Design Ethnography and Service Design Thinking on Triadic...

LinköpingUniversity|DepartmentofComputerScienceMasterthesis,30ECTS|CognitiveScience

Spring2017|LIU-IDA/KOGVET-A--17/007—SE

DesignEthnographyandServiceDesignThinkingonTriadicRelationshipsinProduct-ServiceSystems

FredrikWahlman2017-06-01

Tutor,TimOverkampExaminer,ArneJönsson

UPPHOVSRÄTTDetta dokument hålls tillgängligt på Internet – eller dess framtida ersättare – under 25 år frånpubliceringsdatumunderförutsättningattingaextraordinäraomständigheteruppstår.

Tillgångtilldokumentetinnebärtillståndförvarochenattläsa,laddaner,skrivautenstakakopiorförenskiltbrukochattanvändadetoförändratför ickekommersiellforskningochförundervisning.Överföring av upphovsrätten vid en senare tidpunkt kan inte upphäva detta tillstånd. All annananvändning av dokumentet kräver upphovsmannens medgivande. För att garantera äktheten,säkerhetenochtillgänglighetenfinnslösningaravtekniskochadministrativart.

Upphovsmannensideellarättinnefattarrättattblinämndsomupphovsmanidenomfattningsomgodsedkrävervidanvändningavdokumentetpåovanbeskrivnasättsamtskyddmotattdokumentetändras eller presenteras i sådan form eller i sådant sammanhang som är kränkande förupphovsmannenslitteräraellerkonstnärligaanseendeelleregenart.

För ytterligare information om Linköping University Electronic Press se förlagets hemsidahttp://www.ep.liu.se/.

COPYRIGHTThepublisherswillkeepthisdocumentonlineonthe Internet–or itspossiblereplacement–foraperiodof25yearsstartingfromthedateofpublicationbarringexceptionalcircumstances.

The online availability of the document implies permanent permission for anyone to read, todownload, or to print out single copies for his/hers own use and to use it unchanged for non-commercialresearchandeducationalpurpose.Subsequenttransfersofcopyrightcannotrevokethispermission.Allotherusesofthedocumentareconditionalupontheconsentofthecopyrightowner.Thepublisherhas takentechnicalandadministrativemeasures toassureauthenticity, securityandaccessibility.

Accordingtointellectualpropertylawtheauthorhastherighttobementionedwhenhis/herworkisaccessedasdescribedaboveandtobeprotectedagainstinfringement.

ForadditionalinformationabouttheLinköpingUniversityElectronicPressanditsproceduresforpublication and for assurance of document integrity, please refer to its www home page:http://www.ep.liu.se/.©FredrikWahlman

SUMMARYThis study has used design ethnography and service design thinking to understand triadicrelationshipsinproduct-servicesystems.ThedatausedinthisresearchhasbeencollectedinanexplorativeuserresearchphaseofanoverarchingservicedesignprojectatScaniaCV.Theservicedesignprojectwasofpurposetoapplyauser-centereddesignapproachtoinvestigateScaniaDriverServices.ThisstudyfindsDesignEthnographyandServiceDesignThinkingasfruitfulinunderstandingtriadic relationships in product-service systems, but also identify challenges that requirefurtherexplorationinordertoenablethebestpossiblevalue-propositions.The study contributes to understanding what kind of knowledge that applying designethnographyanda servicedesign thinking approach tounderstand triadic relationships inproduct-servicesystemsconcern.Asummaryofknowledgeidentifiedispresentedbelow.Understandingandknowledgeconcern:

• Contradictionsbetweenthepurchaserandend-userperception.• Actorperceptionofanotheractor(s).• Actorperceivedevolutionofanotheractorovertime.• Actorchangeofviewduetoitsownevolution.• Relationshipsoftheserviceprovider,purchaserandenduser.• Misconceptionsbetweenactors.• Variationincommunicationbetweenactors.• Whatthecommunicationbetweenactorsisperceivedtoconcern.• Additionalactorsthaninitiallyconsideredthatarecrucialforunderstandingthetriadic

relationship.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSIwouldliketothankJonatanLidströmandGeorgZetterbergWallinatScaniaCVABfortheirsupportandguidanceandhelpingtocomprehendandunderstandthebusinessandservicesofferedbyScania.Ofcourse,thankyouandhighfiveSarahAlbertsson,mypartnerincrimeandcolleague“X-jobbare”withwhomtheoverarchingservicedesignprojectwascarriedout.Iwould liketosincerelythankTimOverkampatLinköpingUniversityforbeinganamazingsupervisor with concrete, constructive criticism and for support in rough thesis-authoringtimes.Lastbutnot least,perhapsa littleclichébutgenuinely, Iwould liketothankmyfamilyforbeingwhoyouare.Yourmadnessenlightensmylife.

TABLEOFCONTENTSSUMMARY.........................................................................................................................3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................................................................................4

1.INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................11.1.PURPOSE..............................................................................................................................11.2.RESEARCHQUESTION...........................................................................................................11.3.DELIMITATIONS....................................................................................................................1

2.BACKGROUND................................................................................................................3

3.THEORY..........................................................................................................................53.1.DESIGNETHNOGRAPHY........................................................................................................53.2.SERVICEDESIGNTHINKING...................................................................................................7

3.2.1.VALUE...................................................................................................................................73.2.2.INSIGHTSRESEARCH.............................................................................................................93.2.3.ETHNOGRAPHYINSERVICEDESIGN.....................................................................................93.2.4.VISUALIZATIONS...................................................................................................................93.2.5.CO-CREATIONANDWORKSHOPS.......................................................................................10

3.3.VALUEPROPOSITIONSANDTRIADICRELATIONSHIPSINSERVICES......................................10

4.METHOD.......................................................................................................................124.1.DOMAINRESEARCH............................................................................................................124.2.USERDATA.........................................................................................................................12

4.2.1.USERINTERVIEWS...............................................................................................................124.2.2.USEROBSERVATION...........................................................................................................134.2.3.CO-CREATIONWORKSHOPONRELATIONSHIPS.................................................................13

5.RESULTS.......................................................................................................................155.1.TRIADICRELATIONSHIPSINPRODUCT-SERVICESYSTEMS...................................................15

6.DISCUSSION..................................................................................................................206.1.RESULTS.............................................................................................................................20

6.1.1.VISUALIZINGTRANSITIVETRIADICRELATIONSHIPS............................................................206.1.2.RELATIONSHIPDIMENSIONS..............................................................................................206.1.3.EQUITABLEEXCHANGE.......................................................................................................216.1.4.SERVICEDESIGNTHINKING.................................................................................................216.1.5.PRODUCEDKNOWLEDGETHEMES.....................................................................................226.1.6.DYADICRELATIONSHIPSASELEMENTSINATRIAD............................................................24

6.2.METHOD.............................................................................................................................246.2.1.INSIGHTSANDHANDWRITTENNOTES...............................................................................256.2.2.SERVICEPROVIDERASFACILITATOROFUSERDATACOLLECTION.....................................256.2.3.METHODOLOGYCONTRIBUTION........................................................................................25

6.3.KNOWLEDGEAPPLICABILITY...............................................................................................26

7.CONCLUSION................................................................................................................277.1.DESIGNETHNOGRAPHYANDSERVICEDESIGNTHINKING...................................................27

7.1.1.IMPLICATIONSFORUNDERSTANDINGTRIADICRELATIONSHIPSINPRODUCT-SERVICESYSTEMS.......................................................................................................................................27

7.2.FUTURERESEARCH.............................................................................................................27

REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................29

1

1. INTRODUCTIONScania is a global truck and bus manufacturer with over 45 000 employees owned byVolkswagenAG.Scania,asweknowit,wasfoundedin1911whenScaniainMalmöandVabisin Södertälje were merged. As of today, Scania has transformed from being a productcompanytoaproductandservicesolutionproviderwhichhasofferednewchallengesandopportunities.Traditionallyinmanufacturingbusinessesthecompetenciesrequiredwithindesignhasbeenproductdesigners.Whereasbusinessesexpandtheirviewsandtransformtoproduct-servicesystems(abusinessmodelwhereacombinationofbothproductsandservicesareoffered(Goedkoop, Van Halen, Te Riele, & Rommens, 1999; Kanda & Nakagami, 2006)) therequirementsforothercompetencearise(Holmlid,2010).Thetransitionfromaproductfocustoservicesisreferredtoasservizitation(Goedkoopetal.,1999;Lightfoot,Baines,&Smart,2013;Vandermerwe&Rada,1988).Today,Scaniaofferavarietyofservices to itscustomers, ranging fromphysical trucksandbusestofinancialservicesanddriverperformancemeasurements.Scaniacouldbeconsideredin servizitation process and a transition from a product focused company as a truckmanufacturertoaservicefocusedtransportsolutionprovider.Theservicedesignapproachwithuser-centeredmethodologyandvalueasakeyword is thereforesuitable toexamine,exploreandunfoldpropositionsforfutureservicedevelopment.Inthisthesis,onthebehalfofScaniainSödertälje,ScaniaDriverServiceshasbeentackledwithaservicedesignapproach.This approach intended to generate valuable insight into the use of services provided byScaniabyitscustomer–thetransportcompanyandtheirtruckdrivers.Thisthesisinvestigatestherelationshipbetweentheserviceprovideranditscustomer,whereadyadicrelationshipofseller-buyerisnotenoughtodescribethecomplexityoftheservice.Instead transitive and intransitive triadic relationships, as describedby Kowalkowski et al.(2016) (see 3.3), are assumed and explored using design ethnography and service designthinking.Theactorswithinthetriadicrelationshipofthisstudy istheserviceprovider, thepurchaserandtheend-user.

1.1. PURPOSEThepurposeofthisstudyistousedesignethnographyandservicedesignthinkingtoframeandunderstandtriadicrelationshipswithinproduct-servicesystems.Also,thepurposeoftheoverarching service designproject is to attempt to gain knowledgeof howunderstandingtriadicrelationshipscansupportdevelopmentofcurrentandfuturedriverservicesatScania.

