of externalization of knowledge, where dialog is fundamental and the extensive use of metaphors is one of the abilities required of the participants. (c) Cyber ba: this is the space of virtual interaction and represents the phase of combination of knowledge. It is where the combination of new, explicit knowledge with preexisting knowledge and information generate new explicit knowledge for the organization; (d) Exercising ba: this represents the internalization of knowledge phase. It is where explicit knowledge is internalized in the form of tacit knowledge, completing a cycle of the spiral of knowledge. Takeuchi (2006) affirms it is possible to classify ba into three different types. This allows the creation of a matrix of relationships with the characteristics indicated above. The summarized definition of these types are: (i) Internal ba: this is when participants of a single organization share contexts and create new meanings among them through dialogs that allow the occurrence of conflicts, disagreements and contradictions; (ii) External ba: the sharing of contexts and the creation of new meanings among internal and external participants of a given organization.

With Customers: these are spaces for the mobilization of tacit knowledge possessed by the organization‘s clients;

b. With Non-customers: there are participants outside of the organization that are not classified as clients and with which they need to interact. The interaction of these various types and characteristics of ba form what can be called the ―ecosystem of knowledge‖ (TAKEUCHI, 2006). ii. SECI Organizations create knowledge based on the continuous conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge. In this process, both the tacit and explicit knowledge expand in quality and quantity at each cycle of the knowledge spiral. The conversions are distinguished in four modes: Socialization (conversion of tacit into tacit); Externalization (of tacit into explicit); Combination (of explicit and explicit) and Internalization (of explicit for the tacit). In the organizational context, this conversion process generates two types of results (NONAKA; VON KROGH, 2009): (1) Result as Knowledge: this is divided into three aspects: a.

Innovation in organizational products and processes; b. Increased capacity to act; c. Development of the capacity to act, define and resolve problems within a broad spectrum that ranges from tacit to explicit knowledge, both at the individual and collective level. (2) Result as Social Practice: the organizational creation of knowledge is focused on the definition of new problems and on the creation, exploration and experimentation of new solutions. As a consequence, there is a change in the standards of interaction that constitute the fabric of social practice.

In the case of product innovation, as Nonaka and Toyama (2005) illustrate (see also Figure 5), the process can occur in the following sequence:   



Socialization: in contact with clients, their tacit knowledge is shared and accumulated; Externalization: the tacit knowledge obtained is articulated in a product concept; Combination: the knowledge collected within and outside the organization is selected, combined and processed to form more complex sets of explicit knowledge; Internalization: the knowledge that is systematized and manufactured in a product becomes tacit through the use that clients make of the final product;

Figure 5 - The SECI model Source: Based on the (NONAKA; TOYAMA; KONNO, 2000)

iii. Knowledge Assets Knowledge assets are created by the knowledge-creation process through dialogs and practices in a ba. Contrary to other types of assets, knowledge assets are intangible, specific to an organization and change dynamically. Knowledge assets are not only constituted by already created knowledge, such as know-how, patents, technologies and brands. The knowledge to create knowledge, one of the fundamental organizational capacities for innovation, is also part of the knowledge assets. (NONAKA; TOYAMA, 2005). The social capital that is shared in the organization is also part of this type of asset. Nonaka, Toyama and Konno (2000) describe the following types of knowledge. (1) Experiential Knowledge Assets: these consist in tacit knowledge constructed through lived and shared experiences among the members of the organization, their clients and suppliers. They have an individual, personal and nontransferable perspective. It is knowledge that is difficult for other organizations to appropriate; (2) Conceptual Knowledge Assets: this is explicit knowledge articulated through images, symbols and language. It is a type of asset that is easier to appropriate than the experiential. Nevertheless, a significant part of its value is linked to the perception that clients, suppliers and members of the organization have of it; (3) Systematized Knowledge Assets: this is the asset that is systematized and packaged in the form of explicit knowledge. It includes all of the documentation that allows the facilitated transfer of given knowledge. It is the most â&#x20AC;&#x2022;visibleâ&#x20AC;&#x2013; portion of the knowledge assets; (4) Routine Knowledge Assets: here is the part of tacit knowledge that is embedded in the explicit routes and practices of an organization. It is the know-how, the organizational culture, the organizational routines, the patterns of reasoning and action typical of a given organization that allow the practical actions of its members, clients and suppliers. These four descriptions of knowledge assets make it easier to identify each one in an organization. This identification is necessary to conduct the mapping needed to administer and explore the knowledge

assets. As presented earlier, knowledge assets are constituted by inputs, outputs and moderators of knowledge conversion. One particular type of asset, which can be considered a moderator, deserves emphasis. This is the role of leadership in the promotion of the knowledge creation process in the organization. The leaders of the organization are responsible for facilitating this process (NONAKA; TOYAMA; KONNO, 2000). These leaders, identified as knowledge producers, should seek to:     

Synthesize the tacit knowledge available within and around an organization; Make explicit and incorporate this knowledge into new concepts, technologies, products and systems; Reflect on their actions while they act, to be able to construct new theories and techniques; Read a certain situation in terms of the portion of the knowledge spiral in which it is found; Create concepts and expressions identified with the organization in which they act, with specific languages for each part of the spiral, among others.

2.3.1.2 Necessary Conditions In addition to the three elements of the knowledge creation process, Nonaka, Toyama and Konno (2000) and Takeuchi (2006) also suggest the necessary existence of certain specific conditions for knowledge creation to occur. According to Takeuchi, the management of ba demands that the organization make viable five basic conditions:    

Necessary variety: the participants must have a wide variety of functional, organizational, educational, national and other origins; Dialog: they must engage in free, subjective dialog and share their personal experiences; Dialectic: space must be given to conflict, contradictions and dualities; Opening: the participation must be open, not fixed, the must be able to enter and leave freely;

59 

Action in movement: the participants must be able to act in accord with the new meanings they generate, changing organizational routines and habits if necessary.

The description of another set of five conditions defined by Nonaka, Toyama and Konno (2000) is also presented. In a certain way, they overlap, and complement each other. They are treated by these authors as the conditions necessary to ―energize‖ ba so that it provides the necessary energy and quality for the SECI knowledge-conversion process. These conditions are: 



 



Autonomy: by allowing a group of members of the organization to act autonomously, it increases the possibility to access and use the knowledge held by the participants. An organization that creates knowledge can be illustrated as an ―autopoietic system.‖ The authors report that various studies relate the autonomy of teams to effective innovation processes; Creative chaos: this stimulates the interaction between the organization and the external environment. It involves intentional chaos introduced in the organization to create a sense of crises by proposing challenging goals and ambiguous visions; Redundancy: this is the intentional overlapping of information. It is a principal by which any part of the organization has the potential to exercise leadership; Needed variety: creation is found at the border between order and chaos. The internal order of an organization should correspond to the variety found in the environment in which it is inserted. This allows a single piece of information to be interpreted in different ways; Love, affection, trust and commitment: the possession of information creates power. For the sharing of knowledge to occur, in particular that of tacit knowledge, and in this way create knowledge, the participants must feel safe to act.

These conditions, compiled from a list of the authors cited, are:

60 Table 7 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Compilation of the conditions for ba. Source: Based on Takeuchi (2006) and Nonaka, Toyama and Konno (2000). Conditions

Takeuchi (2006)

Necessary Variety

Participants must have a wide variety of functional, organizational, educational, national and other origins.

Creative chaos

Opening

The participation should be open, not fixed, the participants must be able to freely enter and leave the spaces and concepts -

Redundancy

Dialectics

Autonomy

Conflict, contradictions and dualities must be accepted and respected Action-inmovement: the participants must be

Nonaka, Toyama and Konno (2000) Creation resides at the border between order and chaos. The internal diversity of an organization must correspond to the variety of the environment in which it is inserted. This allows interpreting a single piece of information in various ways Stimulates the interaction between the organization and the external environment. It involves intentional chaos introduced in the organization to create a sense of crisis by proposing challenging goals and ambiguous visions -

This is the intentional overlapping of information. It is a principle by which any part of the organization has the potential to exercise leadership -

Autonomy: by allowing a group of members of the organization to act

able to act as a function of the new meanings generated by them, changing routines and habits of the organization if necessary

Dialog

Dialog: they should engage in free, subjective dialogs and share their personal experiences

autonomously, it increases the chance to access and use knowledge held by the participants. A knowledgecreating organization can be illustrated as an â&#x20AC;&#x2022;autopoietic system.â&#x20AC;&#x2013; The authors report that various studies relate the autonomy of teams to effective innovation processes Love, affection, trust and commitment: the possession of information creates power. For knowledge to be shared, in particular tacit knowledge, and thus created, the participants must feel secure enough to act

Thus, instead of the two lists proposed, each one with five conditions, it is possible to establish one compiled list with seven conditions. 2.3.2 Service Design As previously presented, this study defines design in the terms used by Hatchuel & Weil (2008, p. 185), as follows: Design is a reasoning activity which starts with a concept (an undecidable proposition regarding existing knowledge) about a partially unknown object x and attempts to expand it into other concepts and/or new knowledge. Among the knowledge generated by this expansion, certain new propositions can be selected as new definitions (designs) of x and/or of new objects.

The approximation of the spaces of problem and solution in the development of service tends to occur in social situations. In fact, this is the environment where the encounters inherent to the effectuation of services occur. In this field, as Morelli afirms (2007, p. 9): [â&#x20AC;Ś] solutions are not processes that can be totally

described and controlled through codified sequences of actions. They are based on social interactions and systemic nature.

Through this brief overlapping of the concepts of design and social interactions it is possible to begin defining what this study understands by Service Design. Holmlid (2007, p. 1 e 2) writes that Service Design ―contribute[s] with a set of modeling techniques for service experiences‖ and ―[…] integrates the possibilities and means to perform a service with such qualities, within the economy and strategic development of an organization‖. Within this perspective, according to Mager (2004, p. 355), Service Design provides a set of tools that ―[…] empowers service designers to create interactions, spaces and processes on the basis of a solid knowledge of casual relationships.‖ A few considerations should be made concerning the evolution of the term, which, although it has achieved a systemic character, developed from a simplified understanding. Goldstein et alii (2002) present the following compilation: Table 8 – Definitions of service design. Source: author. Author Date Description Covers the entire process from Zeithaml et al. 1990 idea to specification of service The concretization of the concept of service in designs and flow charts

Gummesson

1991

Norling et al.

1992

The work of specifying an idea for a new service in designs and documents for specification

Martin and Horne

1993

The process between the elaboration of an idea and the specification of the service

On the other hand, in general terms, Mager (2008, p. 355) goes beyond this narrow view of Service Design and defines this discipline as follows: Service Design addresses the functionality and

form of services from the perspective of clients. It aims to ensure that service interfaces are useful, usable, and desirable from the client‘s point of view and effective, efficient, and distinctive from the supplier‘s point of view.

To summarize, Service Design is the systematic application of the methodologies and principles of Design to the development of new services (MORITZ, 2005; MAGER, 2007; CAUTELA, RIZZO and ZURLO, 2009). Kimbell (2010) also provides an overview of service from the perspective of the service-dominant logic. 2.2.2.1 The Routines of Service Design Segelström, Raijmakers, and Holmlid (2009) write that the main objective of Service Design is to create an empathic connection with future users of a service. In this way, designers can speculate on future concepts of service based on the perspective that they acquire from the users studied. This characteristic was reflected in a non-exhaustive survey of the routines of Service Design. In a certain way, all of the proposals for framework point to four basic cognitive operations for treating a space problem (STEMPFLE; BADKE-SCHAUB, 2002): generation, exploration, comparison and selection. Fraser (2007) proposes an approach developed from the tools and techniques used by the fields of management and design. She divides this framework into ―three gears of design‖: (i) empathy and profound understanding of the user (ii) conceptual visualization and multipleprototyping and (iii) design of the business strategy. Brown (2008) defines three spaces by which a design project should pass, including: (i) inspiration – to understand the motivations in search of the solution, (ii) ideation – for the generation, development and testing of ideas that can lead to a solution and (iii) implementation – for the definition of a route for entering the market. Saco and Gonçalves (2008) provide the following ―warnings‖ to professionals interested in Service Design: (i) Multidisciplinary team – the team must be able to analyze the entire ecosystem of the service, (ii) Prototypes such as vehicles of dialog – instead of protecting the design process, it should be exposed to a wide variety of influences, (iii) Open architectures – the solutions proposed should allow future couplings and adaptations and (iv) Integration between the functional and the emotional – attractive services should generate emotional and functional

benefits to the users. Kimbell (2009b), in turn, highlights practices he observed during an exploratory project. As a result, the following practices were identified: (i) service designers pay attention both to the artifacts and to the experiences of service, (ii) they create artifacts to make the service visible and tangible, (iii) they integrate humans and non-humans in groups of relationships and (iv) they are involved in the preparation of proposals for new business models. Moritz (2005), meanwhile, proposes a more detailed approach to Service Design. He affirmed that the discipline can be approached through six categories of tasks or activities, as can be seen in the table below. Table 9 - Categories of activities for service design. Source: Based on (MORITZ, 2005). Categories Understanding

Directives Discovering and learning

Thinking

Giving strategic directions

Generating

Developing concepts

Filtering

Selecting the best

Explaining

Enabling understanding

Realizing

Making it happen

Definitions Researching the clients latent and conscious needs. Finding out about context, constraints and resources. Exploring possibilities Identifying criteria, developing strategic frameworks, specifying and scoping out details. Turning complex data into insights Developing relevant, intelligent and innovative ideas. Creating role-, design- and concept-alternatives. Crafting details and consistency Selecting ideas and combining concepts. Evaluating results and solutions. Identifying clusters and segments. The sensualization (visualization for all senses) of ideas and concepts and illustration of potential scenarios. Giving overviews and showing future possibilities Developing, specifying and implementing solutions, prototypes and processes. Writing business plans and guidelines. Conducting training.

In all of the proposals listed above the authors emphasize that the design process goes through steps, or gears, or spaces of categories in a not necessarily linear manner. i. Service-Design Tools A vast cataloging has been produced of the various tools used in routines of Service Design. This study will use three of them, which were prepared by mastersâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC; students: one by Moritz (2005) and two by Tassi (TASSI, 2008; TASSI; GORLA, 2009). Moritz presents a compilation of 90 tools divided among six categories he proposed for Service Design activities. Tassi proposed 66 in her masterâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s dissertation, of which she included only 40 in the compilation presented on the Internet.16 This study will illustrate only these last forty. Table 10 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Compilation of service design tools. Source: Based on Tassi and Gorla (2009). Tool Actors Map

Affinity Diagram Blueprint

Character Profile Cognitive Walkthrough Constructive Interaction Context Panorama Customer Journey Map Design Games 16

Description is a graph representing the system of actors with their mutual relations. It provides a systemic view of the service and of its context is a creative process used for gathering and organizing large amounts of data, ideas and insights by evidencing their natural correlations. The blueprint is an operational tool that describes the nature and the characteristics of the service interaction in enough detail to verify, implement and maintain it The character profile is a tool for the creation of a shared knowledge about the service users inside the team One or more evaluators observe a service by going through the stages of the client journey The constructive interaction is a method based on the observation of a user during his service experience The context panorama is a visualization of the first service ideas that is produced in order to feed the creative process and orient the following design activities The customer journey map is an oriented graph that describes the journey of a user by representing the different touchpoints that characterize his interaction with the service Using games during the co-design sessions allows to share

More information can be found about these tools at the address www.servicedesigntools.org (in English).

Evidencing

Experience Prototype Group Sketching Heuristic Evaluation Informance

Interaction Table Issue Cards LEGO Serious Play Mind Map Mock Up Moodboard

Motivation Matrix Offering Map Personas Poster Role Playing

Role Script

the references in order to bridge different points of view: the games provide a common platform for the conversation between all the participants The methodology called evidencing, pioneered by the UK firm Livework, involves creating objects and images exploring the way a proposed design innovation will feel and work through its touchpoints The experience prototype is a simulation of the service experience that foresees some of its performances through the use of the specific physical touchpoints involved The group sketching is a quick, fast and economic tool for developing and explaining ideas simultaneously The heuristic evaluation is a method of inspection of the service usability based on a predefined set of criteria that the evaluators follow during the analysis. The mise en scĂ¨ne of the information is called informance. It means representing an idea by acting in order to tell, explain and share it. The interaction table is a diagram supporting the strategic discussion The issue cards are a physical instrument used as a peg to induce and feed interactive dynamics inside a team LEGO Serious Play is an innovative, experiential process designed to enhance the generation of innovative solutions The mind map is a tool for the visual elicitation of our thoughts and their connections is a model, an illustration or a collage describing an idea. is a visual composition of pictures and materials that propose an atmosphere by giving the generic perception of it. The aim of the motivation matrix is the understanding of the connections between the different actors of the system. The aim of an offering map is to describe in a synthetic way what the service offers to its users. The personas are archetypes built after a preceding exhaustive observation of the potential users The service Poster is a simulation of a future promotional advertising of the service Some actors, the sample users or the designers themselves perform a hypothetical service experience. The implied condition is thinking that the service really exists and then building a potential journey through some of its functionalities The role script is used for the implementation of the service in order to orient and guide the operators toward the

Rough Prototyping Service image

Service prototype

Service Specification

Storyboard

Storytelling

System Map

Task Analysis Grid

Template Tomorrow Headlines

Touchpoints Matrix

Usability

development of an adequate behavior The rough prototyping is a quick method to build prototypes using all the objects and materials available in that specific moment and location A unique picture that is able to give in one shot an immediate idea of the main features of the service concept is called service image or service picture The service prototype is a tool for testing the service by observing the interaction of the user with a prototype of the service put in the place, situation and condition where the service will actually exist The service specification is a written document that grows up during the design process. It describes the aim of the project in a detailed way and the evolution of the ideas developed step by step The storyboard is a tool derived from the cinematographic tradition; it is the representation of use cases through a series of drawings or pictures, put together in a narrative sequence The storytelling supports the exploration of the service idea. Through the use of simple words, the teller will illustrate the solution as it is a story The system map is a visual description of the service technical organization: the different actors involved, their mutual links and the flows of materials, energy, information and money through the system When designers have to communicate decisions to stakeholders, one possibility is to use a requirements document. Another strategy could be using something different in order to avoid the risk of "taking a couple of days to get everyone on the same page": the task analysis grid is an interesting alternative to the standard requirements documents The templates are used for a consistent implementation of the service idea The tomorrow headlines are fictional articles published on magazines or journals that the designers imagine by projecting themselves in the future and trying to understand what kind of impact the service will have on the society Conceived by Gianluca Brugnoli -teacher at Politecnico di Milano and designer at Frog Design- the touchpoints matrix merges some features of the customer journey maps with some features of the system maps and is based on the use of personas Testing the service usability means observing and asking a

Testing Use Cases

Wizard of Oz

number of users about the use of existing or future products or services in a situation of absolutely normal everyday life The use cases are traditionally used in the interaction design projects for the development of the interaction flows. They are a means of roughing out the functionality of a product or of a service This tool takes the name from the story The Wizard f Oz, more specifically it takes the name from the figure of the character under the curtain

The tools presented in Table 10 were collected by and for service designers. Nevertheless, various other compilations can be used as Servin (2005) did, based on a knowledge-management perspective. In addition to this external compilation of service design, with the objective of enriching this survey, two other tools will be presented: one developed by Bettencourt and Ulwick (2008) based on a management perspective and another proposed by Kumar and Whitney (2007) with a strong ethnographic bias. The first is Job Mapping, defined as a method for more and better innovation in service offerings. This is achieved through the analysis of work conducted by clients and separating it into steps to be analyzed in greater detail to make them easier, faster or to eliminate them. According to this method, all work needs to undergo eight steps to achieve its complete execution and satisfy the client. These steps are: (1) Definition: determines the objectives of the work and plan to obtain the needed resources; (2) Location: collects the items and information needed for the execution of the work. (3) Preparation: organizes the environment to conduct the work; (4) Confirmation: verifies that the executor is ready to conduct the work; (5) Execution: does the work; (6) Monitoring: verifies if the work is successful; (7) Modification: makes changes to improve the execution; (8) Conclusion: finalizes the work or prepares for another cycle. The last tool to be treated in this study is the framework developed by Kumar and Whitney (2003) and called POEMS. This

acronym defines which types of elements should be collected during the mapping of real situations in which a service can be developed. The letters stand for:     

People: who is involved in the activity? Objects: what things are used in the activity? Environment: what is the scenery where the activity takes place? Messages: how is the information needed for the activity transferred? Services: what systems or people sustain the activity?

