Interaction design and service design: Expanding a comparison of design disciplines

While product design and interaction design are establishing themselves as ordinary practices, service design is still largely not well understood. Moreover, interactive artefacts are being introduced into service settings in a larger degree than before. We tend to rely on these artefacts as one, or sometimes the sole, possibility to do banking, to declare our taxes, etc. In this article we seek to identify common ground and differentiation in order to create supportive structures between interaction design and service design. The analysis relies on two frameworks, one provided by Buchanan, defining orders of design, and one provided by Edeholt and Lowgren, providing a comparative framework between design disciplines. The framework of Edeholt & Lowgren is amended through the comparison, to include service design. Comparative dimensions added pertains to all areas of Edeholt & Lowgren’s framework; Design process, design material and deliverable.

[1]  Michael Erlhoff,et al.  Service Design Network , 2008 .

[2]  G. L. Shostack.  Designing Services That Deliver , 1996 .

[3]  Jonas Löwgren,et al.  Design for Quality-in-use: Human-Computer Interaction Meets Information Systems Development , 1997 .

[4]  William W. Gaver,et al.  Alternatives: exploring information appliances through conceptual design proposals , 2000, CHI.

[5]  Oksana Zelenko,et al.  Hertzian Tales: Electronic Products, Aesthetic Experience, and Critical Design , 2007 .

[6]  C. Lovelock,et al.  Whither Services Marketing? , 2004 .

[7]  Stefan Holmlid,et al.  Bringing design to services , 2006 .

[8]  T. Landauer,et al.  Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction , 1997 .

[9]  Michael D. Johnson,et al.  New Service Development and Innovation in the New Economy , 2000 .

[10]  Lars Mathiassen,et al.  Computers and Design in Context , 2003 .

[11]  B. Edvardsson,et al.  Service portraits in service research: a critical review , 2005 .

[12]  Richard Buchanan,et al.  Design Research and the New Learning , 2001, Design Issues.

[13]  A. Parasuraman,et al.  Delivering quality service : balancing customer perceptions and expectations , 1990 .

[14]  Stefan Holmlid,et al.  Prototyping and enacting services : Lessons learned from human-centered methods , 2007 .

[15]  Mary Jo Bitner,et al.  Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical Surroundings on Customers and Employees: , 1992 .

[16]  A. Gustafsson,et al.  Harnessing the Creative Potential among Users , 2004 .

[17]  Stefan Holmlid,et al.  Adapting users : towards a theory of use quality , 2002 .

[18]  G. L. Shostack,et al.  Service Positioning through Structural Change , 1987 .

[19]  Heinz Züllighoven,et al.  Application-oriented usage quality: the tools and materials approach , 1997, INTR.

[20]  Michael A. Rosenman,et al.  Purpose and function in design: from the socio-cultural to the techno-physical , 1998 .

[21]  Ravi Kalakota,et al.  Services Blueprint: Roadmap for Execution , 2003 .

[22]  Liam J. Bannon,et al.  Beyond the Interface: Encountering Artifacts in Use , 1989 .

[23]  Henrik Artman,et al.  Enactments in Interaction Design: How Designers Make Sketches Behave , 2007 .

[24]  Johan Redström,et al.  From use to presence: on the expressions and aesthetics of everyday computational things , 2002, TCHI.

[25]  Henrik Artman,et al.  Interaction Walkthroughs and Improvised Role Play , 2006 .

[26]  J. Löwgren,et al.  Industrial design in a post-industrial society- a framework for understanding the relationship between industrial design and interaction design , 2004 .

[27]  Daniela Sangiorgi,et al.  Innovation through service design:from research and theory to a network of practice. A users’ driven perspective , 2005 .

[28]  Pekka Reijonen,et al.  People and Computers : Twenty-one Ways of Looking at Information Systems , 2003 .