1.2. RESEARCHQUESTIONTheresearchquestionthatthisthesisintendstoansweris:Whatunderstandingscandesignethnographyandservicedesignthinkingprovideregardingrelationshipsintriadicrelationsinproduct-servicesystems?

1.3. DELIMITATIONSThisthesishasbeenapartofaservicedesignproject.Servicedesignstrivetocreatevalueforallactorswithinaservice.Theservicedesignprojecthasbeencarriedoutwithinthecontextof the Swedish transport industry and had a primary focus on investigating the transport

2

companypointofview.Deliberately,agreater focushasbeenonvalue in theeyesof thetransportcompanyasoneoftheactorsinatriadicrelationship.This study investigates relationships in a commercial context and does not attempt togeneralizerelationshipsatlarge.Theactors in thetriadic relationshiparetheserviceprovider, thepurchaserof theserviceprovider’svalue-propositionandtheend-useroftheserviceoffer.Thedesignteamhasbeenconsideredastheserviceproviderduringtheworkoftheservicedesignproject.

3

2. BACKGROUNDAtScaniaResearchandDevelopmentservicesandmethodsdealingwithdatafrommorethan250000connectedvehiclesaredeveloped.OneareaofinterestisDriverEvaluationwheretoolsandservicesaimtosupportdriversinimprovingtheirfuelefficiency.ThissubjectofthisthesishasbeenpartofaservicedesignprojectwiththeintentiontoapplyaservicedesignapproachtoinvestigatedriverservicesatScania.ScaniaDriverServicesandScania Connected Services consists of tools and services with the goal of monitoring,evaluatingandimprovingdriverperformance.Thetriadicrelationship investigatedconcernScaniaanditscustomer–thetransportcompany–atwheretheuserofScaniaDriverServicesaretheemployees–thetruckdrivers.Theservicedesignprojectwasperformedsimilartothewellrenowndoublediamonddesignprocess(DesignCouncil,2005)–hence,consistingoftworepeatedprocesseswithconvergentfollowedbydivergentdesignwork.Roughlydescribed,theprocessappliedcovereddomainresearch,collectionofuserdatathroughinterviews,observationandworkshops,anideationphasefollowedbydevelopmentofaprototypetotestthefinalconcept.TheprojectinwhichthisstudyhasbeenperformedprimarilyconcernScaniaservicesbeingDriver Training, Driver Coaching, Driver Evaluation, Scania Fleet Application, FleetManagement Portal andDriver Support – all ofwhich are presented briefly below.Otherservices offered by Scania are Scania Smart Watch, and Vehicle Instruction Application,Ecolution,TachographServicesandmore.

• Driver Training educates drivers in advanced driving techniques to increase fuelefficiencyandsparetheenvironment.

• Driver Coaching is a coaching service that targets stress reduction and increase ofcomfortforhealthyandpleasantdriving.

• DriverEvaluationgradesdriversondifferentparametersofdrivingcomparedtootherScania drivers driving in a similar context. From the driver aspect, this service iscommonlyreferredtoastheFleetManagementPortal.TheFleetManagementPortalisaportalwherethetransportcompanycankeeptrackofitsfleetofScaniatrucks.TheFleetManagementPortalisusedbytruckdriverstoaccesstheirdriverevaluation.

• ScaniaFleet isanapplicationfor iOSandAndroiddeviceswhereadrivercanlocateothervehiclesinthetransportcompany,sendmessages,turnonvehicleheaterandmore.

• Driver Support is a real-time feedback tool located in Scania’s vehicles. The toolprovidesfeedbackgradesindifferentparametersbasedonrecentdriving.

• ScaniaDriver-andConnectedServicescanbepurchasedbytransportcompanies indifferentpackageswiththepossibilitytoprovidedifferentresults.Thepurposeofthepresented overview of services offered today and investigated in this study is toprovideanunderstandingofthemaincauseoftheservicesandthevarietythatexist.

The service design project has had the mission to apply a service design approach toinvestigateandmapcustomerexperienceofScaniaDriverServices.Frominsightsgeneratedduring thework the overall goal is to propose improvements to ScaniaDriver Services toincreasecustomervalueandexperience.

4

Asthisthesishasbeenpartofagreaterservicedesignproject,thedatausedforanalysiscomemainlyfromtheuserresearchpartsofthegreaterprojectathand.Therefore,theinsightsarederivedfromanexplorativedesignprocessratherthanadeterministic.

5

3. THEORYInthischapter,theoreticframeworkforunderstandingtheresearchperformedinthisthesisispresented.

3.1. DESIGNETHNOGRAPHYEthnographyhasitsoriginsinanthropology(Segelstrom,2013)andisthestudyofhowpeoplelivetheirlives(Anderson,2009).Ethnographyisconsideredaresearchmethodwithinsocialscience (Genzuk,2003)and inethnography, fieldwork iscommonmeans forperformance(Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 2011). In 1922, BronislawMalinowski published a book on hisextensiveethnographicfieldworkconductedoverathree-yearspaninthewesternpacific.Inhiswork,Malinowskinotethreepremises,orideals,forconductingethnography(Malinowski,1922)roughlysaying:

• Livewith theones you are studying for a longerperiod to enable studiesof everyaspectoftheirlives

• Learnandspeakthelocallanguage• Participationobservation;dothesamethingasthosewhoyoustudyasgoodasyou

candoitwhileyouobservethemInresearchonethnographyininterfacedesign,Segelströmetal.(Segelström,Holmlid,&Alm,2008)notethatdesignerstendtousethetermtorefervaguelytoanykindoffieldwork.Byapplyinganethnographyclosertoanthropologythanwhatiscommonindesigninpractice,aproposition consisting of four principles that designers should consider to enable “fulladvantageofthepotentialinethnographicapproaches”hasbeenpresented(Segelströmetal.,2008,p.8).Thisidealispresentedbelow:

• Be properly prepared: Although the fieldworker spent several weeks learning thesystem,Week1offieldworkdidnotyieldmanyinsights. InsteadWeek1shouldbeseenasperiodduringwhichrapportwasbuilt,thatisasawayoflettinginformantspreparethemselvestobeingstudied.Rapportwasbuiltthroughformalintroductionsandalsobyshowingthatthefieldworkerwouldnotdisturbthenormalworkflow.Thisfirst week also enabled the researcher to identify the focus points to guide thefieldwork.Afterselectionoffocuspointsandpreparationsforandofthefield,therewas a large increase in insights. These insights were in many cases vital for thefieldworker’sunderstandingofthefield,forexample,theidentificationofnewusergroups.

• Analyzeandstartanalyzingearly:Theimportanceofsimultaneouslyanalyzinginsights,aswellasacontinuousreflexiveanalysis,isunderscoredbythefactthatthedesignrationale to a large part was constructed by these. A simultaneous analysis alsoprovided a goodway of structuring impressions for the fieldworker. Indeed,manyinsights were noted already during the preliminary analysis during the fieldwork.Moreover, the simultaneous analysis also provided a foundation for the reflexiveanalysis.Reflexiveanalysismayhelpthefieldworkeridentifyissuesnotarticulatedordirectly visible. When such issues are identified, the reflexive analysis raises newresearchquestions.Nevertheless,itisalsoimportanttostresstheneedforathoroughanalysisafterthefieldworkiscompleted,asthisiswherethelargerpatternscommonlyemerge.

• Letthefieldworktaketime:Ethnographicstylefieldworkfordesignoftenonlylastsafew days, but as shown here, insights cannot be planned. A glance at theweekly

6

summaryofinsightsgivestheimpressionthattheearlierquotedstatementbyHugheset al [8] regarding the quick pay-offs for design when it comes to ethnographicresearchholds.However,acloser lookat themappingof insightsperdaymakes itevidentthatthisviewneedstobenuanced.NotonlyinWeek1,whennosubstantialinsightsappeared,butalsoinfollowingweeks,therewereslowdays.IfthestudyhadbeenabortedafterDay12,inwhichnonewinsightsappeared,athirdofthedirectobservations would not have been made. Focusing on the two different types ofinsights,itisalsoworthnotingthatthedeclineintheweeklyfindingsisintheAnalysis-category. The point is that although one never knows when the next insight willappear,itisclearthattheyconsistentlyappearoveralongerperiodoftimethanafewdays.

• Getfirsthanddata:Asthecollecteddataneedstobeanalyzedcontinuouslyand,theimportance for the designer to do the fieldwork him/herself has to be stronglystressed.Moreover, if thedesigner letssomeoneelsedothe fieldwork,he/shewilloften lack theempathyandcontextual knowledgeneeded for theanalyses.To thepoint,ifthefieldworkeranddesigneraredifferentpersons–manydetailsmaybecomelostintranslation.

While the question of relevance between ethnography and design and whether actualethnographyornotisusednothasgoneunnoticed(Segelström,Raijmakers,&Holmlid,2009),JeanetteBloombergnotesixreasonsonthenoteofrelevance(Schuler&Namioka,1993,pp.141-142).Thesixreasons,summarizedbyMccartney&Seymour(2002),areasfollows:

1. Togaininsightontheuser'senvironmentFirst,sincedesignersoftencreateartifactsforworksettingstheyknowlittleabout,some understanding of those settings is needed so that the technologies suit thesituationsoftheiruse.

2. Toeliminatethedesigners’worldviewSecond, because technologies help shape the work practices of their users, it isimportantthatthedesigners'worldviewnotbeimposedinappropriatelyonusers.Ifdesignershave little information regarding thesituations inwhich technologiesareused, the best they can do is rely on their own experiences and imagination thusrunningtheriskofdesigningtechnologiesbettersuitedtotheirneedsthanthoseoftheactualusers.

3. TooptimizetechnologiesevenwhenthereisuncertaintyregardinguseThird,therearesituationswheredesignerscreatetechnologieswhosepossibleusesare unknown. Such situations might be described as technology in search of anapplication.Someunderstandingoftheworkinwhichpotentialusersareengagedcanhelpidentifypossibleusesandrefinetheoriginaltechnologydesign.

4. TobetterunderstandthecontextofuseFourth,inunderstandingthattheutilizationoftechnologyisinextricablylinkedtotheconditionsoftheuser’senvironment,technologythatistestedinamoretraditional[human-machinedyad]mayfailtocaptureimportantnuances.