These two tools, in a certain way, complement those presented by Tassi. They can collaborate with the Touchpoint Matrix and Customer Journey Map tools, providing parameters based on which their use is easier. The tools catalyzed in this study can help to obtain a systematic or explicit vision of the ―symbiotic‖ relationship between the people, technologies, techniques and spaces involved in a service. It is precisely these standards of relationship or of ―interaction‖ that constitute the central competencies of an organization and can provide its sustainable advantages. The importance of capturing this type of relationship resides in the fact that the uniqueness of an organization is a value that cannot be easily imitated by other organizations (Bhatt, 2001). These tools allow dealing with systems which ―lack a rigid structure and a pre-defined hierarchy between the parties‖ (BRUGNOLI, 2009). In a certain sense, it is in this type of antithetical environment where knowledge is created. (NONAKA; TOYAMA, 2003). 2.3.2.2 New Service Development and Service Design The literature presents various terms to designate the effort organizations make in the development of new services (GOLDSTEIN ET AL., 2002). Despite the ever present and debatable need to differentiate New Product Development or the development of new tangible products from that of new services (ORDANINI; MAGLIO, 2009), there is a growing consensus about what to call this practice. One of the terms that appears to consolidate a common understanding of processes aimed at the development of new services is that defined by the initials NSD, or new service development (CARBONELL ET AL., 2009; FROEHLE; ROTH, 2007; MATTHING ET AL., 2004; MENOR

ET AL., 2002; OLSEN; SALLIS, 2006; REINOSO ET AL., 2009; STEVENS; DIMITRIADIS, 2004). Goldstein et alii. (2002) propose the following compilation of definitions: Table 11 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Definitions of NSD Source: author. Author Date Definition Cooper et alii 1994 Involves the complete set of steps between the Johnson et alii

2000

Edvardsson et alii

2000

conceptualization of the idea and the launching of a new service offering Complete development process of a new service offering Includes the development and implementation of strategies, cultures and rules needed for a new service

i. Resource-Process Framework Since this study involves innovation in services, and cites the Unified Services Theory proposal, it is important to mention another study that intends to unify the perspectives of resources and processes adopted in various models for the development of new services. One of the authors of Unified Services Theory (Craig M. Froehle) is also the co-author of a proposed model for the development of new services (FROEHLE; ROTH, 2007) called the Resource-Process Framework. A bibliographic review was conducted to prepare a proposal for the consolidation of practices that was later validated among experts. From the perspective of this study, the interesting factor presented by this proposal was that it presents a dichotomous model and in the first analysis, one that is in keeping with the ideas of this study. The division of new service development into two sets of practices, facilitates the overlapping of certain elements that appear also to be present in the knowledge-creation process. For Froehle and Roth (2007), the new services development process is divided into: Practices oriented to resources, divided non-hierarchically into: a.

Intellectual resources: these include, but are not limited to, educational, experiential and cultural

knowledge, and the abilities detained by employees of an organization; b. Organizational resources: these include but are not limited to formal structures of responsibilities, formal and informal planning, systems of control and coordination, informal relations within an organization or with its environment; c. Physical resources: but not limited to assets such as tangible technological installations, equipment, geographic location and material resources; (b) Practices oriented to processes, arranged non-linearly into: a.

Design stage: focused primarily on generation, evaluation and selection of ideas for new services; b. Analysis stage: critical analysis of the strategic, and financial factors, and of the market potential of the new service concepts; c. Development stage: includes the activities and practices needed to convert the initial idea into a viable market offering; d. Release stage: practices that integrate the new service offering to the market. The definitions presented by the authors are effectively compilations of concepts prepared by other authors.17 One of the initial conditions of this dissertation is that the study concentrates on the beginning of the new service development process. In this way, only the items Intellectual Resources, Organizational Resources and Design Stage were considered in the later analyses. 2.3.2.3 Simultaneous Engineering and Service Design An analysis of the proximities and distances between Service Design and Simultaneous Engineering reveals, at first sight, that both techniques appear to propose the integration of all those interested in a certain problem and its solution (VALLE; VĂ ZQUEZ-BUSTELO, 17

Among the authors mentioned, J. B. Barney deserves emphasis (mentioned in the original as: BARNEY, 1991) from whom they appear to obtain various concepts referring to practices oriented to processes.

2009; MAGER, 2009). Valle and Vázquez-Bustelo (2009, p. 137) define simultaneous engineering with the following text from the American Institute for Defense Analysis: A systematic approach to the integrated, concurrent design of products and related processes, including manufacturing and support. This approach is intended to cause the developers to consider all elements of the product life cycle from conception through disposal, including quality, cost, schedule, and user requirements.

In general terms, simultaneous engineering can be considered a form of integrated solution of problems, where all the activities needed for the introduction of a new product are considered simultaneously. In this way, using the metaphors proposed by Valle and Vázquez-Bustelo (2009), all of the ―downstream‖ factors are incorporated to the ―upstream‖ phases of the development process. Mager (apud CAUTELA ET AL., 2009, p. 4318), upon speaking of the work of the designers involved in the development of new services, defines service design as follows: Service designers take a deep dive into the ecologies of services, into the world of needs and experiences of users and providers. They visualize, formulate and choreograph solutions to problems that do not necessarily exist today […].

In both situations presented, the concepts of ―integrated problemsolving upstream and downstream‖ (simultaneous engineering) or the ―choreography of solutions based on the understanding of the ecology of a given service‖ (design service), are similar terms adopted that denote the search for a maximum scope for the elements that compose a given environment. Nevertheless, while simultaneous engineering accompanies the development of a new product (tangible or intangible) from conceptualization to disposal, Service Design acts principally in conceptualization (KIMBELL, 2009). Once again, it should be emphasized that, while simultaneous engineering is based on a functionalist paradigm (actuality), Service Design is based on a radical humanist one (potentiality) (JOHANSSON and WOODILA, 2008). The

former is aimed more at incremental innovation and the latter at radical innovation. In complementing the analysis of Service Design and Simultaneous Engineering, the conclusions of Valle and VázquezBustelo (2009) point to the finding that simultaneous engineering is better indicated for situations of incremental engineering. In those of radical innovation, it would be better to use "linear engineering." They also warn of the importance of using ―flexible models‖ of engineering for situations of radical innovation. It is possible that the routines of Service Design can provide sequential engineering a certain flexibility, generating positive results in development time and in the perceived and effective quality of the final product (goods and/or services), as occurs with the adoption of flexible engineering models in some scenarios (VALLE; VÁZQUEZBUSTELO, 2009). In this case, through Service Design routines, it would be possible to capture the sticky assets in any situation of innovation (radical or incremental). The practices can be ―fit‖ both into the simultaneous engineering as well as the sequential, making this a flexible model. This study uses Leiponen (2006) to define sticky assets. He affirms they are assets composed to a high degree by tacit knowledge, which requires high transfer costs and consequently, impedes competitors from making copies. These assets often reside in the individuals and relationships that form an organization. In other words, these assets can be embedded in relationships – understood as ―organized standards of interaction‖ (VARGO, 2006, p. 377) – of organizations. The proximity between Simultaneous Engineering and Service Design can also be presented through the concept of Service Engineering. Bullinger (2003, p. 276) affirms that this term was coined in Germany and Israel during the 1990s. He says that Service Engineering can be defined as ―a technical discipline concerned with the systematic development and design of services using suitable models, methods and tools.‖ In fact, this is the basic definition for the discipline of engineering as a whole. In order to corroborate the difference of the functionalist (engineering) and radical humanist (design) views, this author cites Fähnrich et al. and presents them in English (apud BULLINGER, 2003, p. 280): […] simply transferring traditional product development concepts blindly would appear to be

inexpedient, and an exclusively engineeringoriented approach for service development is likewise bound to be inadequate. On the contrary, what is needed are interdisciplinary approaches that are capable of mapping the interaction of human resources, technology and organisation and of rendering them plannable.

2.2.3.2 Patterns of Interaction and Complexity Theory Note that both Knowledge and Service Design have a common focus: patterns of interaction. Although they work with a single concept, only recently has the field of Knowledge Management shifted the focus of the approach of its researchers from an initial perspective oriented at technology, to ―[...] one in which the emphasis is more on people, behaviors and ways of working‖ (SERVIN, 2005, p. 9). This emphasis is something that Service Design adopted beforehand. The manipulation of social and cultural values incorporated to artifacts is a primary characteristic of the activity of design (MORELLI, 2002b). The coordination of these patterns of interaction can serve both to respond to new situations of competitiveness as well as create them. One of the fundamental concepts of this study resides in this point: the understanding that innovation in services occurs through the definition of new patterns of interaction. These patterns of interaction can occur in various forms, under various perspectives. The conceptualization of the patterns of interaction used here is taken from the perspective of complex adaptive systems. It is through these patterns that a ―system becomes not a mere assemblage of different types of agents, but a population that gives origin to events and has an ongoing history‖ (AXELROD; COHEN, 2001). Depending on the narrative adopted (GREENHALGH ET AL., 2005), the patterns of interaction occur between technologies, techniques and people (BHATT, 2001) or between people and people, people and machines and machines and machines (MAGER; EVENSON, 2008). This study defines ―interaction‖ according to Cautela, Rizzo and Zurlo (2009, p. 4321), who affirm: [...] interaction is defined as a unique transaction meant as exchange of information, knowledge, activities, resources – in a definite interval (generally rather short) between an actor and an

interface (that in its turn can be represented by another actor and/or by another system).

This study cites various scholars of cognitive service 19 who use the concept of patterns of interaction. We thus use terms such as dynamic interactions (NONAKA, TOYAMA and KONNO, 2000), symbiotic relationships (BHATT, 2001) and dynamic dance (MAGER and SHELLEY, 2008) according to the definition of the word service â&#x20AC;&#x201C;â&#x20AC;&#x201C; used in the singular (VARGO and LUSCH, 2008b) and others. 2.3 Articulation of theories and tools in a method Given all the arguments made regarding the use of multimodal imagery, as a conclusion of this chapter it is proposed a graphic illustration. Figure 6 is intended to represent the proposal of a method resulting from this interdisciplinary articulation must combine the theories and tools of Management and Knowledge Management with those of Design and Service Design under the form of a sequence of steps taken by a group of people. By using multimodal images, this dynamic should present as a result the creation of knowledge (socialization, explanation, combination and internationlization) about providing services with which the group is found related. This knowledge, transformed into new value proposals, should promote innovation in services. In a multimodal way, the Figure 6 is composed of the following theoretical elements: (a) Context: Service-Dominant Logic (b) Starting Point: the need to promote innovation in services, these are understood as knowledge intensive systemic solutions; (c) Energizing process: the use of design, combined with multimodal images; (d) Structuring process: the creation of knowledge, through the concept of BA and the forms of conversion of knowledge (socialization, externalization, combination and internalization);

Cognitive domain can be understood as a field of scientific research characterized by the overlapping of different disciplines. (CAUTELA, RIZZO AND ZURLO, 2009).

(e) Finishing point: generation of a new value proposal for a social network linked to the provision of a service. All the work to articulate a body of literature to support the implementation of Service Design at the beginning of the new services development process has been exposed in this chapter. It will be based on that body of knowledge that a proposition of a method, as support for the understanding of a phenomenon, will be built.

Figure 6 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Proposal for conceptual integration Source: author.

3 METHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURES This chapter presents conceptual factors, the methodological outline, the procedures of application and the principal parameters of analysis of the study. Of the specific objectives established for this study, the first (1.3.2.a) is addressed throughout chapter 2 and the theoretical support for design-science is found exclusively in this chapter. 3.1 Conceptual factors of the study As in many studies that need to address complex cognitive fields – as is the case of studies of ―innovation in services,‖ the beginning of the work is a challenge. Greenhalgh et ali (2005) maintain that there are three main difficulties for a study with this type of challenge: i. The terms that must provide the conceptual support for the study have fuzzy definitions and therefore are up for debate; ii. Quality scholarly sources are not recognized and there are no objective criteria to identify these studies as such; iii. Contrary to what takes place within the discipline, the focus of the study must be expanded, or important studies in not initially considered sectors will be overlooked. With these characteristics presented, and given the interdisciplinary nature of this study, due to the very interdisciplinarity of the terms ―innovation‖ (ADAMS ET AL., 2006) and ―service‖ (VARGO ET AL., 2008), the study demanded an attempt20 to prepare a clear epistemological position. When Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996), in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (KUHN, 1970), affirms that a discovery made from a certain paradigm cannot be explained by another, in a certain way, he is explaining the importance of exercising consistency in the ―interdisciplinarity‖. More precisely, he exposes the fact that the interdisciplinarity generally occurs within a ―state of crisis,‖ and is pre-paradigmatic. Every researcher must respect the collaborations of his or her predecessors, even knowing that many of them may have made mistakes (WEBSTER; WATSON, 2002). If this 20

This is effectively an attempt, given that in the ―state of crisis‖ there can be no expectation of resolving an epistemology in a single work.

finding is accepted in the discipline, in interdisciplinary work it is even more clear. Perhaps, in addition to a concern about failures that are natural to research, or of repeating those in a previous study, this led to a strong trend to descriptive research. So much so, that in certain communities, it appears that only this type deserves academic respect (VAN AKEN, 2004). To the same degree, it is possible to affirm that there is no difference in the analytical rigor between the qualitative and quantitative studies. It is also possible to deduce that any distinction between a qualitative and quantitative approach is artificial and inconsequential, given that none has inherently greater scientific rigor than the other (JĂ&#x201E;RVINEN, 2008). Despite this, in various academic communities, they are institutionalized in opposing fields. This artificial separation of the approaches can, in fact, contribute to the deficiency of scientific efforts. The adoption of explicit knowledge strategies, which decompose and reduce information, and words, can eliminate the manifestations of tacit knowledge, affection and intuition. These, in turn, are fundamental for the effective learning and for the resolution of problems needed for scientific progress (WORREN ET AL., 2002). The scientific method, which is responsible for great advances in the human condition, can be characterized by three fundamental principles: reductionism, repeatability, and refutation. Simply put, it can be described as follows: a scientist selects a part of the world to study through observations and experiments that are repeated innumerably until they are refuted. This process, however, has greater effectiveness when applied to homogeneous phenomenon in time, such as Newtonian physics (CHECKLAND; HOLWELL, 1998). The perception that given scientific practices are based on particular world views allows deducing that scientific rigor does not need to be expressed only through reasoning in formal and mathematical logic (WORREN ET AL., 2002). Knowledge presented in other forms is more subject to distortions and Worren et al. (2002) agree that scientific progress demands the periodic confrontation of data. On the other hand, these authors affirm that (WORREN ET AL., 2002, p. 1239): As conceptual tools, the most important role of narratives and other types of ambiguous knowledge is that of providing cognitive support by facilitating information encoding and retrieval, conveying implicit assumptions, and shaping

interpretive frames organizational actors.

reference

among

The use of this scientific perspective to understand reality is known as natural science. When it involves creating artifacts to serve humans, it is denominated as applied science (MARCH; SMITH, 1995). In other words, we can say that there is a scientific eye that points to more traditional values such as the search for ―truth‖ and for understanding the environment, and to its manipulation and control (VAISHNAVI; KUECHLER, 2004). It should be emphasized that various authors mentioned here use the term ―design science‖ which, in this study, is at times presented as ―applied science‖ (CROSS, 2001; HEVNER ET AL., 2004; JÄRVINEN, 2007; KEYS, 2007; VAISHNAVI; KUECHLER, 2004; VAN AKEN, 2007). Although March and Smith (1995, p. 254) warn that: While natural science tends to be basic research and design science tends to be applied, the two pairs of concepts are not strictly parallel.

