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. Prof. Birgit Mager, Dr

Advisor KISD - Germany

Prof. Neri dos Santos, Dr Prof. Fernando Antonio

UFSC 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 – 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 Florianópolis 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 ―service‖ 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).
2

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

Time Solution
Problem

Problem 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.‖

 3

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 – 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.
4

Figure 2 - Map of the context

Source: author.
 5

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).
6

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).
 7

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).
8

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 work‘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

 9

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).
10

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.
 11

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;
12

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 inter-
relationship:

[...] 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 – and thus that
of innovation – 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
 13

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 – Illustration of the interdisciplinary bridge

Source: author.

Innovation Is every new Knowledge incorporated in products,

processes and services

Service Is the Knowledge and abilities in benefit of

application of an entity
14

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.
 15

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.
16

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:
 17

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).
18

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 – 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 design-
science, 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.
20
 21

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 non-
structured 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
22

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 ―knowledge-
creation 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)
 23

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. ―PSS‖, ―Product/Service System‖, ―Service System‖ or

similar;
ii. ―KISA‖, ―Knowledge Intensive Service Activity,‖ or
similar;
iii. ―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
0 Initial Group - 728
1 Innovation ―innovation‖ 544
2 KISS + KISA + PSS ―knowledge-intensive‖, 484
―knowledge intensive‖,
―systemic solution‖, ―service
solution‖, ―service solutions‖,
―service systems‖, ―services
activities‖, ―service activity‖,
―pss‖, ―product/service‖,
―product/service system,‖
―service‖
24

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 Occurrences
1 Innovation ―innovation‖ 544
2 KISS + KISA + PSS ―knowledge-intensive‖, 484
―knowledge intensive‖,
―systemic solution‖, ―service
solution‖, ―service solutions‖,
―service systems‖, ―services
activities‖, ―service activity‖,
―pss‖, ―product/service‖,
―product/service system‖,
―service‖
3 Competitive ―competitive advantage‖ 244
Advantage
4 Creativity ―creativity‖ 221
5 Knowledge ―knowledge management‖ 158
Management
6 Knowledge Creating ―knowledge-creating‖, 142
―knowledge creating‖,
―knowledge-creation‖,
―knowledge creation‖
7 Service Innovation ―service innovation‖, 141
―innovation in service‖
8 Multimodal Imagery + ―multimodal imagery‖, 135
Embodiment ―multimodal‖, ―multimodal
communication‖, ―visual‖,
―journey map‖, ―touchpoint‖
9 SSEM ―service science‖, ―service 125
management‖, ―service
engineering‖
10 Value Creation ―value creation‖, ―value 124
creating‖
11 Service Design ―service design‖ 105
12 Service Blueprint ―blueprint‖, ―service blueprint‖ 86
 25

13 Service Economy ―service economy‖ 82

14 Ethnography + ―ethnography‖, ―anthropology‖, 80
Anthropology ―human centered‖, ―human-
centered‖
15 Tacitness & Stickiness ―tacitness‖, ―stickiness‖, 74
―sticky assets‖, ―sticky
information‖, ―sticky
knowledge‖
16 Design Research ―design research‖, ―design 73
science‖
17 Co-Creation ―co creation‖, ―co-creation‖, 73
―cocreation‖, ―co creating‖,
―co-creating‖, ―cocreating‖,
18 New Service ―new service development‖, 69
Development ―NSD‖
19 Co-Production ―co-production‖, ―co 65
production‖, ―coproduction‖
20 Service Dominant ―service dominant‖, ―service- 45
Logic dominant‖, ―service-dominant
logic‖, ―sdl‖, ―s-d logic‖
21 Value Network ―value network‖, ―value net‖, 39
―value stream‖
22 Design Theory ―design theory‖, ―design 38
theories‖, ―C-K‖
23 Customer + User ―customer centered‖, 38
centered ―customer-centered‖, ―user
centered‖, ―user-centered‖,
―client centered‖, ―client-
centered‖,
24 Design Thinking ―design thinking‖ 31
25 Experience Economy ―experience economy‖ 31
26 Concurrent ―concurrent engineering‖ 23
Engineering
27 Nonaka + Toyama + ―nonaka toyama konno‖ 18
Konno
28 Unified Services ―unified service‖, ―service 15
Theory theory‖ , ―services theory‖ ,
―service theories‖, ―services
theories‖
29 Vargo + Nonaka ―vargo nonaka‖ 13
30 Market Design ―market design‖ 4
31 Vargo + Buchanan ―vargo buchanan‖ 4
26