5. To create (provide) a fuller (thorough; more comprehensive) picture (vision;visualization;representation)ofthetechnologyfortheuserFifth, when designing radically new technologies, users often are unable to givemeaningfulresponsestoqueriesabouthowtheymightusesuchtechnologies.They

7

needtobeprovidedwithawayofenvisioningandexperiencingthetechnologyinthecontextoftheirownworkpracticesbeforetheycancontributetosuchadiscussion.To create the context for such a discussion and to be useful partners in the jointexplorationoftherelationbetweenworkandtechnology,designersmusthavesomeunderstandingoftheuser'swork.

6. To shift design from single-task focus in order to account for a more holisticunderstandingofoutsideinfluencesontheusersFinally, the single-task focus of some technology design efforts is ill-suited to thedesignoftechnologiesthatsupporttaskintegration.Simplyfocusingonasingletaskorthetasksofthesingleuserignoreshowtheworkofoneindividualarticulateswiththatofmanyothers.Forexample,aprintshopoperator'sworkmayrelyontheworkof document creators, word processing specialists, graphic artists, salesrepresentativesandmanyothers.Systemsthatsupporttheprintshopoperator'sworkshouldbedesignedwithsomelargerunderstandingofhowtheworkoftheseothersimpingesupontheworkoftheprintshopoperator.

Theethnographicapproachusedinthisstudyisonerelatingforemosttoamoreadaptedto“designer way” of application. However, at the foundation of the ethnography researchundoubtedlyreliesMalinowski’sprinciplesforethnography.

3.2. SERVICEDESIGNTHINKINGServiceDesignisaninterdisciplinaryapproachthatasoftodaycouldbeconsideredtolackaunifieddefinition(Stickdorn&Schneider,2011).Theapproachusesmethodsandtoolsfromavarietyofdifferentdisciplinessuchasanthropology,cognitivescienceandmarketing.Asservicedesignpractice is interdisciplinary, itcannotbeconsideredadisciplineby itself– itdoeshoweverentailacertainwayofthinking(2011),whichisintroducedinthissection.ThemethodsandtoolsusedwithinServiceDesigndifferentiatesfromproductdesigninfocusingonprocessesandvalue-in-userather than formand function (Holmlid,2010). In theirwellrenown book “This is Service Design Thinking” Stickdorn & Schneider (2011) present fiveprinciplesofServiceDesignThinking that supposedlycovermuchof theworkofaServiceDesigner.Servicedesignis:

1. User-centeredServicesshouldbeexperiencedthroughthecustomer’seyes.

2. Co-creativeAllstakeholdersshouldbeincludedintheservicedesignprocess.

3. SequencingTheserviceshouldbevisualizedasasequenceofinterrelatedactions.

4. EvidencingIntangibleservicesshouldbevisualizedintermsofphysicalartefacts.

5. HolisticTheentireenvironmentofaserviceshouldbeconsidered.

3.2.1. VALUECommonasakeywordtowhatservicedesignisintendedtoachieveisvalue.Inservicedesignliteratureandresearch-value,whatvalueconcern,andhowtofindpropositionstoproducevaluetothedifferentactorswithintheserviceisdiscussed.Awellrenownproposition,known

8

asaservice-dominantlogic,waspublishedandlaterrevisedbyVargo&Lusch(2004,2008).Blomkvist (2014) describes a service-dominant logic as an alternative to goods-dominantwhere focus revolves around value creating activities rather than differences betweenproductsandservices(regardlessifproductsareinvolvedornot).Service-dominantlogicisamindsetandorganizingframeworkratherthanatheory(Kowalkowski,2010),whichcouldbeconsideredtoentailservicedesignthinking.Vargo&Lusch (2004)has initially suggestedeight foundationalpremises for their service-dominantlogic.Thosewerelaterrevised,andanothertwohavebeenadded(Vargo&Lusch,2008).Thepremisesarepresentedbelow.

• FP1:Serviceisthefundamentalbasisofexchange• FP2:Indirectexchangemasksthefundamentalbasisofexchange• FP3:Goodsareadistributionmechanismforserviceprovision• FP4:Operantresourcesarethefundamentalsourceofcompetitiveadvantage• FP5:Alleconomiesareserviceeconomies• FP6:Thecustomerisalwaysaco-creatorofvalue• FP7:Theenterprisecannotdelivervalue,butonlyoffervaluepropositions• FP8:Aservice-centeredviewisinherentlycustomerorientedandrelational• FP9:Allsocialandeconomicactorsareresourceintegrators• FP10:Valueisalwaysuniquelyandphenomenologicallydeterminedbythebeneficiary

Whereasvalueisarathersubjectiveterm,theservice-dominantlogicpremisesgivesanideaofawayofthinking.Inaservice-dominantlogic,customersandprovidersco-createvalueintheserviceactualization(Vargo&Lusch,2008),thisisreferredtoasvalue-in-use.Valueisthusdefinedbytheuserandtheofferfromtheserviceproviderisconsideredavalueproposition(Arvola&Holmlid,2016).AsnotedbyArvola&Holmlid(2016,p.531),“theservicehelpsthecustomertoachievesomegoal,andvaluecanbeassessedoncethatgoalisreached.”.Further,Arvola&Holmlid(2016)presentatranslationofatypologyfromtheuserexperienceresearchfield,discussingvariousaspectsofvaluethataservicedesignproposalcancontributeto.ThedifferentkindsofvaluesdiscussedaresummarizedinatablewhichispresentedinTable1below.

Table1.Differentkindofvaluesaservicedesignproposalcancontributeto.

Kindofvalue: Inrelationto: Definedby:Usefulness Purpose Beneficialtoandservingthepurposeoftheactivity

orwelfareinthelifeofsomeoneInstrumentality Goal ServingthegoalwellTechnicalexcellence Requirements Excelling in performance in relation to

requirementsorcompetitionSocialsignificance Symbols StatusandidentificationMutualadvantage Stakeholders BeneficialforseveralstakeholdersincooperationCollectivewelfare Socialunit WelfareofanorganisationorsocietyAestheticvalues Individual PleasurableexperienceMoralimplications Outcomes Desirable and undesirable outcomes for the

happinessandwellbeingofpeopleandotherlivingthings

9

Arvola&Holmlid(2016)clearlystatethatthetypologypresentedisneithercomprehensiveorfinal. The framework originates in the user experience research field and it does have anoverweight toward experiential values (Arvola & Holmlid, 2016). However, the typologyprovidesagoodfoundationfordiscussion.

3.2.2. INSIGHTSRESEARCHAsmentioned,servicedesigncombinesmethodologyofhuman-centereddesignandsocialsciencestogatherinsightsintoexperiences,desires,motivationsandneedsofconsumersanddistributors of services. As described by Polaine et al. (2013), in service design, researchstretches across all actors involved in a service ranging from the managing director of acompany to the end-user. Market research is focusing on quantitative measures yieldingstatisticallyproventruthswhereasinsightsresearchfocusonqualitativedatafromasmalleramountofpeopleproducinginsights.Exemplified;insteadofa10:1ratioinpeopleproducingatruth,a1:10ratioofpeopleproducing insights isapplied.Whilenotclaimingstatisticallyproventruthsarenotuseful,insightsfromqualitativeresearchcloserexplainthedesigners’interestsinhumanneeds,behaviourandmotivations(Polaineetal.,2013).Datacollectionintheoverarchingservicedesignprojecthaveappliedthisphilosophy.

3.2.3. ETHNOGRAPHYINSERVICEDESIGNAs amain challenge in service design is to put the user under the spotlight, some of themethodsusedbydesignersarelooselyreferredtoasethnographic(Segelströmetal.,2009).Whereasresearchersinvestigatevariouswaystocollectdataandgaininsightintothelifeandexperiencesofpeople(Arvola,Blomkvist,&Wahlman,2017),traditionalqualitativeresearchmethodsasinterviewingandobservationarewellestablishedandhaveakeyroleinservicedesign(VanDijk,2010).AsdescribedbyVanDijk(2010,p.1);“Designethnographersaredesignthinkers.Theyfirmlyunderstandthedesignprocess.They

knowwhatisneededateverystageoftheprocess,andhowthiscanbestbeexplored,discussedandshared.Somedesignethnographersareinitiallytrainedasdesigners,andhavelaterspecialisedthemselvesindoingdesignresearchbasedonethnographicmethodologies.Otherdesignethnographersmayhavebeentrainedasanthropologistsorsocialresearchers,

andspecialisedthemselvesinapplyingthisfordesignprocesses.”Thus,thereisnoreasontodistinguishethnographyinservicedesignfromdesignethnography(see3.1),astheyarguablycan,andwillinthisstudy,beusedsynonymously.

3.2.4. VISUALIZATIONSRepresentationsofservicesareimportantduetothelimitationinvisualappearanceandtheheterogeneous group involved in the conception and construction that services possess(Diana, Pacenti, & Tassi, 2009). Services are more difficult to represent, in contrast toproducts,due to services consistingof chainsofeventsandprocesses (Segelström,2010).Representations of services aremore commonly referred to as visualizations (Segelström,2010)andareusedinservicedesignpracticemainlytoarticulateandcommunicateinsightsas well as enable designers to maintain empathy to data (Segelström, 2009). Researchstudyingthemostcommonmethodstovisualizedatabyservicedesigners inrealbusinessbased projects has identified 17 types of visualizations, further divided into followingcategories:Blueprints,CustomerJourneys,DesktopWalkthroughs,Personas,StoryboardsandSystemMaps(Segelström&Holmlid,2011).Whatkindofvisualizationservicedesignerstend

10

touseismainlyinfluencedbytwoaspects;thecharacteristicsofthedatatobevisualizedandthecauseofthevisualization(Segelström,2009).