A study in the natural science perspective tends to be descriptive and exploratory, given that it seeks to know the truth. While that from applied science tends to be prescriptive and creative, to the degree that it creates artifacts that incorporate the prescriptions generated. The relationship between these two scientific perspectives is not ―strictly parallel‖ because to the degree to which the applied science generates artifacts, it provokes phenomenon that can be studied from the perspective of natural science (MARCH; SMITH, 1995). After all, an artifact can have utility without the truth about its operation being known, as occurred with the development of aeronautical engineering (VAISHNAVI; KUECHLER, 2004). In this sense, the truth (natural science) informs the design and utility (applied science) informs the theory (HEVNER ET AL., 2004), in a ―virtuous.‖ cycle. While research in natural science is divided into two main and parallel activities of theorizing and justification, in applied science the two principles are sequenced and focus on construction and evaluation. In each case, the research activities generate a final result. In the case of applied science it is an artifact, which can be constructed, a model, a method or an (MARCH; SMITH, 1995). In the case of natural science, it would be a new theory.

For this study, which has a multidisciplinary theoretical basis, in addition to the activities related to the understanding of the ―innovation in services‖ phenomenon, it would be necessary to create part of the phenomenon itself. The research would need to be descriptive and prescriptive, exploratory and creative. In other words, it should ―create and evaluate […] artifacts destined to resolving the organizational problems identified‖ (HEVNER ET AL., 2004, p. 77) at the same time, it should present ―field-tested and grounded technological rules to be used as design exemplars‖ (VAN AKEN, 2004, p. 221).21 In sum, it is necessary to have two simultaneous perspectives. This type of clinical approach, with intensive interaction with a population and strong emphasis on resolving an isolated problem can be found in Action-Research. Nevertheless, unlike Action-Research, a dual scientific perspective seeks to explicitly develop knowledge that can be transferred to other contexts (VAN AKEN, 2004). It is necessary, as Purao et al. (2008, p. 5) affirm, to ―[…] arrive at an interpretation (understanding) of the phenomenon and the design of the artifact simultaneously.‖ In a certain way, the final result of this can be considered a ―technological rule‖ which takes the form of; ―if you want to achieve Y in situation Z, then perform action X‖ (VAN AKEN, 2005). This type of artifact is formed by a concept X of a general solution for a determined type of problem, and an instruction connected to a space problem. These rules have a quantitative format and their effects can be proven through observation (when homogenous in time) or by deterministic or statistical generalizations (VAN AKEN, 2005). There are, however, rules of a ―more heuristic nature,‖ in the words of Van Aken (2005). This author also affirms that rules can take the form of; ―if you want to achieve Y in situation Z, then perform something like action X.‖ This type of ―heuristic rule‖ is more abstract and assumes the condition of design exemplars.22 21

A design exemplar is a general prescription which has to be translated to the specific problem at hand; in solving that problem, one has to design a specific variant of that design exemplar. For instance, in civil engineering a suspension bridge is one of several design exemplars an engineer can use to design his or her bridge for his or her specific situation. (VAN AKEN, 2004). 22 In the definition given by Kuhn (1970) for the word exemplar, it can be understood as one of the fundamental meanings for the term paradigm and described as a technique through which members of a group learn to see the same thing when confronted with the same stimulus. Kuhn also affirms that in the absence of exemplars, the laws and theories learned by the group would have little empiric content.

This leads us to one of the main elements of this study: the concept of design. The study about innovation in services can be approached from an understanding that (PURAO ET AL., 2008, p. 9): Thus all studies of innovation are implicitly studies of designs, and design science potentially has a great deal to offer to fields such as economics of innovation, management of technology and new product development.

Nevertheless, the establishment of an explicit relationship between innovation and scientific research can raise questions concerning the quality and autonomy of the resulting research (GIBBONS ET AL., 2004). The need to treat the explosive growth of information technologies and the development of multi-and transdisciplinary solutions for the social problems confronted today increasingly demands scientific approaches that are not only prescriptive but also socially distributed, with multiple responsibilities.(GIBBONS ET AL., 2004). This argument defends a greater emphasis on Mode 2 of knowledge production, also known as context-sensitive science (GIBBONS, 2000). Van Aken (2004, p. 223), upon commenting on this mode of knowledge production, describes it as ―[…] trans-disciplinary with intensive interaction between knowledge production and knowledge dissemination and application […].‖ Even recognizing the need for this form of contextualized production of scientific knowledge, the question of quality and autonomy remain open. It is important to evaluate and distinguish the results of scientific efforts from those obtained through practical activities such as consulting (PEFFERS ET AL., 2007). This questioning thus leads this dissertation to adopt methods and orientations relative to design-research, as in the compilations realized by Peffers et al. (2007) and Hevner et ali (2004). 3.2 Methodological Outline In terms of the possible methods to be adopted by designresearch, known by the acronym DRM (Design Research Methods), after a bibliographic review, the Design Science Research Methodology – DSRM (PEFFERS ET AL., 2007) was selected. DSRM is composed of four points of entrance, four types of results and six activities that, although they are presented in a suggested sequence, do not impose an

exact order. A graphic illustration of the method can be seen in annex (Annex I â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Illustration of the DSRM). 3.2.1 Points of Entrance of DSRM Design-research, according to the method compiled by Peffers et al. (2007, pp.14-15), can begin with four points as a function of the context from which originates the idea for a given study. These points are: (a) Problem-Centered Initiation: Problem centered initiation is the basis for the nominal sequence, beginning with the first activity. Researchers can proceed in this sequence if the idea for the research has resulted from the observation of a problem or from a recommendation for future research conducted in a scientific article generated in a previous project. (b) Objective-Centered Solution: An objectivecentered solution, starting with activity two, could be triggered by an industry or research need that can be addressed by developing an artifact. (c) Design & Development Centered Initiation: A design and development-centered approach would start with activity three. It would result from the existence of an artifact that has not yet been formally thought through as a solution for the explicit problem domain in which it will be used. Such an artifact might have come from another research domain, it might have already been used to solve a different problem, or it might have appeared as an analogical idea. (d) Client/Context Initiated: Finally, a client/context initiated solution may be based on observing a practical solution that worked; it starts with activity four, resulting in a DS solution if researchers work backwards to apply rigor to the process retroactively. This could be the byproduct of a consulting experience.

3.2.2 DSRM Activities DSRM was prepared from the compilation of seven proposed methods, greater details were obtained in Peffers et al. (2007, pp.12-14). The six activities presented are DSRM: Activity 1: Problem identification and motivation. Define the specific research problem and justify the value of a solution. Since the problem definition will be used to develop an artifact that can effectively provide a solution, it may be useful to atomize the problem conceptually so that the solution can capture its complexity. Justifying the value of a solution accomplishes two things: it motivates the researcher and the audience of the research to pursue the solution and to accept the results and it helps to understand the reasoning associated with the researcherâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s understanding of the problem. Resources required for this activity include knowledge of the state of the problem and the importance of its solution. Activity 2: Define the objectives for a solution. Infer the objectives of a solution from the problem definition and knowledge of what is possible and feasible. The objectives can be quantitative, e.g., terms in which a desirable solution would be better than current ones, or qualitative, e.g., a description of how a new artifact is expected to support solutions to problems not hitherto addressed. The objectives should be inferred rationally from the problem specification. Resources required for this include knowledge of the state of problems and current solutions, if any, and their efficacy. Activity 3: Design and development. Create the artifact. Such artifacts are potentially constructs, models, methods, or instantiations (each defined broadly) [20] or â&#x20AC;&#x2022;new properties of technical, social, and/or informational resources [24]â&#x20AC;&#x2013;. Conceptually, a design research artifact can be any designed object in which a research

contribution is embedded in the design. This activity includes determining the artifactâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s desired functionality and its architecture and then creating the actual artifact. Resources required moving from objectives to design and development include knowledge of theory that can be brought to bear in a solution. Activity 4: Demonstration. Demonstrate the use of the artifact to solve one or more instances of the problem. This could involve its use in experimentation, simulation, case study, proof, or other appropriate activity. Resources required for the demonstration include effective knowledge of how to use the artifact to solve the problem. Activity 5: Evaluation. Observe and measure how well the artifact supports a solution to the problem. This activity involves comparing the objectives of a solution to actual observed results from use of the artifact in the demonstration. It requires knowledge of relevant metrics and analysis techniques. Depending on the nature of the problem venue and the artifact, evaluation could take many forms. It could include such items as a comparison of the artifactâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s functionality with the solution objectives from activity two above, objective quantitative performance measures, such as budgets or items produced, the results of satisfaction surveys, client feedback, or simulations. It could include quantifiable measures of system performance, such as response time or availability. Conceptually, such evaluation could include any appropriate empirical evidence or logical proof. At the end of this activity the researchers can decide whether to iterate back to step three to try to improve the effectiveness of the artifact or to continue on to communication and leave further improvement to subsequent projects. The nature of the research venue may dictate whether such iteration is feasible or not. Activity 6: Communication. Communicate the problem and its importance, the artifact, its utility

and novelty, the rigor of its design, and its effectiveness to researchers and other relevant audiences, such as practicing professionals, when appropriate. In scholarly research publications, researchers might use the structure of this process to structure the paper, just as the nominal structure of an empirical research process (problem definition, literature review, hypothesis development, data collection, analysis, results, discussion, and conclusion) is a common structure for empirical research papers. Communication requires knowledge of the disciplinary culture.

3.2.3 Results of Design Science Within the DSRM perspective, it is possible to generate four types of scientific results. These results are congruent with those proposed by March and Smith (1995, pp. 256-258), and are listed below: Constructs: Constructs or concepts form the vocabulary of a domain. They constitute a conceptualization used to describe problems within the domain and to specify their solutions. They form the specialized language and shared knowledge of a discipline or sub-discipline. Model: A model is a set of propositions or statements expressing relationships among constructs. In design activities, models represent situations as problem and solution statements. Method: A method is a set of steps (an algorithm or guideline) used to perform a task. Methods are based on a set of underlying constructs (language) and a representation (model) of the solution space. Instantiation: An instantiation is the realization of an artifact in its environment. Instantiations demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of the models and methods they contain. Instantiations operationalize constructs, models, and methods.

The latter authors note that a new instantiation can be understood as an â&#x20AC;&#x2022;extension of new constructs, models and methods,â&#x20AC;&#x2013; (MARCH; SMITH, 1995) and for this reason, not have a significant scientific value. They cite examples in which the instantiation precedes to complete knowledge and articulation of the constructs, models and methods. They also cite the case of computing science where the determining factor of the value of the constructs, models and methods is the existence of an implementation. 3.2.4 Orientations for Design Science In relation to the orientation, the compilation realized by Hevner et al. (2004) and defined as directives for design-research in information systems, provides a panoramic view of what the scientific community considered at the time as fundamental characteristics of an applied study with scientific rigor. Seven orientations are compiled and presented textually (HEVNER ET AL., 2004): Orientation 1: Design as an Artifact: Designscience research must produce a viable artifact in the form of a construct, a model, a method, or an instantiation. Orientation 2: Problem Relevance: The objective of design-science research is to develop technology-based solutions to important and relevant business problems. Orientation 3: Design Evaluation Description: The utility, quality, and efficacy of a design artifact must be rigorously demonstrated via wellexecuted evaluation methods. Orientation 4: Research Contributions: Effective design-science research must provide clear and verifiable contributions in the areas of the design artifact, design foundations, and/or design methodologies. Orientation 5: Research Rigor: Design-science research relies upon the application of rigorous methods in both the construction and evaluation of the design artifact.

Orientation 6: Design as a Search Process: The search for an effective artifact requires utilizing available means to reach desired ends while satisfying laws in the problem environment. Orientation 7: Communication of Research: Design-science research must be presented effectively both to technology-oriented as well as management-oriented audiences.

3.3 Research Application Procedures This study is based on the observation of a practical solution that would function in a certain context. This context is identified with the performance of several consulting firms that acts on the development of new services. Among others design consultancies, can be cited the North-Amercians IDEO, Continuum, AdaptivePath, the Britishs Engine, live | work, STBY, Prospect and the Spanish FunkyProjects. In keeping with the perspective provided by DSRM, it begins from Activity 4 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Demonstration, through the finding of the phenomenon in the context. Based on this fact, it returns to the nominal sequence suggested by the method, as will be described in the next chapter. The final observations of this chapter will include registrations of three techniques that can help organize design-research. 3.3.1 Participant Observation and Design Science The methodological basis for the application of the study is, in part, inspired by Participant Observation (TAYLOR; BOGDAN, 1997): i. ii.

The work stages are divided into Pre-Field, Field and PostField; The field work is conducted without hypotheses or specific preconceptions about the service being studied (to validate if the method is able to create the knowledge needed and thus fulfill its objective).

3.3.2 Principal Parameters for the Analysis of Design Research

Design-research can be evaluated from a conceptual matrix composed of the activities and orientations described above. Each resulting cell receives an evaluation of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the relationship. The evaluation of the satisfaction of the relationship between the activity and the orientation can be established from the various studies that comment on this type of concept. From among these studies, the approach prepared in 1969 by Simon deserves mentioning. 23 In a 1982 study, Cross affirmed that Simon‘s definitions about ―satisfaction‖ as being the final stage of a process through which is obtained ―one of the many possibilities for a satisfactory solution contrary to trying to generate a hypothetically excellent solution‖ (CROSS, 1982). Both Fagerberg (2003) as well as Sarasvathy and Dew (2005) respectively mention this evaluation criteria as a ―simpler and less demanding decision-making practice‖ and as ―intelligent behavior‖ for evaluating the relevance or irrelevance of given information.

Simon, H A. The Sciences of the Artificial MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA (1969)

4 PROPOSED METHOD This chapter will present and discuss the design process of the proposed method. To do so, it will detail the relationship between the architecture of the method and the theoretical bases that sustain it. The Research Question and the General Objective are addressed in greater detail in this chapter. The second specific objective is also addressed here. To allow the correct understanding of the term â&#x20AC;&#x2022;method,â&#x20AC;&#x2013; we turn to that present on the item 3.2.3 of this document. In sum, method is understood as a set of steps taken to execute a task (MARCH; SMITH, 1995). 4.1 The Design Process of the Proposed Method In a certain sense, Cautela, Rizzo and Zurlo (2009, p. 4323), upon describing the importance of the routines of Service Design from the perspective of a service-dominant logic, juxtapose it with Knowledge Management: In this case, the importance of the role of Service Design is in its capability to support learning both in terms of knowledge transfer and knowledge acquisition (new competences needed by users to interact with new channels and new cultural norms to use the service).

In this text, a reading from the perspective of Johansson and Woodilla (2008), allows construction of the following perspective: the ability to support the learning, both in the socialization as well as in the creation of knowledge, is up to Knowledge Management in terms of its being current and up to Service Design in terms of its potential. The routines of Service Design offers this study a collection of tools (MORITZ, 2005; TASSI, 2008) that can assist in the reduction of the ambiguity that is generated during the development of a new service and creation of a new market (BURGI; ROOS, 2003; KRISTENSSON ET AL., 2004; SARASVATHY; DEW, 2005; THOMKE; VON HIPPEL, 2002). The theories compiled by Knowledge Management on the other hand, through the process of knowledge creation (NONAKA, TOYAMA e KONNO, 2000), can indicate more productive approaches

that allow innovation in services to occur in a more formalized manner and not only â&#x20AC;&#x2022;happen,â&#x20AC;&#x2013; as Menor, Tatikonda and Sampson (2002) maintain. There are various points of contact between both the perspectives. To cite some examples, we can turn to the following conditions described by Nonaka, Toyama and Konno (2000) for knowledge creation and its correspondences: Table 12 - Examples of the proximities between KM/SD Source: Based on the citations indicated. Condition Creative Chaos

Redundancy

Necessary Variety

Knowledge Management [...] intentional chaos introduced in the organization to create a sense of crisis by proposing challenging goals and ambiguous visions. [...] is the intentional overlapping of information. The internal diversity of an organization must correspond to the diversity found in the environment in which it is inserted.

Design Build creative frameworks (order out of chaos) (BROWN, 2008a)

Organizational Sensemaking, is therefore, richer when built in a multimodal form (RYLANDER, 2009a).24 [...] that the study of design can be an interdisciplinary study accessible to all those involved in the creative activity of giving forms to the artificial world. (DORST; CROSS, 2001).

Source: Prepared by the author.

There are various possible approximations between the fields of Knowledge Management and Service Design. A method is thus sought that preserves the logic of the design (through co-evolution of the spaces of problem and solution) at the same time in which it allows a gain in productivity, or even, through a reduction of the cognitive cost needed to realize the service design process (CROSS, 2001b). 4.2 Identify Problem and Motivation Through a review of the literature, as presented on the item 2.1, the problem and the motivation for the solution were identified.

4.2.2 The Problem Organizations face a global situation of accentuated competitiveness with services playing an important role as reported in various studies (STEVENS; DIMITRIADIS, 2005; MAFFEI ET AL., 2005; LEIPONEN, 2006; CHESBROUGH; SPOHRER, 2006; LUSCH ET AL., 2007; BITNER; BROWN, 2008). These studies point to the fact that gross national product and employment in developed nations, are now increasingly generated by services. (BERRY ET AL., 2006; GALLOUJ, 2002). As shown in the item 1.2 of this document, the problem resides in the economic need of organizations to better understand the process of new services development. 4.2.3 The Motivation In this context, innovation in services becomes one of the fundamental capacities for obtaining and maintaining competitive advantage by these organizations (NONAKA ET AL., 2000; LEIPONEN, 2006; LUSCH ET AL., 2007; BITNER; BROWN, 2008; PATON; MCLAUGHLIN, 2008). 4.3 Objectives of the Proposed Method Based on the review of the literature, it was possible to infer ―what is possible and feasible‖ (PEFFERS ET AL., 2007) in relation to the objectives of a solution. This study began with the observation of a context (in a stage adjunct to DSRM Activity 4), of a routine called ―service design‖ (GOLDSTEIN ET AL., 2002; KIMBELL, 2009). Although this practice is supported in a structure similar to that used by ethnographic research (EDMAN, 2009; HOLMLID; EVENSON, 2008; MORITZ, 2005; SACO; GONCALVES, 2008; SEGELSTRÖM ET AL., 2009) a set of best practices has still not been established. Thus, the objective of this study is, in a qualitative manner, to establish a proposed artifact in the form of a method supported by a model of knowledge creation and management. 4.3.1 The Objectives The review of the literature about the routines adopted in the actions of new service development and of service design identified

some objectives that need to be achieved in an action like this one. This study identified that the proposed framework must be used in the following contexts: Sale of Functions: in relation to commercialization of customized services and solutions (SUNDIN; BRAS, 2005). This generally presents opportunities for the occurrence of incremental innovation; New Value Proposal; when innovation of the ―concept of service‖ dimension is needed (MILES, 2008). This usually presents opportunities for the occurrence of radical innovation. Vaishnavi and Kuechler (2004), in their proposal for a general methodology for Research Design, denominate the first step of the research as Awareness of Problem. This ―awareness‖ in this context begins at the first meeting between the researcher and the client (PreField) and continues until the participant socialization stage (Field). In the stage denominated Pre-Field, the following objectives were identified: (a) Determine the focal point31(FP) of the value network;32 (b) Define the initial list of participants of the value network; (c) Define the data of the encounter In the Field stage the following objectives were identified: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i)

See that the participants have a common understanding Generate positive alternative proposals for the service Generate negative alternative proposals for the service Share the proposed alternatives among the participants Interval for socialization Analysis of the alternatives Consolidation of the alternatives Induction to post factu reflection Registration of the reflection

In the Post-Field Stage, the following objectives were identified: 31

The concept of focal point (FP) can be understood in various ways. In the case of service design, it is defined in an arbitrary and contextual manner, and can be understood as ―the actor or service at the end of the informational flow, often stereotyped as the ―final user‖ or ―client.‖ (GLUSHKO, 2009, p. 15). 32 This is understood as a value creation system, within which different economic actors – suppliers, partners, allies and clients – work together to co-produce value (PEPPARD; RYLANDER, 2006).