32 Functional Sales ―functional Sales‖, ―functional 2

selling‖

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
28
Groups of Search Terms

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
 27

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
28

fifth level are also 13 studies presenting in its references texts produced
by Stephen L. Vargo and Ikujiro Nonaka simultaneously (search terms
"Vargo" and "Nonaka‖, 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
 29

(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) Concept of the Service

(b) Client Interface
(c) Supply System of the Service
(d) 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
30

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):

―Behind every innovation lies a new design.‖

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

 31

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

32

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.
 33

(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. Market research;
b. Research about the user;
c. Information management;
d. 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. Multi-disciplinary work;
b. Visual Management;
c. Development Methods;
d. 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
34

(c) Compare
(d) Select

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 weak-
problem, 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
 35

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
―words‖ 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
36

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
 37

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 […];
38

(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; BADKE-
SCHAUB, 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-or-
false, 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
 39

operation"; because there is no opportunity to

learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts
significantly;
(f) 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;
(g) Every wicked problem is essentially unique;
(h) Every wicked problem can be considered to be a
symptom of another problem;
(i) 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;
(j) 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 Concept
th
4 century Aristotle Differentiates ―use value‖ and
A.C. ―exchange value‖
1751 Galiani Recognizes that only ―pleasure‖
has a price among men
1776 A. Smith 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)
1848 F. Bastiat Services are the beginning,
middle and end of economic
science
1894 L. Walras ―Providing service‖ has direct
utility, the ―service of
production‖ of goods has
indirect utility
1959 E. Penrose It is never the resource itself that
begins the production process,
but the service provided by this
resource
1977 P. Kotler The importance of the physical
product is not in its property but
in the service that it provides
1995 E. Gummesson 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

42

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 Comment/Explanation

FP1 Service is the The application of operant

fundamental basis of resources (knowledge and skills),
exchange ―service‖, as defined in S-D
logic, is the basis for all
exchange. Service is exchanged
for service.
 43

FP2 Indirect exchange masks Because service is provided

the fundamental basis of through complex combinations of
exchange goods, money, and institutions,
the service basis of exchange is
not always apparent.
FP3 Goods are a distribution Goods (both durable and non-
mechanism for service durable) derive their value
provision through use – the service they
provide.
FP4 Operant resources are the The comparative ability to cause
fundamental source of desired change drives
competitive advantage competition.
FP5 All economies are service Service (singular) is only now
economies becoming more apparent with
increased specialization and
outsourcing.
FP6 The customer is always a Implies value creation is
cocreator of value interactional.
FP7 The enterprise cannot Enterprises can offer their
deliver value, but only applied resources for value
offer value propositions creation and collaboratively
(interactively) create value
following acceptance of value
propositions, but can not create
and/or deliver value
independently.
FP8 A service-centered view Because service is defined in
is inherently customer terms of customer-determined
oriented and relational benefit and co-created it is
inherently customer oriented and
relational.
FP9 All social and economic Implies the context of value
actors are resource creation is networks of networks
integrators (resource integrators).
FP10 Value is always uniquely Value is idiosyncratic,
and phenomenologically experiential, contextual, and
determined by the meaning laden
beneficiary

i. Operant Resources
44

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 co-
creation 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.
 45

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 co-
creator 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) co-
create value.
46

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 service-
dominant 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.
 47

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 ―sole business is continuous innovation‖ (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.
48

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
 49

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
1 After Action A tool pioneered by the US army and now
Reviews (AARs) widely used in a range of organizations to
capture lessons learned both during and
after an activity or project.
2 Communities of Widely regarded as ―the killer KM
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.
3 Conducting a A systematic process to identify an
knowledge audit organisation‘s knowledge needs, resources
and flows, as a basis for understanding
where and how better knowledge
management can add value.
4 Developing a Approaches to developing a formal
knowledge knowledge management plan that is
management closely aligned with an organisation‘s
strategy overall strategy and goals.
5 Exit interviews A tool used to capture the knowledge of
departing employees.
6 Identifying and Approaches to capturing best practices
sharing best discovered in one part of the organisation
practices and sharing them for the benefit of all.
7 Knowledge Similar to libraries but with a broader
centres remit to include connecting people with
each other as well as with information in
documents and databases.
8 Knowledge A tool used to capture the knowledge of
harvesting ―experts‖ and make it available to others.
9 Peer assists A tool developed at BP-Amoco used to
learn from the experiences of others before
embarking on an activity or project.
10 Social network Mapping relationships between people,
analysis groups and organizations to understand
how these relationships either facilitate or
impede knowledge flows.
 51

11 Storytelling Using the ancient art of storytelling to

share knowledge in a more meaningful
and interesting way.
12 White pages 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
52

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 knowledge-
creation 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 […].
 53

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, self-

transcending 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. The SECI process, constituted by stages of conversion

between tacit and explicit knowledge;
ii. 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
54

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 knowledge-

creation 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 pre-
existing 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.
 55

a. 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.
56

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)
 57

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 non-
transferable 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
―visible‖ 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
58

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 – Compilation of the conditions for ba.