3.2.5. CO-CREATIONANDWORKSHOPSAsdesignhavemoved closer to theneedsofusers, theuserhas switched fromapassiveresearchsubjecttoanactiveparticipantinthedesignprocessandtheroleofboththeuser,designerandresearcherhavechanged(Kaasinen&Koskela-Huotari,2013;Kronqvist,2009;Sanders&Stappers,2008).Lookingbackatthepremisesforservice-dominantlogicbyVargo&Lusch(2008),thecustomerisalwaysconsideredaco-creatorofvalue,whichchangesthenatureandlandscapeofthedesignprocessfromtheviewoftheuserassubjectintobeingseenasapartner(Sanders&Stappers,2008).Co-creationisabroadtermusedwithinavarietyofapplications(Sanders&Stappers,2008).Othertermsnotseldomoccurringareco-designandco-produce.Thesimilarityinthenatureofthetermsmaycausesomeconfusion.Co-designsometimesinferthatcustomersand/oruserstogetherwithdesignpractitionerstakepartinthedesignprocess(Polaineetal.,2013;Sanders & Stappers, 2008), as opposed to the creativity of collaborating designers only(Sanders&Stappers,2008).Co-creationandco-designareoftentreatedsynonymouslyandopinions whether they should or not varies (Sanders & Stappers, 2008). Co-productionhoweverdescribethenatureofservices.Servicescanbeconsideredasco-producedandaresowhenuseractionandserviceproviders’valuepropositionmeet,becomingauser/serviceexperience(Polaineetal.,2013).Inthisstudy,co-creationisusedasametaphortothedescriptionofactivitiesperformedinacollaboration between designers and actors in regard to the service. The purpose of co-creationistocollaborativelyproduceknowledgebasedontheideasandbeliefsoftheactorsinvolved.Inthisstudy,co-productionisnotconsidered.Acommonwayofco-creatinginservicedesignisthroughthesettingofworkshops.Inturn,theuseofthetermworkshopisinthisstudyfairlysynonymouslywithco-creation,butdoeshoweverrefertotheactualsessionwhereco-creationisperformed.

3.3. VALUEPROPOSITIONSANDTRIADICRELATIONSHIPSINSERVICESCommonconceptsofvaluepropositionsinservicesystemshaveusuallyinvolvedtwopartiesandadyadicrelationship.Thosedyadicrelationshipsusuallyconsistofonebuyingpartandone selling (Havila, Johanson, & Thilenius, 2004), correspondingwell to themind-set andframework of a goods-dominant logic (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). However, in internationalrelationshipsexportingsuppliersoftenarerepresentedbyandintermediary,suggestingthoserelationshipsactuallyaretriadic(Havilaetal.,2004).Inmarketing,researchhasbeenmadeon triadic relationships with intent to investigate if trust and commitment in business-relationshiptriadsaredifferentfromdyads–whichseeminglyisthecase(Havilaetal.,2004).Eventhoughbeingcommon,dyadicrelationshipsarenotsufficientforvaluepropositionsinmanyservicesystems,wheremorethantwoactorsarenotararecause(Kowalkowskietal.,2016).Bothpreviousresearchhasbeenmadeon incorporatingservice-dominant logicandcustomernetwork actors inmarketing (Cova& Salle, 2008) andmore recently onhow tocreateatriadicvaluepropositionexaminingthetriadicrelationshipofproducer,salespersonanduserbeforeandafteraserviceinitiativeistaken(Kowalkowskietal.,2016).Thedefinition

11

ofatriadicvaluepropositionofKowalkowskietal.(2016,p.1)reads;“areciprocalresource-integrationpromiseandvaluealignmentmechanism,operatingtoandfromthreeactorsthatseeksequitableexchanges”.Kowalkowski, et al. (2016) speak of connections between actors (e.g. A, B, C) in triadicnetworks as intransitive or transitive (see Figure2). In an intransitive triad, theactors areconnectedsuchasA-B-C.Inatransitivetriad,anadditionalconnectionbetweenAandCexist,resultinginaconnectionbetweenalloftheactors.Toachievemaximumpotentialofatriadicvaluepropositionitisrequiredofallactorstobeinvolvedintheprocessinordertocontributetotheproductionofvalue(Kowalkowskietal.,2016).

Figure1.Visualizationoftransitiveandintransitivetriadicrelationships.

Inthisstudy,designethnographyandservicedesignthinkingwillbeusedtoinvestigatehowwe can understand triadic relationships in a product-service system based on the idea ofintransitive and transitive triadic networks. However, different from the research byKowalkowskietal.(2016),thisstudyconcerntherelationshipofserviceprovider,purchaserandend-userratherthanproducer,salespersonanduser.The findings fromKowalkowskietal. (2014),alsospeakof thedimensionsof therelationsbetweentheactorsintriadicrelationships.Intheirresearch,threerelationshipdimensionsbetween actors are presented; Structural/Technological, Economic and Social. Therelationship dimensions are also noted as tied weak, medium or strong. Throughimplementationofaserviceinitiative,allrelationswerestrengthenedandnewrelationsrose.

12

4. METHODThis chapter presents the methods used in this study. Methods that fall under DesignEthnography,as interviews,observationandworkshophavebeenapplied.Thesemethodswereoriginallychosenassuitablefortheexplorativephaseoftheoverarchingservicedesignproject.However,reasonnumbersixonthenoteofrelevanceofethnographyindesignbyBloomberg(assummarizedbyMccartney&Seymour(2002)),ismotivationforalsoapplyingthemethodologyinthisstudy;

“To shift design from single-task focus in order to account for a more holisticunderstandingofoutsideinfluencesontheusers”

4.1. DOMAINRESEARCHAsanaturalfirststeptobeabletounderstandtheneeds,ideas,feelingsandthoughtsthatthe transport companies and truck driversmay have concerning Scania Driver Services, athorough exploration of the services was conducted at Scania in Södertälje. Stakeholdersincludingproductowners,supervisorsandotherpeoplewithinsightsofScaniaDriverServiceswerebothformallyandinformallyinterviewed.TogetanoverviewoftheScaniaviewoftheircustomerrelationship,everythingwaspresented,discussed,examinedandexplored.Thedomainresearchhashelpedunderstandingoneoftheactorsofthetriadicrelationshipinvestigated,namelytheserviceprovider-Scania.

4.2. USERDATAAtScania,aresourcethat isused isthetransport laboratory.Thetransport laboratory isatransport company owned and used by Scania to transport goods between Scania inSödertälje, Sweden and Zwolle, The Netherlands. The truck drivers working at ScaniaTransportLaboratoryuseeverythingwithinScaniaDriverServicesandareusedasatestingresourceindevelopmentandtesting.WhereasthetransportlaboratoryatScaniahasgoodinsightintheuseofservicesandScaniahasgoodinsightsintheworkofthetransportlaboratory,thedecisionwasmadetocollectuserdataattransportcompanyactorsoutsideScaniaasextensiveaspossible.ThisdecisionwasmadeasthetransportlaboratoryisnotrepresentativeforScaniacustomers,andalsoasanattempttoavoidbiases.To get in touch with transport companies, different salespersons at truck dealers werereached out to by e-mail and phone calls. The salespersons further provided contactinformation to their customers, the transport companies, who they believed could beinterestedinparticipatingininterviews,observationsandworkshops.Hence,userdatahasbeencollectedthroughinterviews,observationandthroughworkshopping.Theuserdataiscollectedtohelpunderstandingtheothertwoactorsinthetriadicrelationshipinvestigated:thepurchaser(thetransportcompany)andtheend-user(thetruckdriver).

4.2.1. USERINTERVIEWSTwoCEO’softransportcompanieswereinterviewedatdifferentoccasions.Thefirsttransportcompanyhadabout10vehiclesandthesecondtransportcompanyabout65.ThefirstCEO(C1) interviewed alsoworked as a truck driver for his company at times. Eachof the twointerviews lasted approximately between4 and5 hours. The interviews tookplace at the

13

office of respective transport company. An interview guidewas produced prior to ensurecoverageofthemostimportantaspectsofthetransportcompanybusinessandtheirthoughtsand feelings concerning Scania Driver Services. During the interviews, notes were takenmanually.Theuserinterviewswerecarriedoutwiththefocusofprovidinginsightstotheoverarchingservice design project. Therefore, after the first two interviews, collected notes weretranscribeddigitally.Everynotegatheredwerestructuredinplainnotesandquotes.Insightswerethengradedarbitraryinafive-pointscaletoenableeasyremovalofinsightswithlittleornorelevanceinregardtodriverservices.Inthisstudy,theratingswereofnorelevanceandhavethereforebeenignoredinanalysis.Datapresentedinresultshavebeenanalysedbasedon the theoretic frameworkof triadic analysis and relevance in datahas been consideredlikewise.

4.2.2. USEROBSERVATIONTwotruckdriverswereobservedintheirworkingcontext.Thefirstdriver(T1)wasobservedanafternoonforapproximatelyfourhours.Theseconddriver(T2)wasobservedforafullworkday,approximatelyeighthours.ThesettingoftheobservationswasinaScaniatruckwiththedriverperforminghisnormalworkduties.Inthefirstobservationsession,twoobserversrodealongwiththetruckdriver.Inbothoftheobservationsessionsnotesweretakenmanuallymeanwhilehavinginformaldiscussionswiththedriver.Aninterviewguidewasbroughtalongbutnotusedotherthanasaremindertotopicsofconversation.Aftertheobservationsessions,thedesignteamderivedinsightsfromthe notes along with information recalled by memory. The insights were grouped andclusteredinvariouswaysusingpostit-notestoidentifythemesandcommondenominatorsofatruckdrivers’day.Observationandinterviewdatawereusedtobythedesignteamtoproduceavisualizationofatransitivetriadicrelationshipoftheserviceprovider,purchaserandend-user.

4.2.3. CO-CREATIONWORKSHOPONRELATIONSHIPSAworkshopwasperformedwiththeCEOofatransportcompany(C3)andonetruckdriver(T3). The truckwas son of the CEO and had some insights in the business aspects of thetransportcompany.Thesessionlastedapproximatelyfor4hours.Intheworkshop,focusrevolvedonexploringtherelationshipbetweendifferentactorsintheeveryday life of a transport company and in relation to ScaniaDriver Services.During theworkshop,theCEOofthetransportcompanyandthetruckdriverpresenttookpart inco-creatingusingPostit-notestovisualizeandmaptheirperceptionofvariousactorsandtheircommunicationinrelationthemselvesandtheirbusiness.