(a) Analysis of the material produced by the participants (b) Selection of the ideas registered in the material produced by the participants (c) Synthesis of the final proposal Once developed, the artifact should ―guide the action to achieve the objectives‖ (WORREN ET AL., 2002) defined above. The initial structure is defined as follows: Table 13 – Preliminary proposal of objectives for the method Source: author. Stage Pre-field

Field

PostField

Phases 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.4.1 2.4.2 3.1 3.2 4.1

Preliminary Proposal of Objectives Determine the focal point of the value network; Define the initial participant list of the value network; Define the date of the meeting See that participants have a common understanding Generate alternative positive proposals for the service Generate alternative negative proposals for the service Share the alternative proposals among the participants Interval for socialization Analysis of the alternatives Consolidation of the alternatives Induction to post factu reflection Registration of the reflection Analysis of the material produced by the participants Selection of the ideas registered in the material produced by the participants Synthesis of the final proposal

4.4 Juxtaposition of knowledge design and creation Based on the constructs, models, methods and instantiations selected through the review of the literature, the design and development of a proposed artifact was conducted. This artifact, in the form of a proposed method for the case of this study, seeks to incorporate and reflect on the interdisciplinary theoretical contribution resulting from the review of the literature. The proposed method presents a set of steps that can facilitate the simultaneous occurance of the design process, as well as the knowledge creation process. As a characteristic of design sciences, at times, it is necessary to resort to knowledge creation through processes that involve ―creativity and trial and error‖ (HEVNER ET AL., 2004). Moritz (2005), Fraser (2007), Brown (2008), Saco and Gonçalves

(2008), Segelström, Raijmakers, e Holmlid (2009) and Kimbell (2009b) write that the principal objective of Service Design is to create empathic connections with future users of a service. This connection is established at the beginning of the design process. This is understood as a process that is based on the generation of the idea and continues only until the specification of the new service through graphics and texts (GOLDSTEIN ET AL., 2002). The review of the literature also indicated that the theoretical base of the architecture of the method is established in the concept of the ―dual diamond‖ as presented by design professionals (DESIGN COUNCIL, 2007a). The Design Council proposes a design process divided into four distinct phases that alternate activities for increasing and reducing the spaces of problem and solution. The phases proposed are (DESIGN COUNCIL, 2007b): (a) (b) (c) (d)

Discover; Define; Develop; Deliver.

More broadly, Stempfle and Badke-Schaub (2002) propose four basic cognitive operations to deal with a space of a problem (STEMPFLE; BADKE-SCHAUB, 2002): (a) (b) (c) (d)

Generation Exploration Comparison Selection

The first two serve to broaden the space of the problem (generating and exploring ideas) and the later two to reduce them (analyzing, comparing and selecting them). In a similar approach, Brown (2008b) suggests the following operations for a non-linear process of Design Thinking: (a) (b) (c) (d)

Divergence Convergence Analysis Synthesis

According to Brown, the mode of thinking of design is composed of a series of steps of divergence and convergence. Choices are made during the divergence step. This model of thinking also depends on the analysis and synthesis steps of decomposition and integration respectively. Based on the design architecture, once again juxtaposition is sought with knowledge management. This takes place through the adaptation of the ―dual diamond‖ to the ―knowledge spiral‖ proposed by Nonaka and Toyama (2003). As presented in the theoretical foundation for this study, the knowledge conversions take place in four manners: (a) (b) (c) (d)

Socialization (conversion of tacit to tacit); Externalization (of tacit to explicit); Combination (of explicit to explicit) and Internalization (of explicit to tacit).

In the first proposal for the method, this study chose to establish the following composition for the process in the form of a ―dual diamond‖: Table 14 – Comparison of the conceptual models Source: author. Stage

Phases

PreField

1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.4.1 2.4.2 3.1 3.2 4.1

Field

PostField

Design Council

Stempfle and BadkeSchaub

Brown

Discovery Discovery Discovery Discovery Discovery Discovery Definition Definition Definition Definition Definition Definition Develop Develop Deliver

Generation Exploration Comparison Generation Generation Generation Exploration Exploration Exploration Comparison Comparison Comparison Comparison Selection Selection

Analysis Divergence Convergence Divergence Divergence Divergence Convergence Convergence Analysis Convergence Analysis Analysis Analysis Synthesis Synthesis

Nonaka and Toyama (Emphasis) 33 Socializ. Socializ. Socializ. Socializ. Externaliz. Externaliz. Combin. Combin. Combin. Combin. Internaliz. Internaliz. Socializ. Socializ. Socializ.

It is understood that the four knowledge conversion processes occur in all the phases of the ―dual diamond.‖ For this reason the term ―Emphasis‖ is used to stress the principal characteristic to which the proposals for the use of the tools in the method will adhere.

Using the table above it is possible to begin the synthesis or convergence or combination or definition of the steps and phases of the proposed method. 4.5 Description of the Proposed Method The first proposal for the architecture of the method is established in this way based on two models: that of the ―dual diamond‖ and that of the ―knowledge spiral.‖ The analysis of the narratives proposed both by Stempfle and Badke-Schaub (2002) and by Brown (2008b) can be incorporated to the proposal of the model presented by the Design Council (2007a). This proposal was made by the Design Council in 2007 when it prepared the document ―A study of the design process.‖ Thus, there is regularity to the method to the degree to which phases from 1.1 – 2.1.3 are located in the first part of the first diamond, referring to the activities of ―Discovery,‖ covering the Pre-Field stages and part of the Field stage. Phases 2.2.1 - 2.4.2 are in the second half of the first diamond, referring to the activities of Definition, restricted to the Field step. In these two situations, the parallel with the SECI model occurs as illustrated in Table 15. Table 15 – Alignment for the architecture of the method Source: author. Stages PreField Field

PostField

Phases 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.4.1 2.4.2 3.1 3.2 4.1

Design Council Discover

SECI (Emphasis34) Socialization

Externalization Define

Combination

Internalization Develop Deliver

Socialization

Phases 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.4.1 2.4.2 3.1 3.2 4.1

As a final observation about the structure adopted for the method, it is supported by a linear sequence through which the "result" of a phase is considered as an entry to the stage immediately following. 4.5.1 Pre-Field Work On this basis, the definitions of the following phases and items were made for the Pre-Field stage: Table 16 - Items of the pre-field stage Source: author. Phase

Objective

Participants

Tools

Results

1.1

Define the Value Proposal

1. Encounter, 2. Discussion of cases,

1. Focal point of the value network

1.2

Define Value Network

1. Designer; 2. Clients (Decision maker) 1. Designer; 2. Clients (Decision maker)

1. Encounter, 2. Conceptual map 3. Question ―Value Network‖

1.3

Invite Participants

1. Designer; 2. Participants of the ―Value Network‖

1. Calls, e-mails, list of contacts, calendar, 2. ―Snowball‖ technique 3. Question ―Value Network‖

1. Initial list of the participants of the ―Value Network‖; 2. Period of application 1. Final list of participants of the ―Value Network‖; 2. Date of the Encounter

The objective of phases 1.1 and 1.2 is to define the value proposal through two different and sequencial steps. The first is realized through the definition and identification of a focal point (FP) for the network. In meetings between the designer and the client, the various alternatives for approaching the development of a new value proposal for a current or new service are discussed. Any approach would need to have a focal point based on which will be designated a value network. This point of the network can be a person, a position, a department or an organization, on a increasing scale of complexity for the application of the proposed method. In the following step (Phase 1.2), are mapped the members of the network that has the focal point defined as its epicenter. Due to the limitation to 4 hours of duration and based on research conducted by Rietzschel et al. (2006), the ideal number of participants in the dynamic

100

was set to 12. This constraint makes the mapping of the network also limited to about 12 points. The objective of phase 1.3 is to assure the realization of the dynamic, the confirmation of the date and the presence of the participants. 4.5.1.1 Identify the Participants in the Value Network The definition of the limits of the network and of its participants can be conducted from the perspective of the exchange of service-forservice and of the wicked problem. This – the wiked-problem – is essential for making the design process viable and for the creation of knowledge needed for innovation (BUCHANAN, 1992; CROSS, 2001; EDMAN, 2009; JAHNKE, 2009; JOHANSSON; WOODILLA, 2008; RYLANDER, 2009). This is essential, because the exchange of service-for-service is the first founding premise of the service-dominant logic (VARGO; LUSCH, 2004; VARGO; LUSCH, 2008). Thus, the participants of the network must be considered clients and suppliers of the service and the integration of each one of those defined can be determined quite imprecisely. In a certain way, the concept adopted is very close to the tool denominated ―Relationship Network‖ and is listed by Géraud Servin (2005). To conduct the mapping of this network, the concept given by Sampson and Froehle (2006) can be used through the questions: Who evaluates the performance of this participant in the real situation of the service? or Who decides if this participant will or will not be compensated? Based on these questions, using the focal point, it is possible to establish a ―snowballing‖ process to map the participants of the network being formed. The focal point of the network, as a profile of many other multiple ―spatialities‖ (DOURISH, 2006), will be established by the position of the entity that initiates the innovation process. This entity generally begins the effort because ―it hopes to obtain significant benefits by innovating‖ (BALDWIN ET AL., 2006).

101

4.5.2 Field Work In the stage denominated Field the definitions of the following phases and items were conducted: Table 17 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Items of the Field stage of the method Source: author. Phase

Objective

Participants

Tools

Results

2.1.1

Establish common understanding among the larger group

1. Moderator; 2. Participants (Large Group)

1. Map of the consensus obtained by the Large Group 1. Photo and/or Video (to be verified case by case)

2.1.2

Generate positive options for the subgroups

1. Moderator; 2. Participants (Sub-Groups)

1. Encounter; Presentation of the participants (without professional and educational backgrounds); 2. Presentation of biographic info relevant to the Value Network; 3. Journey Maps 4. Photo and/or Video (to be verified case by case) 1. Encounter; 2. Journey Maps Desired

2.1.3

Generate negative options for the subgroups

1. Moderator; 2. Participants (Sub-Groups)

1. Encounter; 2. Undesirable Journey Maps

2.2.1

Establish common understanding among the larger group of the scenarios

1. Moderator; 2. Participants (large Group)

2. Encounter; 3. Multimodal Presentations (Subgroup: Combination A) a. Conceptual Maps b. Images c. Theater

1. Photo and/or Video (to be verified case by case); 2. Map of each Sub-Group illustrating: a. Positive Scenario b. Real case 1. Photo and or Video (to be verified case by case); 2. Mapof each Sub-Group illustrating: a. Negative Scenario b. Real Case 1. Photo and or Video (to be verified case by case);

102

d. Stories/ Narratives and Analogies 1. Encounter; 2. Small snack

2.2.2

Establish common understanding among the larger group

1. Moderator; 2. Participants (Large Group)

2.3.1

Evaluate the alternatives Sub-Groups

1. Moderator; 2. Participants (Sub-Groups)

1. Encounter 2. List of Items for Evaluation 3. Journey Map

2.3.2

Consolidate the alternatives – Large Group

1. Moderator; 2. Participants (Large Group)

2.4.1

Induce post factu reflection Register the reflection

1. Moderator; 2. Each Participant; 1. Designer; 2. Each Participant

1. Encounter 2. Journey Map 3. Multimodal Presentation: a. Conceptual Maps b. Images c. Theater d. Stories/ Narratives and Analogies Prepare ―task‖ to be realized after a determined period Message with ―task‖ (sent by the Moderator after the determined period)

2.4.2

1. Photo and or Video (to be verified case by case);

1. List of Items for evaluation (all the groups evaluate the other groups: positive and negative highlights) 2. Map of Consensus of the Sub-Group 1. Photo and or Video (to be verified case by case); 2. Map of Consensus of the LargeGroup 1. Edit the ―task‖

1. Consultants send the ―task‖ 2. Participant conducts the ―task‖ 3. Participant returns the ―task‖ to the Consultants

As can be seen in Figure 7, the Field stage begins with phase 2.1.1.

103

Legend PF: Focal Point P1...Pn: Participants CP: Positive Scenario CN: Negative Scenario

Figure 7 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Phases of the Pre-Field and Field Stage of the method Source: author.

104

The first phase of the Field Stage has as its objective to develop an understanding among the large-group (all of the participants in the dynamic) concerning the group itself and the value network in which they are connected. This understanding is constructed in steps and has a certain proximity to the tool called ―Lessons Learned‖ listed by Géraud Servin (2005). The first is the presentation of each participant to the group. This takes place without the participants being authorized to mention information about their professional activity and academic backgrounds (WARR; O'NEILL, 2005). The second involves the sharing of personal presentations during the joint preparation of a conceptual map about the service provision being studied. The objective is to create a space for socialization of knowledge, exercising various conditions exposed in ―2.3.1.2 Necessary Conditions.‖ The list below presents some of these conditions and the treatments proposed by the model (in a non-exhaustive list):  

 

Necessary Diversity: the participants have various academic and professional origins; Dialog: the participants present themselves in open dialog, which is subjective and by sharing their personal experiences. In doing so, they are instructed to not indicate their professional activity, or their educational background; Dialectics: the person responsible for moderating the dynamic must accept conflict, contradictions and dualities; Creative chaos: the very selection of the participants should allow the interaction between the various members of the value network. The purposeful lack of clear guidelines about the tasks encourages discussion and gives space to creative solutions; Redundancy: the intentional overlapping of information is generated by dividing the large group into various subgroups with the same task; Love, affection, trust and commitment: the purposeful lack of clear guidelines about the tasks that the large group, the sub-groups and each participant need to conduct require the sharing of knowledge, in particular, tacit knowledge, and in this way knowledge is created.

105

The person responsible for the moderation must encourage the participants to feel safe to act. This phase lasts approximately 60 minutes, with 20 minutes for the presentation and 40 minutes for the preparation of the conceptual map. It is concluded after 60 minutes, even if the material is not completed. The determination of the duration of these and of the other steps, was based on research conducted by Rietzschel et al. (2006) in which were adopted 60-minute periods subdivided or not by identical time intervals. Phase 2.1.2 is initiated with the division of a large group into subgroups of 3 people each. The decision to divide the large-group and cumulatively create a nominal sequence of tasks, is based on the work of Rietzschel et ali (2006). The sub-groups should prepare new conceptual maps about positive scenarios in providing service in the study. This phase lasts 15 minutes. Phase 2.1.3 comes next. In this phase the sub-groups should prepare new conceptual maps about negative scenarios in service providing in the study. In both cases, the definition of the positive or negative scenario should remain ―weak‖ to allow the installation of the condition ―creative chaos.‖ This phase lasts nearly 15 minutes. Phases ―2.1.2 Generate positive alternatives by the sub-groups‖ and ―2.1.3 Generate negative alternatives by the sub-groups‖ were prepared to energize the following processes through the generation (STEMPFLE; BADKE-SCHAUB, 2002) of divergent alternatives (BROWN, 2008b): (a) Creation of knowledge through exploration of antithetical contexts (NONAKA; TOYAMA, 2003) and explicit-explicit combination; (b) Expansion of the spaces of problem and solution; (c) Conversion of tacit-tacit and tacit-explicit knowledge; The routines proposed include techniques for the use of multimodal images, by both the sub-groups (phases 2.1.2 and 2.1.3) and by the large-group (phases 2.2.1 and 2.2.2). In the latter are conducted the presentations to the large-group, by representatives of the largegroups, of the material prepared in the immediately previous phases. Through these phases, a socialization is constructed and promotes the combination of knowledge concerning the service provision in study.

106

In this step takes place the inflection of the first diamond in the model proposed by the Design Council (Design Council 2007a). It passes from a discovery stage, for becoming aware, to one for definition, comparison, combination and convergence. In Phase 2.2.1 each sub-group presents two scenarios to the large group. Finally, the sub-groups are disbanded and the person responsible for the research collects the material produced. This phase lasts approximately 30 minutes. The duration of phases 2.1.1, 2.1.3 and 2.2.1 may vary. The total time for the phases can be 60 minutes. In Phase 2.2.2 an interval of 20 minutes is taken. The participants can go to a table with a small snack, which should be available throughout the dynamic. Phase 2.3.1 is initiated with a new division of the large group into sub-groups of 4 people each. Each sub-group should prepare a list of strong points and another of weak points about the service provision being studied. Once again, the definition of strong points or weak points should not be too specific. Moreover, a certain degree of imprecision is sought here in terms of the strong and weak points, This is so that in the first half of the route to the final peak of the first diamond, a ―creative chaos‖ is maintained. Therefore, the sub-groups cannot remain the same as in phases 2.1.2 and 2.1.3. This also reinforces the socialization and combination of knowledge. For the lists of items, a more precise approach is suggested, adopting narratives that adhere better to the analytical process needed in the phase in question. This tension between a multiple origin and a convergent destination is the principal quality of these definition phases. This phase should last about 20 minutes. Table 18 – Duration of each phase Source: author. Stages PreField Field

Phases 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.3.1 2.3.2

Description Define the value proposal Define the value network Invite participants Align understanding of the large-group Generate positive alternatives for the sub-groups Generate negative alternatives for the sub-groups Develop common understanding of the large group about the scenarios Align the understanding of the large group Evaluate the alternatives - Sub-Groups Consolidate the alternatives – Large Group

Duration (min.) Not determ. Not determ. Not determ. 60 15 15 30 20 20 20

107

PostField

2.4.1 2.4.2 3.1 3.2 4.1

Induce post factu reflection Register the reflection Conduct - Analysis Conduct - Synthesis Deliver

10 Not determ. Not determ. Not determ. Not determ.

In Phase 2.3.2, presented in Figure 8, the large group is formed again to align a new common understanding among all of the participants in the dynamic about the value network in which they are connected and the new value proposal for the service provision in study. This alignment is also constructed either in steps or in a nominal form or interactively in order to â&#x20AC;&#x2022;generate better quality solutionsâ&#x20AC;&#x2013; (RIETZSCHEL ET AL., 2006, p. 250). The first is the presentation of the lists of each sub-group produced. The second involves new sharing of personal reports in an attempt to consolidate knowledge about the service providing being studied. This phase for the attempt to construct consensus lasts approximately 20 minutes. It is ended after this time even if a conclusion is not reached. In phase 2.4.1 participants are asked to prepare a message in the form of a question or instruction to themselves. This message is held by the moderator of the dynamic to be sent later. The solution and practice for the internalization phases - in which the knowledge systematized is converted into tacit knowledge and begins a new knowledge creation cycle - occurs through the use of a resource presented in the Service Design workshops promoted by Design Continuum, Inc. In sum, the solution created by this company is based on the messages from the workshop participants. After a defined period, each message is sent back by the company to the person who wrote it. This provokes reflection by the participant, so that he or she reconnects to the context of the dynamic, and captures possible knowledge created post factu.

108

Legend PF: Focal Point P1...Pn: Participants PP: Positive Points PN: Negative Points TP1…TPn: Participant Task

Figure 8 – Field and Post Field stages of the method Source: author.

109

After the distancing period, determined in a casuistic manner, phase 2.4.2 is conducted in three steps: (a) Message is sent to the original writer (see example of message sent in Annex XIV – Message sent of reflection on Phase 2.4.2); (b) Warning message sent of the conclusion of the period for valid return (Annex XV – Communication sent to the participants Phase 2.4.2); (c) Reception of the messages of return with the text of the respective reflection (see Annex XVI - Reflections sent by the Participants - Phase 2.4.2). The knowledge collected is selected, combined and processed to form more complex sets of explicit knowledge. With a greater definition of the spaces of problem and solution, it is possible to proceed to the interpretations and analyses. The needs of the Project and of the user begin to be aligned with some of the objectives of the business. In an ideal situation, the entire dynamic can be recorded in video and all of the material produced by the participants collected by the team responsible for the research. 4.5.3 Post-Field Work In the Post-Field stage the development and delivery through the definitions of the following phases and items are conducted: Table 19 – Items of the Post-Field stage Source: author. Phase

Objective

3.1

Conduct Analysis

Participants

Tools

Results

1. Consultants

1. Encounter 2. Information collected: a. List of items prepared by subgroups b. Photos and/or Videos (to be verified case-bycase c. Journey Maps

1. Initial proposal of new value proposal 2. New proposal for business model

110

3.2

Conduct Synthesis

4.1

Deliver

1. Consultants 2. Clients (Decision maker)

d. Conceptual maps e. Service Wallchart f. Touchpoints g. Tasks realized by the Participants 1. Encounter 2. Multimodal Presentation 3. Journey Map

1. Encounter 2. Final Report

1. Proposal of the value proposal â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Revised 2. Proposal of the business model - Revised 1. Proposal of the value proposal - Final 2. Proposal of the business model - Final

It is in the Post-Field Phase that the Service Design team effectively develops the new value proposal for the service provision being studied. The proposed method indicates phases in this stage, only to guide the interaction with the beginning of this type of work. The specific objective of the method proposed in this study is to agilely collect qualitative information, making it explicit in formats suitable to the design work inherent to a new service development process. The phases of the Post-Field stage require greater study and research at future opportunities. 4.6 Registers Generated by the Method The set of possible material resulting from the application of the method is composed, at a minimum by the following: Table 20 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Possible registers Source: author. Type Conceptual Map Multimodal images

Description Conceptual map about the service provision being studied by the large group. Multimodal images prepared by the sub-groups portraying two positive and two negative scenarios about the service provision being studied. Each pair of scenarios allows portraying a real situation and

Phase 2.1.1

2.1.2 and 2.1.3

Quant. 01

4 per subgroup

111

another ideal one, both positive as well as negative. List of factors

Messages with reflections Return messages

List of positive and negative factors defined by the knowledge sharing that occurs during the dynamic about the service provision in study. The messages generated by the participants with questions, reflections and or instructions. The messages of return with the texts of the reflections prepared by the participants.

2.3.1

2 per subgroup

2.4.1

1 per participant

2.4.2

1 per participant

From some of the work of Simonton (1997; 1999; 2010), it is possible to justify that, for the method to generate records of "quality", records must be produced in "quantity". According to Simonton (1997, p. 73): â&#x20AC;&#x2022;Quality is then a probabilistic function of quantityâ&#x20AC;&#x2013;. Simply to illustrate the quantity of possible material to be produced through the application of the method, a situation can be considered in which twelve people are invited to participate in the dynamic. At first they would be divided in four groups in (phases 2.1.2 and 2.1.3), and then in three groups (in phase 2.3.1). This would lead to the production of the following quantity of material: 1 conceptual map, 16 multimodal registrations (positive and negative, real and ideal), 6 lists of factors (positive and negative), 12 reflection messages and 12 return messages. This leaves a total of 47 registrations about the experiences and expectations of the participants about the service in analysis. 4.7 Summary of the Proposed Method As illustrated in Figure 9, the method proposed is divided into three stages: pre-field, field and post-field. In the first, through the mapping and investigation of the value network related to the service in study, clients and servers are defined and invited to participate in a dynamic that takes place in the second step. During the dynamic, various multimodal registrations are produced about the experiences and expectations of the participants in relation to the service in study. At the end, each participant prepares a reflection or question for himself. This last register, like the others, is sent to the

112

organizers of the dynamic. A few days later, a message with the question is sent back to each participant who is asked to respond to it, thus concluding this step of the application of the dynamic. In the third step, the designers of the service, supplied with the information collected previously, proceed to the effective design of a new value proposal for the service in study. In summary, the proposed method consists in the application of a group dynamic that, through the use of multimodal images, allows the agile collection of qualitative information about a given service. This information becomes inputs for the initial period of the process of development of new services.

113

This stage includes the phases of Defining the Value Proposal (1.1), Defining the Value Network (1.2) and Inviting Participants (1.3).

The Field stage includes the phases of: • Seeing that the large group has a common understanding (2.1.1); • Generating Positive and Negative Alternatives (2.1.2) (2.1.3) by the Sub-Groups; • Aligning the Understanding of the Large Group (2.2.1) and Interval/Snack(2.2.2); • Evaluating the Alternatives – Sub-Groups (2.3.1); • Consolidating the Alternatives – Large -Group (2.3.2); • Inducing post factu reflection (2.4.1); • Registering individual reflections (2.4.2). The Post-Field includes the phases: • Dev. - Analysis (3.1) and Dev. – Synthesis (3.2) and • Deliver (4.1).

Figure 9 – Summary of the Proposed Method. Source: author.

114

115

5 DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS This chapter describes and discusses the results obtained through the application of the proposed method. To do so, it analyzes the results obtained from its application. Considerations are also made about the incongruences between the expectations and the effective development of the application. Of the specific objectives established for this study, the third specific objective (1.3.2.c) is considered in this chapter and, the results are presented in the documents in Annex. 5.1 Application of the Proposed Method The point of entrance adopted for this study, according to the model of the research design proposed by Peffers et al. (2007), was that of the Client/Context. That is, the motivation for the study presented in this dissertation arose from the observation of a group of routines that presents certain results for a given context. March and Smith (1995) and Järvinen (2007) affirm that in cases of science-design, the first construction of an artifact (a new construct, model, method or instantiation) can be considered a valid scientific contribution for the researchers and practitionners that act in the cognitive field defined by the new services development routines. In the case of the method proposed in this study ―the effective evaluation of the performance is not necessary in this stage,‖ according to March and Smith (1995). The analysis of the context defined was realized through a review of the pertinent literature and the attendance at a conference in Protugal promoted by the Service Deisgn Network in October 2009. During that conference it was possible to participate in several discussion groups and in a group dynamic35, which had as a theme a routine for innovation in service offerings. This collection of academic and practical information allowed the demonstration of this study to maintain a certain level of coherence with the original contexts of the routines adopted by service design practitionners for the development of new services. Below, each step and its phases are detailed. 35

The group dynamic referred to took place on Oct. 27, 2009, during the Service Design Network Conference, in Funchal, on Madeira Island, Portugal. The title of the dynamic was ―Design Thinking | A Service Design Workshop‖ and was presented by the professionals Craig LaRosa and Jon Campbell of the company Design Continuun, Inc. This company is located in Boston, (MA, USA). More information can be found at:http://www.dcontinuum.com/content/designthinking_workshop.php

116

5.1.1 Initiation of the Discovery and Socialization in the Pre-Field Phases 1.1 and 1.2 – for Activity 4 of the DSRM (PEFFERS ET AL., 2007) were defined by their application at the Reference Service of the University Library at the Federal University at Santa Catarina (UFSC). This context was chosen because of its knowledge intensive quality and as a consequence, because it adheres to the concepts emphasized by the Graduate Program in Knowledge Management of UFSC. Participants were selected based on the following criteria: (a) That they are members of the academic community at UFSC in the roles of : a. Professors; b. Technical Employees of the Library; c. Undergraduate Students; d. Graduate Students; (b) Attended the UFSC library in the 12 months before the study; (c) Have 4 hours available on the day the study will be conducted. Because the proposed method fits into a design process, a definition of the problem was not sought at the beginning. Both the possible problems – such as a space problem – as well as the possible solutions – such as a space solution – took place at the same time during the process. 5.1.2 Conclusion of the Discovery and Socialization in the Pre-Field Phase 1.3 – As a result of the definitions presented in ―4.5.1.1 Identify the Participants of the Value Network,‖ the list of participants was defined as follows: Table 21 - List of participants Source: author. Nº Profile Undergraduate Lib. employee Library Sciences 1 Doctoral cand. Industrial Engineering 2 Lib. employee Library Sciences 3 Lib. employee Library Sciences 4 Master‘s cand. Library Sciences 5

Graduate Computing UFSC PPEGC-UFSC PPEGC-UFSC Not informed Computing UFSC

117

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Lib.employee Master‘s cand. Not informed Not informed Master‘s cand. Undergrad Doctoral cand.

Not informed Not informed Not informed Not informed Library Sciences Production Engineering Art Education

Not informed Not informed Not informed Not informed Computing UFSC Design – UFSC

As a function of the availability of the twelve participants, the date of May 18, 2010 from 2 – 6 pm was defined to conduct the encounter. 5.1.3 Discovery and Socializing in the Field Phase 2.1.1 – The demonstration took place in the form of a dynamic group with the same characteristics as the original context identified in the Service Design routines, while adopting a sequence of stages guided by the theoretical support established in the review of the literature. The dynamic was conducted in the library auditorium on May 18, 2010 from 2 – 6 pm. The main result of this phase, in terms of explicit knowledge, was the preparation by the large group of the first conceptual map about the service being studied (see Annex II - Large-Group - Register Phase 2.1.1). By focusing on the externalization of the knowledge of the participants (in the form of a conceptual map), it was possible to establish an initial consensus about the service being studied. The practice took place properly and as planned. Questions arose about the precise objectives of the tasks which, due to the theoretical foundation about the necessary conditions for the creation of knowledge, were defined only in a weak form in a way to allow the occurrence of the ―creative chaos‖, as one example. 5.1.4 From Discovery and Externalization to Definition and Combination In these steps, the twelve participants were sometimes divided into three groups, sometimes in groups of four individuals. These divisions into different groups with different amounts of participants aims to switch the compositions of the sub-groups to promote a greater socialization of knowledge.

118

The main result of these phases, in terms of explicit knowledge, is the preparation by the sub-groups of multimodal representations, portraying negative and positive scenarios about the provision of the service being studied (see Annex III - Sub-Group 01a - Register Phase 2.1.2 Annex X - Sub-Group 04 - Register Phase 2.1.3). Once again, phases 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 occurred as planned with the rise of fewer questions and doubts about the proposed tasks. Nevertheless, despite the weak limitations concerning the possibilities for execution of the tasks (which theoretically should provide greater freedom of action to the participants), all of the groups except one used only textual representations and flow charts to register the proposed schemes. With the exception of the group mentioned and their registers (Annex VIII - Sub-Group 03a - Register Phase 2.1.2), alternative manifestations such as enactments were not registered. 5.1.5 Conclusion of the Definition and Combination in the Field Phases 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 – The main result of these phases, in terms of explicit knowledge, is the preparation by the sub-groups of the two lists of the positive and negative factors defined, based on the knowledge sharing that occurred during the dynamic about the service provision in study. (Annex XIII - Sub-Group 03B - Register Phase 2.3.1). With the objective of stimulating greater socialization and to maintain the creative chaos, the composition of the sub-groups was altered. Once again, the phases took place as planned. There were more questions and doubts about the proposed tasks than in the previous phases. Meanwhile, it was clear that the participants‘ level of knowledge about the service provision in study had increased, which may have impeded a quick and superficial production of positive and negative concepts about the object. 5.1.6 Definition and Internalization Phases 2.4.1 and 2 .4.2 – In phase 2.4.1 the participants were instructed to prepare a question or reflection about all the information acquired about the service provision in study. The texts produced were collected by the Designer. The following table presents these texts.

119

Table 22 - Texts of reflections and questions Source: author. Participant Question What can be done to improve the signage at the 1 university library? Identify the key processes of a library, or that is the 2 flow of aggregation of value of the organization and the products of the library. 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

What would be a mental map of the needs of from a user‘s perspective? Levels of need of the user? What is the level of information (capacity) the people who work in reception must have to filter the users‘ needs? How am I going to improve my autonomy in the library? What are the users‘ needs? What do they look for in the library? How can signage at the library be improved? How can the signage be improved? Why don‘t the library users know about the services (or most of them)? How can the different users be classified for the services offered by the university library? What were the innovative factors that were proposed by the groups? Does every design process involve innovation?

Messages were sent to each participant eight days after the realization of the dynamic (on May 26, 2010). A message was sent to all the participants warning them about the deadline to return the messages, at the beginning of the morning of the last day of the deadline. This communication also indicated the fact that the messages received after the conclusion of the period would not be considered valid. The return of the messages took place as indicated in the table below:

120 Table 23 â&#x20AC;&#x201C;Return of the reflections Source: author. Participant Date Sent May 26, 2010 1 May 26, 2010 2 May 26, 2010 3 May 26, 2010 4 May 26, 2010 5 May 26, 2010 6 May 26, 2010 7 May 26, 2010 8 May 26, 2010 9 May 26, 2010 10 May 26, 2010 11 May 26, 2010 12

Date of Return May 26, 2010 May 27, 2010 May 28, 2010 Not returned May 27, 2010 Not returned May 28, 2010 Not returned Not returned May 26, 2010 Not returned May 28, 2010

These messages, together with the other materials produced, were sent to the Post-Field stage for the processes of comparison, development, analysis and selection and synthesis. 5.1.7 Develop, Deliver, and Socializing Phases 3.1 - 4.1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; All of the material produced during the group dynamic is destined for the service design team. It is up to the service design team to generate the final value proposal to be approved by the decision makers responsible for the other stages in the development of the new service. 5.2 Evaluation of the Demonstration It is extremely difficult to apply rigorous evaluation methods in science design studies, according to Hevner et al. (2004). Nevertheless, the principal objective of the artifact to be developed by this study is to allow agile and qualitative collection of information about the provision of a given service. Thus, the concepts of agility, quality and efficacy are the parameters by which the artifact method must be evaluated. One way to evaluate the effectiveness of the artifact would be to conduct semistructured interviews to determine the perception of those involved of the three concepts established above.