14

Figure2.Workshopinvestigatingtherelationshipbetweenactorsintheservicelandscape.

15

5. RESULTSThischapterpresentsoutcome,resultsandmaterialproduced.

5.1. TRIADICRELATIONSHIPSINPRODUCT-SERVICESYSTEMSThedataanalysedcomefrommaterialgatheredintheexplorativephaseoftheoverarchingservicedesignproject.Thus,datarelevantforthepurposeofthisstudyhasbeenextractedfroma largerdataset.ThisdatasetcontainopinionsandperceivedexperiencesregardingScaniaspecifictoolsandservices.Dataofrelevanceforthisstudyhasarbitrarilybeenselectedfromthedataset.Dataofnoapparentrelevanceforunderstandingtriadicrelationships inproduct-servicesystemshasbeenleftout.Theresultsareconclusionsdrawnbytheauthorfrominterviewandobservationnotes.Theconclusions are presentedwith their corresponding notes that they are drawn upon. Thenotes are also presentedwith its source label.Data are from five different occasions andsourcesarelabelledinfuturetextasfollows.

Table2.Datasources,descriptionsandtheircorrespondinglabels.

Occasion With LabelInterview CEOofatransportcompany C1Interview CEOofatransportcompany C2Workshop CEO C3Workshop TruckDriver T3Observation TruckDriver T1Observation TruckDriver T2Note: No notes from the workshop reflect ideas that has contradictions between theparticipantsexpressed.Transportcompanieshaveprejudicesoffactorsthatmotivatetruckdrivers.Theprejudicesdonotcorrespondtotheperceptionoftruckdrivers.

• C1:Youusedtoworkforacompany–nowyouworkforyourselfandmoney• C3:Moneyistheonlythingthatmotivatesinthiskindbusiness• T1:Daughterisamotivationtoboththinkoftheenvironmentandtobesafewhile

workingTransportcompaniesseeeverythingthroughamonetaryfilter.Thisisapossibleexplanationtotheirperceptionthatmoneyisallthatmattersfortruckdrivers.

• C1:Moneyisimportant• C2:Wearisagreatexpense• C3:Everythingismoney• C3:EverydayIcanseetruckdriversthroughmyofficewindowthatletgoofthegas

toolateandbreakinsteadandallIseeiswastedmoneyIt is not rare that truck drivers lack understanding of the transport company business.Arguably,understandingthebusinesshasaneffectonthedriver.

• C3,T3:Truckdriverslackunderstandingofthetransportcompanyexpenses

16

• C3,T3:Itwouldprobablybegoodiftruckdrivershadanunderstandingoftheworkdispatchersandothersattheofficedo

• T2:Mydrivingstyle isaffectedbymyexperiencefromdispatchingandIamcalmerbecauseIcanimaginewhatthedispatcherhavehadinmindwhenplanning

TransportcompaniesareofteninheritedandCEO’softransportcompanieshaveoftenbeenatruckdriver.

• C1:AsCEO,youareproudtohavebeenacquiredbyavenerablefamilycompany• C1:Ownershipstillrelieswithinthefamily• C1:Thereisprideinthecompanybackgroundasafamilybusiness• C2:IsasaCEOnotsupposedtodrivethatmuchbutithappensfromtimetotime

Dispatcherisarolethatyouusuallyobtainbyperformingagoodjobasatruckdriver.

• C1:DispatcherisaroleyouusuallyobtainthroughhardworkTheCEOofatransportcompanydoesnotnecessarilyfitinaleadershipposition.

• C1:Youusedtoworkforacompany–nowyouworkforyourselfandmoney• C1:Loyaltytoyouremployerdoesnotalwaysexist• C2:Therearetransportcompaniesthatarenotgoodwithtruckdrivers

ConsideringtheCEOofatransportcompanypreviouslybeingatruckdriverandthattruckdrivers’ lack understanding of the transport company business. A shift of focus occurssomewherealongtheway.Misconception between actors in a triadic relationship concerning prejudices has beenidentified.Inanintransitivetriadicrelationship,theserviceproviderreliesonthepurchaserperception of the end-user. In the overarching service design project, a visualization of atransitivetriadicrelationshipbetweentheserviceprovider,purchaserandend-userhasbeencreatedasapropositiontohowtoexploreanddevelopdriverservices.Thevisualizationdoesnotintendtorepresentaserviceatlarge,buthowrequirementsfromthepurchasershouldguidethedevelopmentofthesolutionproposedbytheserviceprovider(whichisintendedtobedevelopedtogetherwiththeend-user).Hence,thevisualizationisnotimmediatelyrecognizableasoneoftheclassicrepresentationscommonlyusedinservicedesign.Theaimof thevisualization ishowever tomake the ideaof thepropositioneasilygraspable. The visualization is synchronic, meaning it represents time-independentinformationratherthanajourneyorflow,i.e.diachronic(Dianaetal.,2009).The visualization produced represent a transitive relationship between service provider(Scania), purchaser (transport company) and end-user (truck driver). In the overarchingservice designproject, the visualization is used to communicate anunderstandingof howrelations should be consideredbetween the service provider and its customer to developvaluableservicesandtoemphasizetheneedtounderstandtheend-userandnotonlythegoalsofthepurchaser.At the core of the triadic relationship there is a challenge perceived by the purchaser.Requirements(blue)fromthepurchaseractorrepresentthedemandsthepurchaserhason

17

the solution.A realistic exampleof such a requirement could be that the solution cannotconsumetoomuchtime.

• C1:TimekeepingisoftheessenceintransportbusinessTherequirementsaretobemetbythesolutionco-createdbyserviceproviderandend-user.Therequirements(yellow)areoutputfromtheproposedservice,andshouldcorrespondtowhatthepurchaserrequiresasreturnfromtheproposedsolution/value-proposition.Astothepreviousexample,theoutputshouldbethatthesolutiondoesnotrequireasignificantamountoftime.Theyellowandbluerectanglescoveringtheserviceproviderandend-useractorsareconsideredthedesignspaceforasolutiontothechallenge.

Figure3.Visualizationofatriadicrelationshipwiththeactors;Serviceprovider(Scania),Purchaser(Transportcompany)and

End-user(Driver).

As the visualization only consider relationships through the requirements stated by thepurchaser, it isboundtothecontextsettingoftheoverarchingservicedesignproject.Thevisualizationdoesnotthoroughlyrepresenttriadicrelationships.Further,thetransportcompanyspeakofthehistoricevolutionoftheend-user.Historically,truckdrivershavepossessedwhatisreferredtoas“common-sense”toagreaterextent.

• C1:Driverstodaydon’tpossesscommon-senseastheyusedto• C3:Theworkdescriptionassumescommon-sense

Transporteducationfailtodelivertruckdriversthatunderstandtherequiredworkeffort.

• C1:Youwanttoseetruckdrivers’thatareinterestedintheirworkwhichisnotalwaysthecase

• C1: The school system does not alwaysmanage to deliver adults and peoplewhounderstandtheworkrequired

18

Thereisabeliefofmorejuniortruckdriversthatyoujustdrive,whichisnotthecase.

• C1:“Seniordrives”, jobswith lessphysicalworkandmoredriving issomethingyouearnovertime

• C2: As long-term planning doesn’t exist in our business we have high knowledgerequirementsinproblemsolving

ThisisdiscussedasaprobableeffectofadevelopmentonasocietallevelwhereSwedenandagriculturelooksdifferenttodaythaninthepast.Itisunclearhowtherelationshipsinatriadshouldbeconsideredwhentherearevariationsofsingleactorsovertime.In an intransitive triadic relationship, dyadic relationships within the triad are stained byprejudices that are incorrect. Assuming a transitive triadic relationship, insights of wheretheseshortcomingsaffectthetriadicrelationshiparise.Understandingthechallengesofthepurchaserintheintransitivetriadicrelationship,thevalue-propositioncanmeethisperceivedneeds. If the perceived needs contradict the perception of the end-user, mutual value isunlikelytobeachieved.Theworkshop focused on further exploring purchaser and end-user understanding of therelationshipsthatexistinthetransportcompanybusiness.Theworkshophasrevealedamorecomplexnetworkofactorsthaninitiallyassumed.Otheractorsthanthethreeassumedinatriadicrelationshipofserviceprovider,purchaserandenduseroccurred.Thoseactorswere:

• C3,T3:Salesperson• C3,T3:Thecustomerofthetransportcompany• C3,T3:Mechanicsattheserviceworkshops

Thesalesperson,asbeingoneoftheactorsinthepreviousresearchexamplebyKowalkowskiet al. (2016), has from the domain research not been considered as part of the serviceprovider.Thesameappliesfortheserviceworkshop.Assuming this view suggest that the service provider consist of a network of actors. AsinterviewswithCEO’softransportcompaniesrevealedthatthequalityofserviceworkshopscanaffectwhetheraninvestmentinaspecifictruckbrandornotwillbemade,thereismotivenottooverlooktheidentifiedadditionalactors.

• C1:Thereisagreatfocusonuptimeofthevehicles• C1:Iftheserviceworkshopisnotworkingyoumayinvestinanotherbrand• C2:It’simportanttokeepvehiclesrunning

The understanding from the domain research together with the understanding from theworkshopraisethequestionofhowtodelimittheserviceprovider.Thedesignteamrepresentthe service provider and the purchaser perceived actor “service provider” does notcorrespondtotheirunderstanding.Thedomainresearchrevealedthatthesalespersonisnotdirectlyconnectedtothebusinesssettingoftheserviceprovider.Inthiscase,thesalespersonis not directly employed by the service provider. The business of the salesperson doeshoweverrelyontheserviceproviderandviceversa.

19

Alsoconcerningdelimitationoftheserviceprovider,theperceptionoftheend-useristhathisrelationship to the service provider is through workshopmechanics. The business of themechanicsisonceagainnotdirectlyconnectedtothebusinesssettingoftheserviceprovider.

• C3,T3:Thedrivers’connectiontotheserviceproviderissomecontactwithworkshopmechanics

Thevalue-propositionfromtheserviceprovidertothepurchaserrequiresdifferentmeansofcommunication to the end-user. The end-user, commonly lacking business experience asmentioned,requireanothertypeoftrustandtransparencyoftheservicethanthepurchaser.

• C3,T3:YoucanignoreusingDriverSupportbecauseyoudon’thaveincentivesto,youdon’tbelievethatitmakesadifference

Notunderstandingthevalueandincentivesforusingwhatisproposedbytheserviceprovider,theweightoftheserviceproviderunderstandingtheend-userisclearlyexemplifiedthroughthefollowingnote.

• C2: Sometimes you remove systemmessages because they are perceived asmorestressfulthanhelpful

Whilethetruckdriverperceiveshiscommunicationwiththeserviceproviderbeingthroughanactornotpreviously recognized.Assumingan intransitive triad, the transport companyreliesuponhisownabilitytocommunicatethevalue-propositionfromtheserviceprovidertothe end-user.Asmentioned, a CEO of a transport company does not necessarily possessleadershipcompetencies.However,awillingnesstoprovidepositivefeedbacktodriversdoesexistinsomecases:

• C2:Wetrytoprovidepositivefeedbacktoourdriversbutitiscommonthatitdoesnotreachthem

The characteristics of the relationship between actors in a triadic network, transitive orintransitive, varies. In this case, the relationship between the purchaser and the serviceproviderconcernisperceivedtobemainlythroughthesalesperson,concerningmoneyandinvestment. The relationship between the end-user and the service provider is throughworkshopmechanicsandconcernuseandfunctionality.Summarized, the knowledge that has been identified related to understanding triadicrelationshipsinproduct-servicesystemsconcern:


relationship.

20

6. DISCUSSIONThischaptercontaindiscussionoftheresultsofhowapplyingdesignethnographyandservicedesignthinkinghavehelpedinunderstandingtherelationshipsinrelationtotheideaofbothintransitive and transitive triads in product-service systems. Further, the benefits andconstraintsofthemethodologyappliedisdiscussed.

6.1. RESULTSTheresultswillbediscussedusingthevisualization,resultsandsummarypresentedinsection5.1(see5.1)andtheoreticframework(seechapter3).

6.1.1. VISUALIZINGTRANSITIVETRIADICRELATIONSHIPSThevisualizationproducedcontributestocommunicatingandemphasizinginsightsgathered,asproposedbySegelström(2010).Thevisualizationrelatestotheoverarchingservicedesignprojecttoanextentthatcouldbeconsideredtoogreattobeofparticularuseforthisstudy.Thevisualizationbyitselfdoesnotcontributetoansweringtheresearchquestion.However,design ethnography and service design thinking has enabled the production of thevisualizationandthus,visualizingknowledgeoftheactorsinatransitivetriadicrelationship.Consideringthefactthatallinformationvisualizedisgatheredintheexplorativeservicedesignprojectusingdesignethnography,thereissupportfortheapproachbeingviableforproducingrelevantunderstanding.Thevisualizationcouldbeelaboratedwithagreaterlevelofdetailtosupportcommunicationandemphasizingtriadicrelationships.

6.1.2. RELATIONSHIPDIMENSIONSThedimensionsofrelationshipsbyKowalkowskietal.(2014),beingStructural/Technological,Economic and Social are all aspects that have been recognized while applying a designethnographic and service design thinking approach in the setting of this study. However,relatingthedimensionsfrompreviousresearchwillbedonewithcareduetothefactthattheactorswithinthetriadicrelationshipinthisstudyaredifferent.Also,itshouldbenotedthatKowalkowski et al. (2014) intended to investigate these dimensions throughoutimplementationofaserviceinitiative.Inthisstudy,thedimensionscanbeidentifiedbutnotexpressedinregardtochange.InrelationtotherelationshipdimensionsofKowalkowskietal.(2014),aconcreteexampleofwhere design ethnography has helped in understanding triadic relationships in product-servicesystemsiswheretheend-userhastroubleseeingincentivesforusingatooldeliveredby the serviceprovider. This is noted in theworkshopwithC3andT3, stating thatDriverSupportcanbeignoredbyadriverbecauseoflackofincentivestouseit.Thepurchaserhassomewherealongthelinefoundmotivationforinvestment.Itisclearthattheend-userdoesnotunderstandthismotivationwhenchoosingnottousethetoolathand.Thus,theeconomictie between purchaser and end-user could, in reference to Kowalkowski et al. (2014), beconsidered as weak. The service provider has however not understood thestructural/technologicalaspectsoftheend-userinhisworkwhenstressisanotherfactorfornotusingthetool,asC2havenotedinhisbusiness.Onthenoteofsocialaspects,thesearerecognizedintheinterviewwithC2wherenotesrevealanattempttohavepositivefeedbackreachthetruckdrivers’.

21

Also,asdiscussedin6.1.5(see6.1.5),dataconcerningbothmisconceptionsbetweenactorsandcontradictions in theirperceptionsconcerning socialaspectsandcouldbe related thestrengthofasocialdimensionintherelationshipofactorsinatriadicnetwork.Astheresultsofthestudycanbecomparedtothedimensionsofrelationships,thisprovideanotheraspectofwhatkindofunderstandingdesignethnographyandservicedesignthinkinghaveproducedinregardtotriadicrelationshipsinproduct-servicesystems.

6.1.3. EQUITABLEEXCHANGEAsmentioned,Kowalkowskietal.(2016)speakoftriadicvaluepropositionsas“areciprocalresource-integrationpromiseandvaluealignmentmechanism,operatingtoandfromthreeactorsthatseeksequitableexchanges”.Itisquestionablewhetherequitableexchangecanbeconsideredasvalueinthesettingofserviceprovider,purchaserandend-user.Whereastheend-userlackunderstandingofthepurchaser’sbusinesssetting,itisnotedthatitcouldbeprofitableforbothactorsiftheend-userpossessedsomeunderstanding.However,ithasnotbeenfurtherexaminedwhatpossiblenegativeeffectsunderstandingthebusinesssettingmayentail.Ithasneitherbeenexploredwhatequitableexchangeisconsideredwhichcanbeaneffectofthe overarching service design project having a greater focus on value in the view of thetransportcompany,i.e.thepurchaser.Asthetransportcompanyperceiveeverythingthroughamonetaryfilter,itisplausible,howevernotcertain,thattheend-userperceivesequitableascompetitivemarketwages.Whereasthemethodologyappliedhasrevealedthatmoneyisnottheonlythingthatmotivatetruckdrivers,inthiscase,thedataathanddoesnotinitscurrentstaterevealanythingabouttherelationshipswithinthetriad.Referringtouserdefinedvalue,asproposedbyArvola&Holmlid(2016),thereisreasontobelievethatvalueintheeyesoftheend-userhasanotherdimensioninthistriadicsettingthanequitableexchange.

6.1.4. SERVICEDESIGNTHINKINGThe effects of service design thinking to this study are a bit more implicit than designethnographywhich is residing closer to actualmethodology. All data collected is from anexplorativephaseofaservicedesignproject.Themaincausefordatacollectionhasthereforenotbeentodescribetheresearchquestionofthisstudy.Whereasunderstandingoftriadicrelationships in product-service systems has been generated, it is fair to say that there issupportforservicedesignthinkingbeinguseful.Concerningmethodsapplied,whatcouldbeconsideredclosertoservicedesignthinkingthandesign ethnography is the co-creationworkshop. As the user has evolved from a passiveresearchsubjecttoanactiveparticipant,theinformationgatheredinco-creatinghasturnedout fruitful for understanding triadic relationships in product-service systems. This, byrevealing common understanding, contradictions and new information of the perceivedrelationshipsoftheactorsinvolved.Byrelatingtheco-creatinginthisstudytotheoryofvisualizinginsightsinservicedesignasfoundbySegelström(2010),visualizingalsohelpgeneratingnewunderstanding.Asprevious,main causes of visualizing insights are to articulate insights, communicate them and tomaintainempathy.Visualizingthedifferentactorsandtheirrelationsbyusingpostit-notes

22

also has generated new insights, namely; the purchaser and end-user perceivedunderstandingofactorsandrelationshipsconcerningtheserviceprovider.Itshouldbenotedthatbothoftheparticipantsintheco-creationworkshopinthisstudyhadexperience of the transport company business and therefore the results are not fullyrepresentativefordiscussionbetweenpurchaserandend-user.To further elaborate, the co-creating revealed actors that are part of the product-servicesystemthathasnotbeenconsideredinadvance.Thisunderstanding,whetherconsideringatransitive or intransitive triadic relationship, has the potential to reframe the wholeunderstandingoftheservicesetting.AstheactorsinpreviousresearchbyKowalkowskietal.(2014)arenotthesameasinthecontextofthisstudythequestionarisesofwheretomakedelimitationsoftheserviceprovideractor.Theco-creationworkshoprevealedthatboththepurchaser and end-user consider the salesperson and workshopmechanic as part of theserviceprovideractor.Thisisoverlookedinthedomainresearchandtheunderstandingfromtheserviceproviderpointofviewdiffers (as thedesign teamhasbeenconsideredserviceproviderrepresentatives).

6.1.5. PRODUCEDKNOWLEDGETHEMESThe knowledge that has been identified related to understanding triadic relationships inproduct-servicesystemsconcernispresentedonceagainbelow.

• Contradictionsbetweenthepurchaserandend-userperception.• Actorperceptionofanotheractor(s).• Actorperceivedevolutionofanotheractorovertime.• Actorchangeofviewduetoitsownevolution.• Relationshipsoftheserviceprovider,purchaserandenduser.• Misconceptionsbetweenactors.• Variationincommunicationbetweenactors.• Whatthecommunicationbetweenactorsisperceivedtoconcern.• Additional actors than initially considered are crucial for understanding the triadic

relationship.Thethemesareclusteredanddiscussedinregardtounderstandingthatwasrevealedinthestudy.Contradictionsbetweenthepurchaserandend-userperception,Actorperceptionofanotheractor(s).Contradictionsbetweenpurchaserandend-userisidentifiedinconflictingcommentsfromC3andT1.C3believesthatmoneyistheonlymotivationalfactorwhereasT1hasotherexamples.Value-propositions in product-service systems will suffer from contradictions as value issubjectively perceived accordingly with foundational premise 10 (FP10) of the proposedservice-dominant logic by Vargo & Lusch (2008), namely Value is always uniquely andphenomenologically determined by the beneficiary. If the perceived value from purchaserdoesnotcorrespondtoperceivedvalueattheend-user,therewillnotbeequitableexchangefor actors involved. The motivational factors, attitudes and beliefs that are revealed byapplyingdesignethnographydoesnotprovideanunderstandingofhowavalue-propositionthatentailequitableexchangeshouldbeframed.