121

The evaluation can also be based on a process of pragmatic validation, which is essentially the verification of whether the proposed artifact ―helps to guide the action to achieve the defined objectives.‖ (WORREN ET AL., 2002). The pragmatic validation of the artifact indicates, in principle, that it assists in achieving the objectives proposed in item ―4.3.1 The Objectives .‖ The material produced presents qualitative information that is helpful to the service innovation process. One of the foundations of the method, its agility, allows the collection of 24 qualitative registers about the service provision under study in a dynamic of less than four hours. 5.2.1 Partial Analysis of the Textual Registrations Although this dissertation is focused on the research of the proposal of a method for collecting qualitative data aimed at energizing (NONAKA; TOYAMA, 2005) the service design process, a brief quantitative analysis about the occurrence of certain terms in the texts produced during the dynamic would be helpful. In the text registers resulting from Field phase 2.3.1, of a universe of 42 items cited, the eight concepts with greatest occurrence are (with a total of 32 occurrences) indicated in Table 24. Table 24 – Analysis of Phase 2.3.1 Source: author. Concepts Expressions Lockers Hours Employees

Services

Layout

• • • • • • • • • • • •

Have sufficient lockers; Locker key Hours; Expand hours; Employees; Lack of personnel; Level of information of employees; Identify key processes; Remote access; Ignorance of the services; Layout Entrance/Exit; Return at the entrance;

No. of Occurrences 02 02 03

122

Reception

Users

Signage

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Return on the 1st floor; Loan desk Service desk; Information desk; Trained reception; Incorrect information at reception; Education of the user; Autonomous users; Make the user autonomous; Train users; Classify users; User needs; Signage; Signage; Clear signage; Access signage; Good signage; LCD (informative); Improve signage; Improve signage;

Based only on the analysis of two of the possible 36 document registers, a few lines of investigation can be deduced for the service design team. The perception that the concept of ―Signage‖ presents eight occurrences, within a universe of the items cited (nearly 19% of the registrations) indicates an effective possibility for action for improvement or innovation in the library environment. The second highest occurrence points to the lack of knowledge among users about the services and the potentialities of the library studied. An action aimed at improving the information about the library and its services must be considered. It should be emphasized that the following items, ―Layout‖ and ―Reception Desk‖ with four occurrences each, are inter-related. These, combined with the first two, allow a clear overview of the work for a Service Design team. 5.2.2 Identification of the Problems There are situations in which the execution does not correspond to the expectations. Although they did not impede the collection of

123

qualitative information about the service, they raise important questions. These are: (a) Phases 2.1.1: the evaluation of the material produced indicates that the participants establish a consensus about the principal characteristics of the service provision in study, on the first map. On the others, there was an exploration and analysis of alternatives for a scenario that had already been constructed. The study about techniques and tools that allow deconstructing this first consensus can help to improve the proposed method. (b) Phases 2.1.2 and 2.1.3: the method does not require the participants to use alternative forms of representation (multimodal images). The application wound up demonstrating a trend among all the groups to present the ideas in the form of flow charts or texts (itemized lists). One group did make ―designs.‖ This, in a certain way, restricted the possibility of having more creative insights, given that the use of multimodal communication allows the explanation of crucial concepts for the learning and resolution of a problem (WORREN ET AL., 2002). (c) Phases 2.3.2: at the beginning of the application, before the participants could know more about what they intended to do and about the service in study, a map was constructed representing the client‘s work. This was done quickly and easily. When, at the conclusion, they tried to reconstruct the map, the participants were not able to establish a consensus about it. It appears that the bounded rationality phenomenon occurred, as explained by Dasgupta (2003), based on the work of Simon,36 who said that the ―decision maker lives in a given environment and its behavior is adapted to the established limits.‖ In other words, after the individuals acquired knowledge about the service, the complexity of the negotiation of different points of view made it difficult to reach consensus. (d) Phase 2.4.2: of the twelve participants, seven (58.33%) returned their reflections in the proper time. The analysis of the reflections obtained indicated their consistency with the proposals sketched for the phase. In a future study, the study 36

Simon, H. A. (1982). Models of Bounded Rationality (Vol. 2). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

124

of the tools and strategies that can increase the rate of return of the participants could improve the method proposed. 5.2.3 Inferences of Possible Solutions Stevens and Dimitriadis (2004), upon commenting on the work produced in 1994 by Nonaka, 37 highlight the relationship between the development of new products and the learning process. On page 1,075, they write that […] ―it is because teams produce new inferences that they are able to create new products.‖ In detail, it is through production, testing and adjusting of the representations done that it is possible to reach a result that corresponds to the expectations of the new products development participants. This, in other words, describes a process similar to the design's one. Thus, as an initial evaluation of the application, the following possible alterations for the method were registered: (a) Give priority to using multimodal representation methods in Phases 2.1.2 and 2.1.3; (b) Alter Phase 2.3.1 to allow the deconstruction of consensus about the first map; (c) Alter Phase 2.3.2 to one of the possible situations described below: 1. Eliminate it and go directly to step 2.4.1; 2. Instead of creating a new consensus map, simply return to the first one and add observations to it; 3. Use alternative techniques to construct consensus.

Nonaka I. The Dynamic Theory of Organisational Knowledge Creation. Organ Sci 1994 February;5:14–37.

125

6 CONCLUSIONS Design research, understood as a study in which a space problem and a space solution evolve together, presents characteristics that impede the application of rigorous evaluation methods (HEVNER ET AL., 2004). In this case, an evaluation can be based on a pragmatic validation process (WORREN ET AL., 2002) in relation to the satisfaction of the research question and objectives. This satisfaction can be established as being the final stage of a process through which one obtains ―one of the many possibilities for a satisfactory solution contrary to trying to generate a hypothetically ―excellent‖ solution (CROSS, 1982). One of the proposals for evaluation established by Purao et al. (2008) is precisely related to the satisfactory treatment of the research question, which in this case is closely related to the general objective. The general objective of proposing a method – based on the knowledge creation process and the design process – to begin the new services development process, based on interdisciplinary practices and theories, requires a combination and explanation of knowledge. The challenges determined by the specific objectives of identifying and articulating a body of literature, identifying the routines and verifying the method in a context of innovation in services helped to achieve this principal goal. As a result, the study created and added knowledge in the form of a body of literature and a proposed method that allows responding satisfactorily to the challenges proposed by this study. Chapter 2 sought to articulate this knowledge to create a basic theoretical foundation to support the enterprise represented by the general objective of this dissertation. As a consequence of the articulation of this theoretical base, the need arose to determine a research method in keeping with the interdisciplinary challenge of design science. This was proposed in chapter 3. Chapter 4 is where the design of the proposed method effectively took place as required by the general objective of this study. This proposal is the result of structured articulation in chapter 2 and is supported by the research method defined in chapter 3. The specific objective of identifying and organizing the reference literature was also addressed in chapter 4 to the degree to which the application of the research method demanded a systematized search of the literature. The application of the proposed method is described in chapter 5, where each one of its phases is addressed. The results obtained are

126

reported and the material produced by the participants during the dynamic are found in the annexes. Based on these registrations, it is possible to affirm that the method allows ―guiding the action to achieve the objectives‖ (WORREN ET AL., 2002) in a consistent manner. Nevertheless, as presented in this chapter, there are various opportunities for improvement that can be addressed in future studies. As can be seen in the document resulting from this study, the scope of the intersection between Service Design and Knowledge Management creates a space of explicit knowledge about the processes for creation of service concepts for innovation in services in organizations. Goldstein et al. (2002, p. 123) affirm: The service concept is a frequently used term in the service design and NSD literature, and indeed much of the above work recognizes, explicitly or implicitly, the importance of the service concept. However, surprisingly little has been written about this central issue in service design and development.

It is in keeping with this statement that this study intends to leave its collaboration for professionals and researchers in the cognitive field of innovation in services. The research about the processes through which new services and their proposals for innovative value ―occur‖ (MENOR ET AL., 2002) represents a promising field of study both academically and professionally. 6.1 Communication of the Research The communication of the design-research – in this case in the form of this dissertation - is the principal result of the sixth activity of the DSRM. The presentation (i) of the problem and its importance for the given context, (ii) for the artifact generated, its utility and novelty, (iii) and the rigor with which its design process was executed are the fundamental factors for the correct registration of design-research (PEFFERS ET AL., 2007). 6.2 Limitations of the study The principal objective of the artifact proposed by this study is to permit the agile and qualitative collection of information about the

127

provision of a given service. Thus, the concepts of agility, quality and focus are the parameters used to evaluate the method, which is the artifact. Nevertheless, given the time limitations for this study, only one application of the method was conducted and highly detailed analyses of the material obtained in the dynamic were not conducted. Although March and Smith (1995) and Järvinen (2007) affirm that the first construction of an artifact can be considered a valid scientific contribution (Tradução do português para inglês as it is considered valuable or useful for a particular user community), an application in multiple contexts can accelerate the process of improving the method. In addition to various applications, the use of semi-structured interviews ante and post-factu with the participants can also collaborate to the questioning process and the development of the method. A more in-depth analysis of the material produced by the participants can also reveal opportunities for improvement. Both quantitative analyses of the occurrence of certain words, of the use or lack of multimodal images, and qualitative analyses of the narratives adopted by the participants, represent potential contributions of knowledge to this study. These challenges remain for a future research cycle. 6.3 Recommendations for future study The recommendations for future studies, although there are many, are all focused on the development of the proposed method and can be grouped under the following themes: (a) Area of intersection: the approximation between the cognitive fields of knowledge management and service design was initiated in this study. More in-depth study in this area of intersection could: a. Articulate with greater structure a body of interdisciplinary literature that can serve as a foundation for future studies in this cognitive field; b. Based on the compilation of this knowledge, generate positive results for the competitive sustainable advantage of service organizations.

128

(b) Analysis of the material: as indicated above, the analysis of the material obtained through the application of the method presents a significant potential for contributing knowledge. The increase in the registration of the application and the variation of contexts would be sources of knowledge for the improvement and questioning of the method. (c) Multimodal images: a. As inferred in the sole application realized in this study, the use of multimodal images needs to be better studied. Both the better use of these resources by the proposed method, as well as the exploration of the various alternatives for existing multimodal representations and the quality of their results, must be better studied. b. The very communication of this study and of the proposed method needs to be investigated in order to use multimodal images for its promotion. The imagetic narrative of the method has potential for improvement through multimodal communication. (d) Post-field stage: this study concentrated on proposing a method for the qualitative and agile collection of information about the provision of a certain service. It did not have as an essential objective the study of postfield actions. In this stage, the potential for contribution can be even more significant than in the pre-field and in the field stages. One example is the development of a version of Service Blueprinting that could consider the question of creation and sharing of knowledge and the perspective of Unified Service Theory (SAMPSON and FROEHLE, 2006), which defines service as any productive process that receives inputs from the consumer. A tool that can register the inputs, the knowledge and abilities applied by a value network in a given service could help to increase the capacity for innovation in organizations. The final conclusion is that, despite all of the physical and intellectual effort invested in this study, there is still much to be done and just as much more to know.

129

REFERENCES

ABOELELA, S. W.; LARSON, E.; BAKKEN, S.; ET AL. Defining interdisciplinary research: conclusions from a critical review of the literature. Health services research, v. 42, n. 1 Pt 1, p. 329-46. John Wiley & Sons. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00621.x, 2007. ADAMS, R.; BESSANT, J.; PHELPS, R. Innovation management measurement: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, v. 8, n. 1, p. 21–47. John Wiley \& Sons, 2006. ALAM, I. Removing the fuzziness from the fuzzy front-end of service innovations through customer interactions. Industrial Marketing Management, v. 35, n. 4, p. 468-480. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.04.004, 2006. AMBROSINI, V.; BOWMAN, C. Tacit knowledge: Some suggestions for operationalization. Journal of Management Studies, v. 38, n. 6, p. 811–829, 2001. ANDRIANI, P.; HALL, R. Managing knowledge for innovation. Long Range Planning, Vol., v. 35pp, p. 29-48, 2002. ARANDA, D. A.; MOLINA-FERNÁNDEZ, L. M. Determinants of innovation through a knowledge-based theory lens. Industrial Management & Data Systems, v. 102, n. 5, p. 289-296. doi: 10.1108/02635570210428320, 2002. AXELROD, R.; COHEN, M. Harnessing complexity: Organizational implications of a scientific frontier. Basic Books, 2001. BALDWIN, C. Y.; CLARK, K. B. Between “ Knowledge ” and “ the Economy ”: Notes on the Scientific Study of Designs, SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF DESIGNS AUGUST. p.1-41, 2005. BALDWIN, C. Y.; HIENERTH, C.; VON HIPPEL, E. How user innovations become commercial products: a theoretical investigation

130

and case study. Research Policy, v. 35, n. 9, p. 1291â&#x20AC;&#x201C;1313. Elsevier, 2006. BECKMAN, S.; BARRY, M. Innovation as a Learning Process: Embedding Design Thinking. California Management Review, v. 50, n. 1, p. 25. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, 2007. BERRY, L. L.; SHANKAR, V.; PARISH, J.; CADWALLADER, S.; DOTZEL, T. Creating new markets through service innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review. SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW ASSOCIATION, 2006. BETTENCOURT, L. A.; ULWICK, A. W. The customer-centered innovation map. Harvard business review, v. 86, n. 5, p. 109-14, 130, 2008. BHATT, G. D. Knowledge management in organizations: examining the interaction between technologies, techniques, and people. Journal of Knowledge Management, v. 5, n. 1, p. 68-75. doi: 10.1108/13673270110384419, 2001. BITNER, M. J.; BROWN, S. W. The evolution and discovery of services science in business schools. Services Science, v. 49, n. 7, p. 7378, 2006. BITNER, M. J.; BROWN, S. W. The service imperative. Business Horizons, v. 51, p. 39-46, 2008. BITNER, M. J.; OSTROM, A. L.; MORGAN, F. N. Service blueprinting: A practical technique for service innovation. California Management Review, v. 50, n. 3, p. 66-95, 2008. BJO, J.; MAGNUSSON, M. Where Do Good Innovation Ideas Come From? Exploring the Influence of Network Connectivity on Innovation Idea Quality. J PROD INNOV MANAG, v. 26, p. 662-670, 2009. BLAZEVIC, V.; LIEVENS, V. Learning during the new financial service innovation process Antecedents and performance effects.

131

Journal of Business Research, v. 10.101016/S0148-2963(02)00272-2, 2004.

57,

374-391.

doi:

BOLAND, R.; COLLOPY, F. Design matters for management. Managing as designing, p. 3–18. Stanford, California: Stanford Business Books, 2004. BROWN, T. Design thinking. Harvard business review, v. 86, n. 6, p. 84-92, 141, 2008. BROWN, T. What does design thinking feel like? Design Thinking Página. Retrieved from http://designthinking.ideo.com/?p=51/ 22/05/2010, 2008. BRUGNOLI, G. Connecting the Dots of User Experience.The design of an interaction system: a tool to analyse and design the user experience. JOURNAL OF INFORMATION ARCHITECTURE, v. 1, n. 1, p. 615, 2009. BUCHANAN, R. Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, v. 8, n. 2, p. 5–21. MIT Press, 1992. BULLINGER, H. Service engineering—methodical development of new service products. International Journal of Production Economics, v. 85, n. 3, p. 275-287. doi: 10.1016/S09255273(03)00116-6, 2003. BURGI, P.; ROOS, J. Images of Strategy. European Management Journal, v. 21, n. 1, p. 69-78. Wiley-Blackwell. doi: 10.1016/S02632373(02)00153-6, 2003. CAMPBELL, D. T. Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological review, v. 67, n. 6, p. 380-400, 1960. CARBONELL, P.; RODRIGUEZ-ESCUDERO, A. I.; PUJARI, D. Customer Involvement in New Service Development: An Examination of Antecedents and Outcomes. J PROD INNOV MANAG, v. 26, p. 536-550, 2009.

132

CAUTELA, C.; RIZZO, F.; ZURLO, F. Service design logic. An approach based on different service categories. Design, p. 4317-4326, 2009. CAVUSGIL, S.; CALANTONE, R.; ZHAO, Y. Tacit knowledge transfer and firm innovation capability. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, v. 18, n. 1, p. 6–21. Emerald, 60/62 Toller Lane, Bradford, West Yorkshire, BD 8 9 BY, UK,. doi: 10.1108/08858620310458615, 2003. CHECKLAND, P.; HOLWELL, S. Action Research: Its Nature and Validity. Systemic Practice and Action Research, v. 11, n. 1, p. 9-21, 1998. CHESBROUGH, H.; SPOHRER, J. A research manifesto for services science. Communications of the ACM, v. 49, n. 7, p. 40. ACM, 2006. COOK, L.; BOWEN, D.; CHASE, R.; ET AL. Human issues in service design. Journal of Operations Management, v. 20, n. 2, p. 159–174. Elsevier, 2002. COYNE, R. Wicked problems revisited. Design Studies, v. 26, n. 1, p. 5–17. Elsevier, 2005. CROSS, N. Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, v. 3, n. 4, p. 221-227. MIT Press. doi: 10.1016/0142-694X(82)90040-0, 1982. CROSS, N. Designerly ways of knowing: design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, v. 17, n. 3, p. 49–55. MIT Press, 2001. CROSS, N. Understanding Design Cognition. In: Designerly Ways of Knowing. p.77-93. London: Springer. doi: 10.1007/1-84628-301-9_6, 2001. DASGUPTA, S. Multidisciplinary creativity: the case of Herbert A. Simon. Cognitive Science, v. 27, n. 5, p. 683-707. doi: 10.1016/S03640213(03)00063-6, 2003.

133

DAY, G. S. Creating a superior customer-relating capability. MIT Sloan Management Review, v. 44, n. 3, 2003. DESIGN COUNCIL. A study of the design process. . London, 2007. DESIGN COUNCIL. Eleven lessons: managing design in eleven global companies. Desk research report. . London: Design Council, 2007. DEW, N.; READ, S.; SARASVATHY, S. D.; WILTBANK, R. Outlines of a behavioral theory of the entrepreneurial firm. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, v. 66, n. 1, p. 37-59. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2006.10.008, 2008. DORST, K. Design problems and design paradoxes. Design issues, v. 22, n. 3, p. 4. MIT Press, 2006. DORST, K.; CROSS, N. Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies, v. 22, n. 5, p. 425-437. doi: 10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6, 2001. DOURISH, P. Re-Space-ing Place : ―Place‖ and ―Space‖ Ten Years On. In: CSCW'06, November 4–8. Anais... . p.299-308. Banff, Alberta, Canada., 2006. DREJER, I. Identifying innovation in surveys of services: a Schumpeterian perspective. Research Policy, v. 33, n. 3, p. 551–562. Elsevier, 2004. DROEGE, H.; HILDEBRAND, D.; FORCADA, M. A. Innovation in services: present findings, and future pathways. Journal of Service Management, v. 20, n. 2, p. 131-155. doi: 10.1108/09564230910952744, 2009. EDMAN, K. W. DESIGN METHODS FOR IMPROVED SERVICE INNOVATION. Business Economics, 2009. EDMAN, K. W. Design methods for improved service innovation. hgu.gu.se. University of Karlstad, 2009.

134

EDMAN, K. W. Exploring Overlaps and Differences in Service Dominant Logic and Design. designforskning.no, 2009. EDVARDSSON, B.; GUSTAFSSON, A.; ROOS, I. Service portraits in service research: a critical review. International Journal of Service Industry Management, v. 16, n. 1, p. 107–121. Emerald, 60/62 Toller Lane, Bradford, West Yorkshire, BD 8 9 BY, UK, 2005. EKIONEA, J. B.; SWAIN, D. E. Developing and aligning a Knowledge Management strategy: Towards a Taxonomy and a Framework. International Journal of Knowledge Management, v. 4, n. 1, p. 2–4, 2008. FAGERBERG, J. Schumpeter and the revival of evolutionary economics: an appraisal of the literature. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, v. 13, n. 2, p. 125-159. doi: 10.1007/s00191-003-0144-1, 2003. FRANKE, N.; HIPPEL, E. V.; SCHREIER, M. Finding Commercially Attractive User Innovations: A Test of Lead-User Theory. of Product Innovation, v. 23, n. Fall 2004, p. 301-315, 2006. FRASER, H. The practice of breakthrough strategies by design. Journal of Business Strategy, v. 28, n. 4, p. 66–74. Emerald, 60/62 Toller Lane, Bradford, West Yorkshire, BD 8 9 BY, UK,. doi: 10.1108/02756660710760962, 2007. FROEHLE, C.; ROTH, A. E. A resource-process framework of new service development. Production and Operations Management, v. 16, n. 2, p. 169. POMS, 2007. GALLOUJ, F. Innovation in services and the attendant old and new myths. Journal of Socio-Economics, v. 31, p. 137-154, 2002. GIBBONS, M. Context-sensitive science. Science and Public Policy, v. 27, n. 3, p. 159-163, 2000. GIBBONS, M.; NOWOTNY, H.; SCOTT, P. Mode-2 Revisited. The New Production of Knowledge. Minerva, Bd, v. 41, p. 179-194, 2004.

135

GLUSHKO, R. Seven Contexts for Service System Design. In: P. P. Maglio; C. Kieliszewski; J. Spohrer; Handbook of Service Science. New York, USA: Springer, 2009. GOLDSTEIN, S.; JOHNSTON, R.; DUFFY, J.; RAO, J. The service concept: the missing link in service design research? Journal of Operations Management, v. 20, n. 2, p. 121–134. Elsevier, 2002. GREENHALGH, T.; ROBERT, G.; MACFARLANE, F.; ET AL. Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Social Science \& Medicine, v. 61, n. 2, p. 417–430. Elsevier, 2005. GRÖNROOS, C. Service logic revisited: who creates value? And who co-creates? European Business Review, v. 20, n. 4, p. 298-314. doi: 10.1108/09555340810886585, 2008. HALES, M.; TIDD, J. The practice of routines and representations in design and development. Industrial and Corporate Change, v. 18, n. 4, p. 551-574. doi: 10.1093/icc/dtp019, 2009. HATCHUEL, A. Towards Design Theory and Expandable Rationality : The Unfinished Program of Herbert. Journal of Accounting and Economics, p. 260-273, 2000. HATCHUEL, A.; WEIL, B. C-K design theory: an advanced formulation. Research in Engineering Design, v. 19, n. 4, p. 181-192. doi: 10.1007/s00163-008-0043-4, 2008. HENDRIKS, P.; VRIENS, D. Knowledge-based systems and knowledge management: friends or foes? Information & Management, v. 35, n. 2, p. 113–125. Elsevier, 1999. HEVNER, A.; MARCH, S.; PARK, J.; RAM, S. Design science in information systems research. Mis Quarterly, v. 28, n. 1, p. 75-105, 2004. HOLMLID, S. Interaction design and service design: Expanding a comparison of design disciplines. Nordes. Stockholm, 2007.

136

HOLMLID, S.; EVENSON, S. Bringing Service Design to Service Sciences, Management and Engineering. Service Science, Management and Engineering, , n. 2004, p. 2005-2005, 2008. HUUTONIEMI, K.; KLEIN, J.; BRUUN, H.; HUKKINEN, J. Analyzing interdisciplinarity: Typology and indicators. Research Policy, v. 39, p. 79-88. Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2009.09.011, 2009. ICHIJO, K.; NONAKA, I. Knowledge creation and management: New challenges for managers. p.1-336. Oxford University Press, USA, 2007. JAHNKE, M. Innovation Through Design Thinking. p.1-26. Gothenburg, 2009. JOHANSSON, U.; WOODILLA, J. Towards a better paradigmatic partnership between design and management. In: International DMI Education Conference, April. Anais... . p.14–15, 2008. JONES, M.; SAMALIONIS, F. From Small Ideas to Radical Service Innovation. Design Management Review, v. 19, n. 1, p. 20-27, 2008. JÄRVINEN, P. Action Research is Similar to Design Science. Quality & Quantity, v. 41, n. 1, p. 37-54. doi: 10.1007/s11135-005-5427-1, 2007. JÄRVINEN, P. Mapping Research Questions to Research Methods. In: IFIP International Federation for Information Processing. Anais... . v. 274, p.29-41, 2008. KEYS, P. Developing a Design Science for the Use of Problem Structuring Methods. Systemic Practice and Action Research, v. 20, n. 4, p. 333-349. doi: 10.1007/s11213-007-9066-4, 2007. KIM, W.; MAUBORGNE, R. Blue ocean strategy: How to create uncontested market space and make the competition irrelevant. p.1257. Harvard Business School Press, 2005.

137

KIMBELL, L. Beyond design thinking: Design-as-practice and designsin-practice. In: CRESC Conference, Manchester. Anais... . p.1-15, 2009. KIMBELL, L. The turn to Service Design. In: G. Julier; L. Moor; Design and Creativity: Policy, Management and Practice. p.157-173. Oxford, 2009. KIMBELL, L. Service-dominant logic and design for service. Touchpoint - The Journal of Service Design, v. 1, n. 3, p. 23-25, 2010. KRISTENSSON, P.; GUSTAFSSON, A.; ARCHER, T. Harnessing the creative potential among users. Journal of Product Innovation Management, v. 21, n. 1, p. 4–14. New York, NY: North-Holland, c1984-, 2004. KUHN, T. S. The structure of scientific revolutions. Third Edit ed., p.1-227. The University of Chicago Press, 1970. KUMAR, V.; WHITNEY, P. Daily life, not markets: customer-centered design. Journal of Business Strategy, v. 28, n. 4, p. 46-58. doi: 10.1108/02756660710760944, 2007. KUUSISTO, A. Customer role in service production and innovation – looking for directions for future research. , v. 7, 2008. LEIPONEN, A. Managing Knowledge for Innovation: The Case of Business-to-Business Services. Journal of Product Innovation Management, v. 23, n. 3, p. 238–258. John Wiley \& Sons, 2006. LEONARD, D. Market research in product development. In: K. Ichijo; I. Nonaka; Knowledge creation and management: new challenges for managers. p.146-157. Oxford University Press, USA, 2007. LEONARD, D.; RAYPORT, J. Spark innovation through empathic design. Harvard Business Review, v. 75, p. 102–115, 1997. LEVITT, T. Creativity is not enough. Harvard Business Review, v. 80, p. 137–144, 2002.

138

LINDAHL, M.; OLUNDH, G. The meaning of functional sales. In: Proceedings of 8th International Seminar on Life Cycle Engineering, Varna, Bulgaria. Anais... , 2001. LUSCH, R. F.; VARGO, S. L. Service-Dominant Logic – A Guiding Framework for Inbound Marketing. Marketing Review St. Gallen, v. 6, 2009. LUSCH, R. F.; VARGO, S. L.; O‘BRIEN, M. Competing Through Service: Insights from Service-Dominant Logic. Journal of Retailing, v. 83, n. 1, p. 5-18, 2007. LUSCH, R. F.; VARGO, S. L.; TANNIRU, M. Service, value networks and learning. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, v. 38, n. 1, p. 19-31. doi: 10.1007/s11747-008-0131-z, 2009. LUTHJE, C.; HERSTATT, C.; VON HIPPEL, E. User-innovators and ―local‖ information: The case of mountain biking. Research Policy, v. 34, n. 6, p. 951-965. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.005, 2005. MAFFEI, S.; MAGER, B.; SANGIORGI, D. Innovation Through Service Design–From Research and Theory to a Network of Practice. A User‘s Driven Perspective. Joining Forces, 2005. MAGER, B. Service design. In: M. Erlhoff; T. Marshall; Design Dictionary: Perspectives on Design Terminology. p.354-357. Birkhäuser Verlag AG. doi: 10.1007/978-3-7643-8140-0_244, 2008. MAGER, B. Service Design as an Emerging Field. In: S. Miettinen; M. Kivisto; Designing Services with Innovative Methods. Helsink: Helsinki Univesity of Art and Desig, 2009. MAGER, B.; EVENSON, S. Art of Service: Drawing the Arts to inform Service Design and Specification. In: B. Hefley; W. Murphy; Service Science, Management and Engineering Education for the 21st Century, Service Science: Research and Innovations in the Service Economy. p.75–76. Boston, MA: Springer US. doi: 10.1007/978-0-38776578-5, 2008.

139

MARCH, S.; SMITH, G. Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, v. 15, n. 4, p. 251– 266. Elsevier, 1995. MASSA, S.; TESTA, S. Innovation or imitation? Benchmarking: a knowledge-management process to innovate services. Benchmarking: An International Journal, v. 11, n. 6, p. 610-620. doi: 10.1108/14635770410566519, 2004. MATTHING, J.; SANDÉN, B.; EDVARDSSON, B. New service development: learning from and with customers. International Journal of Service Industry Management, v. 15, n. 5, p. 479-498. doi: 10.1108/09564230410564948, 2004. MENOR, L.; TATIKONDA, M.; SAMPSON, S. New service development: areas for exploitation and exploration. Journal of Operations Management, v. 20, n. 2, p. 135–157. Elsevier, 2002. MERZ, M. A.; HE, Y.; VARGO, S. L. The evolving brand logic: a service-dominant logic perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, v. 37, n. 3, p. 328-344. doi: 10.1007/s11747-0090143-3, 2009. MILES, I. Patterns of innovation in service industries. IBM Systems Journal, v. 47, n. 1, p. 115. Citeseer, 2008. MILLEN, D. Rapid ethnography: time deepening strategies for HCI field research. In: Proceedings of the 3rd conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques. Anais... . p.286. ACM, 2000. MORELLI, N. Designing Product/Service Systems: A Methodological Exploration. Design Issues, v. 18, n. 3, p. 3–17. MIT Press, 2002. MORELLI, N. Product / Service Designing Systems: A Methodological Exploration. Design Issues, v. 18, n. 3, p. 3-17, 2002.

140

MORELLI, N. Social Innovation and New Industrial Contexts : Can Designers ― Industrialize ‖ Socially Responsible Solutions ? 1. Design, v. 23, n. 4, p. 3-21, 2007. MORITZ, S. Service Design: Practical access to an evolving field. Cologne, Germany: Köln International School of Design, 2005. NG, I.; MAULL, R. The New Discipline of Service Science: A Service Science Research Agenda. , p. 68-73, 2009. NONAKA, I. The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review. Harvard Business, 1991. NONAKA, I. From information processing to knowledge creation: A Paradigm shift in business management. Technology in Society, v. 18, n. 2, p. 203-218. doi: 10.1016/0160-791X(96)00001-2, 1996. NONAKA, I.; TOYAMA, R. The knowledge-creating theory revisited: knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, v. 1, n. 1, p. 2-10. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500001, 2003. NONAKA, I.; TOYAMA, R. The theory of the knowledge-creating firm: subjectivity, objectivity and synthesis. Industrial and Corporate Change, v. 14, n. 3, p. 419-436. doi: 10.1093/icc/dth058, 2005. NONAKA, I.; TOYAMA, R.; KONNO, N. SECI, Ba and leadership: a unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long range planning, v. 33, n. 1, p. 5–34. Elsevier, 2000. NONAKA, I.; TOYAMA, R.; NAGATA, A. A firm as a knowledgecreating entity: a new perspective on the theory of the firm. Industrial and corporate change, v. 9, n. 1, p. 1. Oxford Univ Press, 2000. NONAKA, I.; VON KROGH, G. Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Conversion: Controversy and Advancement in Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory. Organization Science, v. 20, n. 3, p. 635652. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1080.0412, 2009.

141

OLSEN, N. V.; SALLIS, J. Market scanning for new service development. European Journal of Marketing, v. 40, n. 5/6, p. 466484. doi: 10.1108/03090560610657796, 2006. ORDANINI, A.; MAGLIO, P. P. Market Orientation , Internal Process , and External Network : A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Key Decisional Alternatives in the New Service Development. Decision Sciences, v. 40, n. 3, p. 601-625, 2009. OVIATT, S.; COULSTON, R.; LUNSFORD, R. When do we interact multimodally?: cognitive load and multimodal communication patterns. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Multimodal interfaces. Anais... . p.129â&#x20AC;&#x201C;136. ACM, 2004. PARTAN, S. R.; MARLER, P. Issues in the classification of multimodal communication signals. The American naturalist, v. 166, n. 2, p. 23145. doi: 10.1086/431246, 2005. PASWAN, A.; D'SOUZA, D.; ZOLFAGHARIAN, M. A. Toward a Contextually Anchored Service Innovation Typology. Decision Sciences, v. 40, n. 3, p. 513-540. doi: 10.1111/j.15405915.2009.00239.x, 2009. PATON, R.; MCLAUGHLIN, S. Services innovation:Knowledge transfer and the supply chain. European Management Journal, v. 26, n. 2, p. 77-83. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2008.01.004, 2008. PAYNE, A. F.; STORBACKA, K.; FROW, P. Managing the cocreation of value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No., v. 1pp, p. 83-96, 2008. PEFFERS, K.; TUUNANEN, T.; ROTHENBERGER, M. A.; CHATTERJEE, S. A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research. Journal of Management Information Systems, v. 24, n. 3, p. 45-77. doi: 10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302, 2007. PEPPARD, J.; RYLANDER, A. From Value Chain to Value Network:Insights for Mobile Operators. European Management

142

Journal, v. 24, n. 2-3, p. 128-141. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2006.03.003, 2006. PITTAWAY, L.; ROBERTSON, M.; MUNIR, K.; DENYER, D.; NEELY, A. Networking and innovation: a systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, v. 5, n. 3-4, p. 137â&#x20AC;&#x201C;168, 2004. POPADIUK, S.; CHOO, C. Innovation and knowledge creation: How are these concepts related? International Journal of Information Management, v. 26, n. 4, p. 302-312. Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2006.03.011, 2006. PRAHALAD, C.; RAMASWAMY, V. Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, v. 18, n. 3, p. 5-14. doi: 10.1002/dir.20015, 2004. PURAO, S.; BALDWIN, C. Y.; HEVNER, A.; ET AL. The Sciences of Design: Observations on an Emerging Field. p.1-32, 2008. RECKWITZ, A. Toward a Theory of Social Practices: A Development in Culturalist Theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, v. 5, n. 2, p. 243-263. doi: 10.1177/13684310222225432, 2002. REINOSO, M.; LERSVIRIYAJITT, S.; KHAN, N.; CHOONTHIAN, W.; LAOSIRIPORNWATTANA, P. New Service Development : Linking Resources , Processes , and the Customer. In: PICMET 2009. Anais... . p.2921-2932, 2009. RIETZSCHEL, E.; NIJSTAD, B.; STROEBE, W. Productivity is not enough: A comparison of interactive and nominal brainstorming groups on idea generation and selection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, v. 42, n. 2, p. 244-251. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2005.04.005, 2006. RITTEL, H. The reasoning of designers. In: Proceedings of the International Congress on Planning and Design Theory. Anais... . Boston, 1987.

143

RITTEL, H.; WEBBER, M. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, v. 4, n. 2, p. 155–169. Springer. doi: 10.1007/BF01405730, 1973. ROSENTHAL, S. R.; CAPPER, M. Ethnographies in the Front End: Designing for Enhanced Customer Experiences. Management, p. 215237, 2006. ROTH, A. E. What have we learned from market design? Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, v. 118, n. 2006, p. 285-310, 2008. RYLANDER, A. Constructions of Knowledge Work and KnowledgeIntensive Firms. In: Design thinking: New challenges for designers, managers, and organizations. Anais... . p.1-20. Cergy-Pointoise, France: International DMI Education Conference, 2008. RYLANDER, A. DESIGNTHINKING AS KNOWLEDGEWORK: EPISTEMOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS. In: International DMI Education Conference. Anais... . p.1-20. Cergy-Pointoise, France, 2008. RYLANDER, A. Design Thinking as Knowledge Work: Epistemological Foundations and Practical Implications. Design Management Journal, v. 4, n. 1, p. 7–19. John Wiley \& Sons, 2009. RYLANDER, A. Exploring Design Thinking as Pragmatist Inquiry. In: 25th EGOS Colloquium. Anais... . p.1-23. Barcelona, 2009. SACO, R.; GONCALVES, A. Service Design: An Appraisal. Design Management Review, v. 19, n. 1, p. 10. DESIGN MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, 2008. SALOJÄRVI, S.; FURU, P.; SVEIBY, K. Knowledge management and growth in Finnish SMEs. Journal of Knowledge Management, v. 9, n. 2, p. 103-122. doi: 10.1108/13673270510590254, 2005. SAMPSON, S.; FROEHLE, C. Foundations and implications of a proposed unified services theory. Production and Operations

144

Management, v. 15, n. 2, p. 329. THE UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE, 2006. SARASVATHY, S. D.; DEW, N. New market creation through transformation. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, v. 15, n. 5, p. 533–565. Springer, 2005. SAWYER, R. K. Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. p.1-363. Oxford University Press, USA, 2006. SEGELSTRÖM, F.; RAIJMAKERS, B.; HOLMLID, S. Thinking and Doing Ethnography in Service Design. IASDR, Rigor and Relevance in Design. Seoul, p. 4349-4358, 2009. SERVIN, G. ABC of Knowledge Management. National Library for Health: Knowledge Management, , n. July, p. 1–68, 2005. SIMONTON, D. K. Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks. Psychological Review, v. 104, n. 1, p. 66-89. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.104.1.66, 1997. SIMONTON, D. K. The Origins of Genius. p.308. Oxford University Press, 1999. SIMONTON, D. K. Creative thought as blind-variation and selectiveretention: combinatorial models of exceptional creativity. Physics of life reviews, v. 7, n. 2, p. 156-79. Elsevier B.V. doi: 10.1016/j.plrev.2010.02.002, 2010. SPOHRER, J.; KWAN, S. K. Service Science, Management, Engineering, and Design (SSMED): Outline & ReferencesFoundations, IIS-0527770 2006-09. p.1-67, 2008. SPOHRER, J.; MAGLIO, P. P. The Emergence of Service Science: Toward systematic service innovations to accelerate co-creation of value. , 2006. SPOHRER, J.; MAGLIO, P. P.; BAILEY, J.; GRUHL, D. Steps Toward a Service Systems. Computer, , n. January, p. 71-77, 2007.