23

Actorperceivedevolutionofanotheractorovertime,Actorchangeofviewduetoitsownevolution.End-usersthatarenewtothetransportindustryvaryincompetenciesfromhistorically.Thereisaperceivedlackofcommon-sensefrompreviouslybythepurchaser,whichisalsonotedbyC3.However,arguablyeveryonechangesovertimeandthepurchaserinthiscontextisalsocommontopreviouslyhavebeentheend-user.InaninterviewwithC2itismentionedthatyouarenotsupposedtodrivethatmuchbutasaCEOithappensfromtimetotime.The fact that the purchaser perceives end-users to have changed over time provide anunderstandingofthetriadicrelationshipby identifyingwheretheserviceproviderpossiblycouldfindnewbusinessopportunities.Itisimportanttonotethat“end-user”and“end-user”doesnotnecessarilyhave the samechallenges inhiseverydaywork.The sameof courseappliesforotheractors.Notonlydotheend-userchangeovertimehistorically.AsmentionedbyC1,dispatcherisaroleusuallyobtainedbyhardwork,whichsuggestthatyoualsochangeoverthecourseofyourowncareer.Also, it is not rare that the purchaser has evolved from being an end-user. This is a bitcontradictoryasitshouldbeclearforthepurchaserthatachangeofviewhasoccurred.Relationshipsoftheserviceprovider,purchaserandenduser.With the design team representing the service provider participating together with thepurchaserandend-userinaco-creationworkshop–fruitfulinsightsfortheunderstandingofthe triadic relationship were revealed. The knowledge mainly concerns the fact that theserviceproviderisperceiveddifferentlyfromthedesignteam.AstheworkshopwithC3andT3revealed,newactorsassalesperson,mechanicandthepurchaser’scustomerarerevealed.While both C3 and T3 suggest that their interaction to the service provide is throughsalespersonandmechanic,theseareactorsnotconsideredaspartoftheserviceproviderbythe design team. As the design team represented the service provider, it is questionablewhether thecharacteristicsof insightswoulddifferhavinghadanexplicit serviceprovideractor taking part in theworkshop.Whowould be suitable to represent this actor remainunexplored.Misconceptionsbetweenactors,Variationincommunicationbetweenactors,Whatthecommunicationbetweenactorsisperceivedtoconcern.MisconceptionsbetweenactorsareidentifiedintheworkshopwithC3andT3.ItisnotedthatyoucanignoretheuseofDriverSupportbecauseasadriveryoulackincentivesto.Thiscouldalsobeaneffectoftheend-usernotunderstandingthebusinessofthepurchaser,whichalsoisnotedascommonintheworkshopwithC3andT3. It isnotablethatT2suggestthathisdriving has become different after getting insight and experience of the business of thepurchaser.Froma serviceproviderpointof view, it is important tounderstand forwhomyouare todeliveravalue-proposition.Communicationvariesbetweentheactorsinatriadicrelationshipanddependingontowhichactorapointistobemade,thecommunicationmayneedtobeframeddifferently.

24

Additional actors than initially considered that are crucial for understanding the triadicrelationship.TheworkshopwithC3andT3 revealed factors crucial to theunderstandingof the serviceprovider. Once again, this refer to the identified actors not previously considered. Thequestionarisesconcerningwherethedelimitationsofwhatandwhoshouldbeconsideredtheserviceprovider.Thereareactorsthatbythedesignteamareconsideredexternalbutareperceivedastheserviceproviderbythepurchaserandtheend-user.AccordingwithVargo&Lusch’s (2004, 2008) fundamental premise FP2, indirect exchangemasks the fundamentalbasisofexchange.Whetherconsideredasindirectexchangeornot,thisnewunderstandingofactorsinthesystemcouldpossessgreatimplicationofhowatriadicrelationshipcouldbeperceived.Thequestionofwhetheratriadicrelationshipisenoughisatargetforfutureresearch.Iftheservice provider is actually a network of actors by itself, it is fair to assume that theunderstandingofthisnetworkiscrucialforthefurtherunderstandingoftheserviceproviderasanactorinatriadwithpurchaserandend-user.

6.1.6. DYADICRELATIONSHIPSASELEMENTSINATRIADThecommonviewofdyadicrelationshipsthatcorrespondtoagoods-dominantlogic(Vargo&Lusch,2004,2008)wheretherelationshipseller-buyerexistisinthisstudyelaboratedtoatriadicrelationshipconsistingofserviceprovider,purchaserandend-user.Whereasdyadic relationshipsexist in the triad–whenassuminga triadic relationship, thedyadscouldbeoverlooked.Itisofimportanceforunderstandingthetriadicrelationshipthatthisdoesnotbecomethecase.Ithasbecomeclearthattherelationshipsbetweenactorsinatransitivetriadisaffectedbytheactors’perceptionofthedyadswithin.Designethnographyand service design thinking have helped understanding the triadic relationship throughunderstandingthedyadicrelationships.

6.2. METHODAsbeingpartofanoverarchingservicedesignproject, themethodologyappliedhasbeenexplorative,asopposedtodeterministic.Thisarguablystrengthensthewholeideaofapplyingdesignethnographyandservicedesignthinkingtounderstandtriadicrelationshipsinproduct-service systems, as the goal of data collection has explicitly focusedonpursuing a designprocessofdifferentfocus.The methodology applied to the analysed data should be considered valid as designethnography rather thanamorecommondeterministicqualitative researchmethodology.This,duetotheunderlyingcauseoftheethnographicworkhasbeentomoveadesignprocessforwardandnotexplicitlyandsystematicallyexploreandunderstandthenatureofthepeoplestudied.Whereasthemethodologyappliedrelieswithinthefieldofqualitativeresearch,itisunclearwhethertheresultswouldhavebeenanydifferent ifexplicitlyappliedtoexplicitlydeterministically investigate the target of this study. It is however fair to believe that theoutcomewouldbesimilar,duetothenatureofqualitativeresearchandwhatwerefertoasdesignethnography.

25

6.2.1. INSIGHTSANDHANDWRITTENNOTESTherawdatausedinthisstudyarehandwrittennotesfrominterviewingandobserving.Thereareflawsinhavingthiskindofdataforanalysis.Theappliedapproachhasbeenfocusingoninsightsresearch.Asofthis,andthatthedesignprocessrapidlyhasmovedforwardandvalidatingtheinsightsathandthoroughlyhavenotbeenthecase.Theconclusionsdrawnfromthedatacollectedasnotescouldhavebeenvalidatedbycross-checkingtheinterpretationswiththesourceoftheinformation.Theconclusionsdrawnthereforerelyheavilyonthememoryoftheresearchertakingnotesasthelevelofdetailofthenotesvary.Also,whenusingnotesasdata,thereisnochanceofbeingnearasobjectiveasbytranscribingactualcommentsandcitingthose.However,astheresearcher,havingfiveyearsofstudiesincognitivescienceheavilyfocusingonethnographyandsubjectiveexperiencesthishopefullyhaveinfluencedthenotestakenadvantageously.Othermethodsthatcouldhavebeenappliedduringtheresearchtoeasiervalidatetheconclusionsdrawncouldhavebeentoeitherrecordaudioandtranscribetheinterviewsessionsortorecordandanalysevideomaterial.Neitherhavebeendoneinthiscase.

6.2.2. SERVICEPROVIDERASFACILITATOROFUSERDATACOLLECTIONTheuserdata collectionhasbeen facilitatedby the serviceprovider.Asbeingpart of theoverarchingservicedesignproject,thedomainresearchoftheserviceprovidershouldhaveprovided a reasonably fair understanding of the service provider. However, during theproceedingdesignprocess,thedesignteam,asconsideredpartoftheserviceprovideractoridentifiednewinformationaboutpurchaserandend-userperceptionoftheserviceprovider.TheworkshopwithC3andT3revealedthattheyconsiderbothasalespersonandmechanicas their communicationwith the service provider. The design teamhave beenpresentingthemselves as representatives of the service provider and have explicitly lived under itsreputationwhilecollectingdata.Byapplyingthismethodology,onematterthatistargetforfutureresearchishowthefactthat the reputationof the serviceprovidermayhave affected theoutcomeof interviews,observationandco-creationworkshopwithexternalusersandthustheunderstandingoftherelationshipsinthetriad.

6.2.3. METHODOLOGYCONTRIBUTIONTheunderstandingthatthedesignteamhavehadoftheserviceproviderturnedouttodifferfrom the ones of the purchaser and end-user. Having a representativewith even greaterknowledge of the business of the service provider present, this may have turned outdifferently. This is also reason to believe that the domain research possibly has not beenextensive enough. Delimitation of the actorswithin the triadic relationship is a target fordiscussion.Anotherpremisewithunknowneffectsoftheoutcomeisthefactthatthedesignteamhasrepresented the service providerwhen collecting user data. Evenwith the sought actors’present,theresultsshowthat,onceagain,theunderstandingofdelimitationsoftheactorsintheproduct-servicesystemmaybeperceiveddifferentlyamongtheactorsinvolved.Thecombinationofdesignethnographyandservicedesignthinkingdidhoweversuccessfullyachieveresultsinunderstandingrelationshipsbetweenactorsinatriadicnetwork.Had“only”

26

designethnographybeenapplied, thesamequestionaspreviouslynotedarise;whetheradeterministic qualitative research approach would have been viable to provide the sameunderstanding.