145

STEMPFLE, J.; BADKE-SCHAUB, P. Thinking in design teams-an analysis of team communication. Design studies, v. 23, n. 5, p. 473â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 496. Elsevier, 2002. STEVENS, E.; DIMITRIADIS, S. New service development through the lens of organisational learning: evidence from longitudinal case studies. Journal of Business Research, v. 57, n. 10, p. 1074-1084. doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(03)00003-1, 2004. STEVENS, E.; DIMITRIADIS, S. Managing the new service development process: towards a systemic model. European Journal of Marketing, v. 39, n. 1/2, p. 175-198. doi: 10.1108/03090560510572070, 2005. SUNDIN, E.; BRAS, B. Making functional sales environmentally and economically beneficial through product remanufacturing. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 13, n. 9, p. 913-925. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.04.006, 2005. TAKEUCHI, H. Creating the Dynamics of Hard-to-Imitate Innovation. In: H. Takeuchi; T. Shibata; Japan, Moving Toward a More Advanced Knowledge Economy: Advanced knowledge-creating companies. p.83-92. World Bank Publications, 2006. TASSI, R. Design della Comunicazione e Design dei Servizi: Il progetto della comunicazione per la fase di implementazione. Design, 2008. TASSI, R.; GORLA, M. Service Design Tools. . Retrieved from http://www.servicedesigntools.org/, 2009. TAYLOR, S. J.; BOGDAN, R. Participant Observation: Pre-Fieldwork. In: Introduction to qualitative research methods: a guidebook and resource. 3 ed., p.24-43. John Wiley & Sons, 1997. TETHER, B. S.; STIGLIANI, I. Service Design 2020: What does the future hold, and (how) can we shape it? Touchpoint - The Journal of Service Design, v. 1, n. 3, p. 32-37, 2010.

146

THOMKE, S.; VON HIPPEL, E. Customers as innovators. Harvard Business Review, v. 80, n. 4, p. 74–81, 2002. TODTLING, F.; LEHNER, P.; KAUFMANN, A. Do different types of innovation rely on specific kinds of knowledge interactions? Technovation, v. 29, n. 1, p. 59-71. Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2008.05.002, 2009. VAISHNAVI, V.; KUECHLER, W. Design Research in Information Systems. January 20, 2004. Retrieved from http://desrist.org/designresearch-in-information-systems, 2004. VALLE, S.; VÁZQUEZ-BUSTELO, D. Managing Knowledge for Innovation: The Case of Business-to-Business Services. International Journal of Production Economics, v. 119, n. 1, p. 136-148. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.02.002, 2009. VAN AKEN, J. E. Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: The quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. Journal of management studies, v. 41, n. 2, p. 219–246. John Wiley \& Sons, 2004. VAN AKEN, J. E. Management Research as a Design Science: Articulating the Research Products of Mode 2 Knowledge Production in Management. British Journal of Management, v. 16, n. 1, p. 19-36. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00437.x, 2005. VAN AKEN, J. E. Design Science and Organization Development Interventions: Aligning Business and Humanistic Values. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, v. 43, n. 1, p. 67-88. doi: 10.1177/0021886306297761, 2007. VARGO, S. L. Toward a transcending conceptualization of relationship: a service-dominant logic perspective. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, v. 2009, p. 373–379. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. doi: 10.1108/08858620910966255, 2006.

147

VARGO, S. L. Customer Integration and Value Creation: Paradigmatic Traps and Perspectives. Journal of Service Research, v. 11, n. 2, p. 211-215. doi: 10.1177/1094670508324260, 2008. VARGO, S. L. SERVICE-DOMINANT LOGIC: AN ALTERNATIVE MINDSET FOR INNOVATION. Seoul, Korea, 2009. VARGO, S. L.; LUSCH, R. F. Evolving to a New Dominant Logic. Journal of Marketing, v. 68, n. January, p. 1-17, 2004. VARGO, S. L.; LUSCH, R. F. Why ―service‖? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, v. 36, n. 1, p. 25-38. doi: 10.1007/s11747-007-0068-7, 2007. VARGO, S. L.; LUSCH, R. F. From goods to service(s): Divergences and convergences of logics. Industrial Marketing Management, v. 37, n. 3, p. 254–259. Elsevier, 2008. VARGO, S. L.; LUSCH, R. F. Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, v. 36, n. 1, p. 1–10. Springer, 2008. VARGO, S. L.; MAGLIO, P. P.; AKAKA, M. On value and value cocreation: A service systems and service logic perspective. European Management Journal, v. 26, n. 3, p. 145-152. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2008.04.003, 2008. VON KOSKULL, C. Use of Customer Information: An Ethnography in Service Development. Development. Svenska handelshögskolan, 2009. WARR, A.; O'NEILL, E. Understanding design as a social creative process. In: Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Creativity & Cognition. Anais... . p.127. New York, New York, USA: ACM. doi: 10.1145/1056224.1056242, 2005. WASSON, C. Ethnography in the field of design. Organization, v. 59, n. 4, p. 377–388. SFAA, 2000.

Human

148

WEBSTER, J.; WATSON, R. T. ANALYZING THE PAST TO PREPARE FOR THE FUTURE: WRITING A LITERATURE REVIEW. MIS Quarterly, v. 26, n. 2, 2002. WORREN, N. A.; MOORE, K.; ELLIOTT, R. When theories become tools: Toward a framework for pragmatic validity. Human Relations, v. 55, n. 10, p. 1227-1250. doi: 10.1177/0018726702055010082, 2002. {Document Not In Library}

149

ANNEXES

150 Annex I â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Illustration of the DSRM Method Source: Peffers et ali (2007)

151

Annex II - Large-Group - Register Phase 2.1.1 Note: Original version was in format A2

152

Annex III - Sub-Group 01a - Register Phase 2.1.2 Note: Original version was in format A4

153

Annex IV - Sub-Group 01a - Register Phase 2.1.3 Note: Original version was in format A4

154

Annex V - Sub-Group 02a - Register Phase 2.1.2 Note: original version in format A4

155

Annex VI - Sub-Group 02a - Register Phase 2.1.3 Note: original in format A4

156

Annex VII - Sub-Group 03a - Register Phase 2.1.2 Note: original in format A3

157

Annex VIII - Sub-Group 03a - Register Phase 2.1.2 Note: original in format A3

158

Annex IX - Sub-Group 04 - Register Phase 2.1.2 Note: original in format A3

159

Annex X - Sub-Group 04 - Register Phase 2.1.3 Note: original in format A3

160

Annex XI - Sub-Group 01b - Registration Phase 2.3.1

STRONG POINTS       

USER TRAINING ARCHIVES -> SOURCES OF ELECTRONIC/PRINTED INFO. PHYSICAL SPACE REMOTE ACCESS VARIETY OF SERVICES LOCATION HOURS

WEAK POINTS      

SIGNAGE NO INFO./RECEPTION DESK LAYOUT -> LOAN DESK NOT OPEN SUNDAYS & UNTIL 11pm during the week. LACK OF PERSONNEL DECENTRALIZED

161

Annex XXI - Sub-Group 02b - Register Phase 2.3.1

- Strong Points:       

CLEAR AND SPECIFIC. Service desk with photo info. and process/service/Product. Trained employees, Polyvalent employees. User education. Improved entrance and exit flow of users (turn-style and inspection). Signs and Access for XXXXXXX XX users with special needs.

- Weak Points:    

Sufficient lockers. Employees in bad mood. MAKE THE USER AUTONOMOUS UPDATED COLLECTION, THAT MEETS USERS NEEDS

162

Annex XIII - Sub-Group 03B - Register Phase 2.3.1

STRONG POINTS (Indispensible)       

    

Xerox Wireless Baskets for books Book return at entrance Trained reception Good signs/Efficient LCD (Informative) Other methods o Information panel o Mural o . Send info about book return or serve by SMS Train user for all courses Air-conditioning. Expand hours (night courses) Book return in any sector.

WEAK POINTS  Signage  Incorrect information at reception (entrance)  Return on 1st floor  Locker key (forgetting  Lack of ―bag for (XXXXXX) umbrella)‖

163 Annex XIV – Message of reflection referring to Phase 2.4.2 --------------- Beginning of Message ------------------From: To: Date: Subject: Sent by:

Mauricio Manhães <[REMOVIDO]> <[REMOVIDO]> May 26, 2010 09:07 Service Design | Reflections gmail.com

Dear NAME OF PARTICIPANT,

According to the dynamic that we defined on May 18, 2010, here is the sentence that you defined for reflection. It was copied exactly as you wrote it. Please register your reflections spontaneously and briefly and return this message by May 28, 2010 with your text and providing some data about the participant (see the end of this message). This is the sentence that you proposed. ---------------------------------------------Your sentence: [SENTENCE PRESENTED BY THE PARTICIPANT] Your reflection:

----------------------------------------------

Participant data:

a) Education/degree:

164

b) Years since college graduation: c) Graduate studies (if any, inform the most recent or current): d) Year of conclusion of graduate studies: e) Professional Activity (if any, inform current): ---------------------------------------------Once again, thank you for your collaboration and cooperation. We are available to answer any questions. Sincerely,

-Mauricio MANHAES [DATE OF CONTACT] --------------- End of Message -------------------

165 Annex XV – Communication sent to the participants - Phase 2.4.2

From: To: Subject: Date:

<[REMOVED]> <[ REMOVED]> Service Design| Final Date Fri, May 28, 2010 09:00:00 -0300

Dear Participants, Today is the final deadline for the receipt of your reflections. Due to the research procedures, messages received after midnight this Friday (May 28, 2010) cannot be considered valid. This message was sent to all the participants, even those who have already returned their reflections. Thank you for your collaboration and we are available if you have any questions. Sincerely, Maurício Manhães

166

Annex XVI - Reflections sent by the Participants - Phase 2.4.2 01. Participant Nยบ 01 (reflections received on May 28, 2010) From: To: Date: Subject: Sent by:

<[REMOVED]> Mauricio Manhรฃes <[REMOVED]> May 28, 2010 09:19 Re: Service Design | Reflections bu.ufsc.br

[REMOVED] ---------------------------------------------What can be done to improve the signage at the University Library (BU)? I believe that to improve the signage at the BU, we need to consult people who do not know the space to learn about the points that need to be improved. This way the signs would be aimed at users, to meet their needs. Another measure would be to present the most frequent questions and guide the employees so that they can provide the correct information, assisting the users to quickly find what they need. Participant Profile: a) Education/Degree: Bachelor in Library Sciences b) Year of Graduation: 1993 c) Graduate courses (If any, indicate the most recent or current): Master in Information Science d) Year of conclusion of current graduate course: e) Professional Activity (if any, indicate current): Information Recovery Sector, Central Library UFSC ---------------------------------------------02. Participant Nยบ 02 (reflections received on May 28, 2010)

167

From: <[REMOVED]> To: Mauricio Manhães <[ REMOVED]> Date: May 28, 2010 10:43 Subject: Re: Service Design | Reflections Sent by: gmail.com Signed by:gmail.com [REMOVED] ---------------------------------------------Your sentence: [Identify the key processes of a Library, or what is the flow of added value of the organization and the products of the Library.] Your reflection: In brief, there are three key processes within a Library: Acquisition, Treatment and Service. Acquisition is related to the purchase of books and in the case of theses and dissertations, their reception. Treatment is the technical process in which the material is cataloged, according to specific norms and also to the type of document. Service is the process that refers to attending users, in terms of loans, consultations, etc. It can be said, that in general there are three functional departments within a library. The library products, or that is the services that the library offers are diverse, although if we recognize that only the most important, those that respond to the raison d‘être of the organization, we can say that the basic function of a library is to ―make information available‖ therefore, the most ―important ―products would be for ex: book loans, loans of theses or dissertations, loans of articles. When one speaks of loans, this is not to necessarily say that the document will leave the library premises, but the act of looking at the base, looking on the shelves, and checking the material, and in some cases removing it from the premises. Thus, there are three components to the flow of value at a library:

168

Book loans, loans of theses or dissertations, loans of articles. These three products (services) are delivered to the users and are produced by the three functions or departments mentioned previously: Acquisitions, Treatment and Service.

Participant Profile:

a) Education/Degree: B.Sc. in Industrial Engineering b) Year of Graduation: 2004 c) Graduate studies (if any, inform the most recent or current): Doctoral Candidate in Knowledge Engineering and Management d) Year of conclusion: 2011 e) Professional activity (if any, inform the current): Researcher in service processes management ---------------------------------------------03. Participant Nยบ 03 (reflections received on May 28, 2010) From: To: Date: Subject: Sent by:

<[ REMOVED]> Mauricio Manhรฃes <[ REMOVED]> May 28, 2010 18:38 Re: Service Design | Reflections bu.ufsc.br

REMOVED] ---------------------------------------------Task: What would be a mental map of the user needs from your perspective?

169

Reflection: It would be good if the library could provide better guidance at the entrance, as was proposed. We would have to think of this from the users view. So, I think that the best alternative would be to build a mental map because the objective behind these maps is exactly to take advantage of the way we store information, through the relationship between text, images, colors, shapes, etc. so that users can orient themselves, this can be developed in open software without any costs to the organization. It is important to raise the needs of the users associated to the Sectors and related locations. Participant Profile: [REMOVED]

a) Education/Degree: Library Sciences - Information Manager b) Year of graduation: 2005 c) Graduate course (if any, indicate the most recent or current): Masters in Knowledge Engineering and Management d) Year of conclusion of Masters: 2009 e) Professional Experience (if any, inform current): Head librarian of the Reference Service of the UFSC University Library.

---------------------------------------------04. Participant NÂş 05 (reflections received May 27, 10) From: <[REMOVED]> To: Mauricio ManhĂŁes <[REMOVED]> Data: May 27, 2010 21:31 Subject: Re: Service Design | Reflections Sent by: gmail.com Signed by:gmail.com [REMOVED]

170

----------------------------------------------

My sentence: [What is the level of information (capacity) the person who works in reception must have to filter user needs?] My reflection: The employee who works at the library reception should know all the sectors and services offered by the unit, as well as the employees responsible for each one. Training should be offered for this function (reception), with possible confection of manuals for new employees. In addition to knowledge about the University Library, the employee at reception should have other qualities such as being pleasant, patient and be able to relate well with users. ----------------------------------------------

Participant Profile:

a) Education/Degree: Bachelor in Library Sciences b) Year of conclusion: 2008 c) Graduate Studies (if any, report the most recent or current): Graduate Studies in Information Sciences (PGCIN - UFSC) underway

d) Year of conclusion of graduate studies: e) Professional experience (if any, report current): ---------------------------------------------05. Participant Nยบ 07 (reflections received May 28, 2010)

171

From: To: Date: Subject: Sent by:

<[ REMOVED]> Mauricio Manhães <[ REMOVED]> May 28, 2010 18:33 Re: Service Design | Reflections hotmail.com

[REMOVED] ---------------------------------------------Sentence: [What are the users‘ needs? What do they look for at the library?] Reflection: This question relates to how much the ―library‖ understands the real needs of the user, what are the existing groups, how to filter the information to these groups. It is important to conduct a study of the user to map these needs. This allows responding to the second question. It reveals how much the two questions are related. ---------------------------------------------06. Participant Nº 10 (reflections received May 26, 2010)

From: To: Date: Subject: Sent by:

<[ REMOVED]> Mauricio Manhães <[ REMOVED]> May 26, 2010 14:47 RE: Service Design | Reflections hotmail.com

[REMOVED] ---------------------------------------------Your sentence: [Why don‘t library users know about the services (or most of them)?]

Your reflection:

172

I believe that the user does not know most of the services provided by the library for various reasons, one of them is related to the lack of communication between the library and the students, another I believe is that the professors are not interested or do not stimulate the students to know the library well, the services offered, because at times even they donâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;t know. A lack of interest by the students in going, looking, searching for information, should be done in a study, questionnaire or interview with professors, librarians and students to test this hypothesis, but it exists. The library can be more dynamic, better inform its users about its services, by e-mail, or on bulletin boards, or by TV screens (with information important to users), or even go to users and ask what services they really need, and try to adapt the services already existing with these needs. Or create a site with a clearer, cleaner interface of services offered by the library. In my opinion, it is the partnership between librarians and professors that should be made to attract the students, mainly the new ones. And I believe that the librarians should find other forms of demonstrating their function in the library, which services they can offer. Perhaps conduct a study with the students and ask which services they think that the library offers, or which services they would like them to offer. ---------------------------------------------

Participant of the Profile: a) Education/Degree: Bachelor in Library Sciences â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Certified in Information Management

b) Year of Graduation: 2008

c) Graduate studies (if any, inform the most recent or current):

173

Masters in Information Science - PGCIN - UFSC (1st trimester) d) Year of conclusion of Masters: To be completed. e) Professional activity (if any, inform current): Only graduate studies ----------------------------------------------

07. Participant Nยบ 12 (reflections received on May 28, 2010)

From: <[ REMOVED]> To: Mauricio Manhรฃes <[ REMOVED]> Date: May 28, 2010 09:58 Subject: Service Design | Reflections Dafne Sent by: gmail.com Signed by:gmail.com [REMOVED] ---------------------------------------------Your sentence: [What were the innovative factors proposed by the groups? Does any design process involve innovation?] Your reflection: The creation of a panel is an innovative contributing factor that is interesting to conduct collectively! Not all design processes involve innovation. EX.: Making a site or a calling card is not an innovation in my opinion! ---------------------------------------------Participant Profile:

174

a) Education/Degree: Art Education â&#x20AC;&#x201C; UDESC/CEART. b) Year of Graduation: 2001. c) Graduate studies (if any, inform the most recent or current): Methodology in EAD â&#x20AC;&#x201C; UNISUL and Masters in Graphic Design at UFSC. d) Year of conclusion of graduate studies: 2005 and 2010 (masters) e) Professional activity (if any, inform current): Designer and student