6.3. KNOWLEDGEAPPLICABILITYTheknowledgeoftriadicrelationshipsinproduct-servicesystemsthathasbeenproducedinthisstudyshouldnotbegeneralizedandtakenforgrantedinproduct-servicesystemsettingsthatdoesnotcontextuallyconformactorsbeingtheserviceprovider,purchaserandend-user.Evenwithcorrespondingactors inthetriad,there isnoguaranteethatthefindingsofthisstudyareapplicable.However,applyingdesignethnographyandaservicedesignthinkingapproachhavetheabilityofproducingknowledgeofeachactorwithinthetriadandthustherelationshipsbetweenthem. This knowledge has been further used in the overarching service design project toproposesuggestionsfuturedevelopmentofScaniaDriverServices.

27

7. CONCLUSIONThischaptercontainsconcludingwordsofthethesisresults,researchcontributionandideasforfutureresearch.

7.1. DESIGNETHNOGRAPHYANDSERVICEDESIGNTHINKINGDesignethnographyandservicedesignthinkinghavebeenappliedinanexplorativephaseofa service design project. The applied methodology support understanding of triadicrelationshipsinproduct-servicesystems.Asummaryofwhatproducedknowledgeconcernispresentedinbulletsbelow.


relationship.

7.1.1. IMPLICATIONSFORUNDERSTANDINGTRIADICRELATIONSHIPSINPRODUCT-SERVICESYSTEMS

Theresults indicatethateachactorwithintriadic relationshipsmayhavetobeelaboratedfurthertothoroughlydescribetherelationshipsinthesettingofserviceprovider,purchaserandend-user.Ithasbecomeclearthatdelimitationoftheserviceproviderisnotperceivedbythe purchaser and end-user at is has been by the design team representing the serviceprovider.Athoroughunderstandingofeachactors’beliefsandperceptionshouldprovideabetterunderstandingoftherelationshipsbetweenthem.

7.2. FUTURERESEARCHQuestions have arisen during the application of design ethnography and service designthinkingontriadicrelationshipsinproduct-servicesystems.Theknowledgeproducedinthisstudyconcernwhatservicedesignthinkinganddesignethnographycanprovideintermsofunderstanding triadic relationships in product-service systems. The suggestions for futureresearcharetovalidatetheknowledgeproduced,andalsotosupportbetterapplicationofthemethodologiesused.Proposedsubjectsforfutureresearchare:

• Canapplicationofdesignethnographyandservicedesignthinkinginadeterministicmanner to the research question at hand rather than being part of an explorativeoverarchingprojectfurthervalidatetheapproachasbeneficialfordescribingtriadicrelationshipsinproduct-servicesystems?

• Whataretheeffectsofrepresentativesofaserviceproviderasopposedtoexternalresourcesperformingdesignethnography?

• Howdoyoudelimitateserviceprovider intriadicrelationshipswheretheactorsareserviceprovider,purchaseranduser?

• Howdoyoudefineequitableexchangeinatriadicrelationshipwheretheactorsareserviceprovider,purchaseranduser?

28

• Aretriadicrelationshipsenoughtodescribethecomplexityofproduct-servicesystemsorshouldanetworkofdyadicrelationsbeconsidered?

29

REFERENCESAnderson,K.(2009).Ethnographicresearch:akeytostrategy.HarvardBusinessReview.

Retrievedfromhttp://images.enjoy-ind.nl/media/555932-Ethno_Research_A_key_to_strategy_HBR.pdf

Arvola,M.,Blomkvist,J.,&Wahlman,F.(2017).LifelogginginUserExperienceResearch :SupportingRecallandImprovingDataRichness.

Arvola,M.,&Holmlid,S.(2016).ServiceDesignWaystoValue-In-Use.ServiceDesignGeographies.ProceedingsoftheServDes2016Conference,125,530–536.Retrievedfromhttp://www.ep.liu.se/ecp/article.asp?issue=125&article=047&volume=

Blomkvist,J.(2014).RepresentingFutureSituationsofService.PrototypinginServiceDesign.Retrievedfromhttp://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-105499

Cova,B.,&Salle,R.(2008).MarketingsolutionsinaccordancewiththeS-Dlogic:Co-creatingvaluewithcustomernetworkactors.IndustrialMarketingManagement,37(3),270–277.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2007.07.005

DesignCouncil.(2005).AStudyoftheDesignProcess.DesignCouncil,44(0),1–144.http://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068

Diana,C.,Pacenti,E.,&Tassi,R.(2009).Communicationtoolsfor(service)design,65.Retrievedfromhttp://vbn.aau.dk/files/135053851/Proceedings_of_Servdes_2012.pdf#page=75

Emerson,R.M.,Fretz,R.I.,&Shaw,L.L.(2011).WritingEthnographicFieldnotes.WritingEthnographicFieldnotes.

Genzuk,M.(2003).Asynthesisofethnographicresearch.Series.CenterforMultilingual,MulticulturalResearch(,1–10.Retrievedfromhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:A+SYNTHESIS+OF+ETHNOGRAPHIC+RESEARCH#0

Goedkoop,M.J.,VanHalen,C.J.G.,TeRiele,H.R.M.,&Rommens,P.J.M.(1999).ProductServicesystems,EcologicalandEconomicBasics.EconomicAffairs(Vol.36).http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02125.x

Havila,V.,Johanson,J.,&Thilenius,P.(2004).Internationalbusiness-relationshiptriads.InternationalMarketingReview,21(2),172–186.http://doi.org/10.1108/02651330410531385

Holmlid,S.(2010).ServiceDesignandProduct-ServiceSystems.Design,195–201.Kaasinen,E.,&Koskela-Huotari,K.(2013).Threeapproachestoco-creatingserviceswith

users.…SideofService…,4343–4352.Retrievedfromhttp://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=m1WcezzJ1scC&oi=fnd&pg=PA286&dq=Three+approaches+to+co-+creating+services+with+users&ots=aFRMMBl_pi&sig=oOfunHMTU_RS42NbsRNtd9pd3vE

Kanda,Y.,&Nakagami,Y.(2006).WhatisProduct-ServiceSystems(PSS)–AreviewonPSSresearchesandrelevantpolicies.IGESKansaiResearchCentre-WhitePaper,(1),0–23.Retrievedfromhttp://enviroscope.iges.or.jp/modules/envirolib/upload/469/attach/report08.pdf%5Cnhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:What+is+Product-Service+Systems+(+PSS+)?+-+A+Review+on+PSS+Researches+and+Relevant+Policies+-#0

Kowalkowski,C.(2010).WhatDoesaService-DominantLogicReallyMeanforManufacturingFirms?ChristianKowalkowski.InCIRPIPSConference2010,3(2),2010.

30

Kowalkowski,C.,&Kindström,D.(2014).TriadicValuePropositionsinServiceNetworks.30thIMP-Conference.

Kowalkowski,C.,Kindström,D.,&Carlborg,P.(2016).TriadicValuePropositions:WhenItTakesMoreThanTwotoTango.ServiceScience,8(3),282–299.http://doi.org/10.1287/serv.2016.0145

Kronqvist,J.(2009).Co-CreatingSolutions-CombiningServiceDesignandChangeLaboratory.FirstNordicConferenceonServiceDesignandServiceInnovation,Oslo24th-26thNov2009,1–15.

Lightfoot,H.,Baines,T.,&Smart,P.(2013).Theservitizationofmanufacturing.InternationalJournalofOperations&ProductionManagement,33(11/12),1408–1434.http://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-07-2010-0196

Malinowski,B.(1922).ArgonautsoftheWesternPacific:AnAccountofNativeEnterpriseandAdventureintheArchipelagoesofMelanesianNewGuinea.Nature(Vol.110).http://doi.org/10.1038/110472a0

Mccartney,S.,&Seymour,R.(2002).WhatisdesignEthnography?Design,1–3.Polaine,A.,Lovlie,L.,&Reason,B.(2013).FromInsighttoImplementationServiceDesign.Sanders,E.B.-N.,&Stappers,P.J.(2008).Co-creationandthenewlandscapesofdesign.

CoDesign,4(1),5–18.http://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068Schuler,D.,&Namioka,A.(1993).ParticipatoryDesign:PrinciplesandPractices.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.anclin.2007.12.004Segelstrom,F.(2013).StakeholderEngagementforServiceDesign:Howservicedesigners

identifyandcommunicateinsights.LinkopingUniversityElectronicPress,1–210.http://doi.org/10.3384/diss.diva-97320

Segelström,F.(2009).CommunicatingThroughVisualizations:ServiceDesignersonVisualizingUserResearch.FirstNordicConferenceonServiceDesignandServiceInnovation,175–185.http://doi.org/10.1093/ecam/nem170

Segelström,F.(2010).VisualisationsinServiceDesign.Segelström,F.,&Holmlid,S.(2011).ServiceDesignVisualisationsMeetServiceTheory:

Strengths,WeaknessesandPerspectives.Art&ScienceofService,1–18.Segelström,F.,Holmlid,S.,&Alm,B.(2008).BacktotheRoots:Anewidealforethnographic

researchforinterfacedesign,1–10.Segelström,F.,Raijmakers,B.,&Holmlid,S.(2009).ThinkingandDoingEthnographyin

ServiceDesign.IASDRRigorandRelevanceinDesign,4349–4358.Stickdorn,M.,&Schneider,J.(2011).Thisisservicedesignthinking.basics,tools,cases.VanDijk,G.(2010).Designethnography:Takinginspirationfromeverydaylife.ThisIsService

DesignThinking,(August),1–3.Vandermerwe,S.,&Rada,J.(1988).Servitizationofbusiness:Addingvaluebyadding

services.EuropeanManagementJournal,6(4),314–324.http://doi.org/10.1016/0263-2373(88)90033-3

Vargo,S.L.,&Lusch,R.F.(2004).EvolvingtoaNewDominantLogicforMarketing.JournalofMarketing,68(1),1–17.http://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036

Vargo,S.L.,&Lusch,R.F.(2008).Service-dominantlogic:Continuingtheevolution.JournaloftheAcademyofMarketingScience,36(1),1–10.http://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0069-6

Design Ethnography and Service Design Thinking on Triadic...

Documents

Transcript of Design Ethnography and Service Design Thinking on Triadic...