Source: Based on Takeuchi (2006) and Nonaka, Toyama and Konno
(2000).
Conditions Takeuchi (2006) Nonaka, Toyama and
Konno (2000)
Necessary Participants must Creation resides at the border
Variety have a wide variety between order and chaos. The
of functional, internal diversity of an
organizational, organization must correspond
educational, national to the variety of the
and other origins. environment in which it is
inserted. This allows
interpreting a single piece of
information in various ways

Creative - Stimulates the interaction

chaos 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
Opening The participation -
should be open, not
fixed, the
participants must be
able to freely enter
and leave the spaces
and concepts
Redundancy - This is the intentional
overlapping of information. It
is a principle by which any
part of the organization has
the potential to exercise
leadership
Dialectics Conflict, -
contradictions and
dualities must be
accepted and
respected
Autonomy Action-in- Autonomy: by allowing a
movement: the group of members of the
participants must be organization to act
 61

able to act as a autonomously, it increases the

function of the new chance to access and use
meanings generated knowledge held by the
by them, changing participants. A knowledge-
routines and habits creating organization can be
of the organization illustrated as an ―autopoietic
if necessary system.‖ The authors report
that various studies relate the
autonomy of teams to
effective innovation processes
Dialog Dialog: they should Love, affection, trust and
engage in free, commitment: the possession
subjective dialogs of information creates power.
and share their For knowledge to be shared,
personal experiences 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):

[…] solutions are not processes that can be totally

62

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
Zeithaml et al. 1990 Covers the entire process from
idea to specification of service
Gummesson 1991 The concretization of the concept
of service in designs and flow
charts

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

 63

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 multiple-
prototyping 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
64

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 Directives Definitions
Understanding Discovering Researching the clients latent and
and learning conscious needs. Finding out about
context, constraints and resources.
Exploring possibilities
Thinking Giving Identifying criteria, developing
strategic strategic frameworks, specifying and
directions scoping out details. Turning complex
data into insights
Generating Developing Developing relevant, intelligent and
concepts innovative ideas. Creating role-,
design- and concept-alternatives.
Crafting details and consistency
Filtering Selecting the Selecting ideas and combining
best concepts. Evaluating results and
solutions. Identifying clusters and
segments.
Explaining Enabling The sensualization (visualization for all
understanding senses) of ideas and concepts and
illustration of potential scenarios.
Giving overviews and showing future
possibilities
Realizing Making it Developing, specifying and
happen implementing solutions, prototypes and
processes. Writing business plans and
guidelines. Conducting training.
 65

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 masters‘ 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 master‘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 – Compilation of service design tools.

Source: Based on Tassi and Gorla (2009).
Tool Description
Actors Map is a graph representing the system of actors with their
mutual relations. It provides a systemic view of the service
and of its context
Affinity is a creative process used for gathering and organizing large
Diagram amounts of data, ideas and insights by evidencing their
natural correlations.
Blueprint 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
Character The character profile is a tool for the creation of a shared
Profile knowledge about the service users inside the team
Cognitive One or more evaluators observe a service by going through
Walkthrough the stages of the client journey
Constructive The constructive interaction is a method based on the
Interaction observation of a user during his service experience
Context The context panorama is a visualization of the first service
Panorama ideas that is produced in order to feed the creative process
and orient the following design activities
Customer The customer journey map is an oriented graph that
Journey Map describes the journey of a user by representing the different
touchpoints that characterize his interaction with the service
Design Games Using games during the co-design sessions allows to share

16
More information can be found about these tools at the address www.servicedesigntools.org
(in English).
66

the references in order to bridge different points of view: the

games provide a common platform for the conversation
between all the participants
Evidencing 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
Experience The experience prototype is a simulation of the service
Prototype experience that foresees some of its performances through
the use of the specific physical touchpoints involved
Group The group sketching is a quick, fast and economic tool for
Sketching developing and explaining ideas simultaneously
Heuristic The heuristic evaluation is a method of inspection of the
Evaluation service usability based on a predefined set of criteria that
the evaluators follow during the analysis.
Informance The mise en scène of the information is called informance.
It means representing an idea by acting in order to tell,
explain and share it.
Interaction The interaction table is a diagram supporting the strategic
Table discussion
Issue Cards The issue cards are a physical instrument used as a peg to
induce and feed interactive dynamics inside a team
LEGO LEGO Serious Play is an innovative, experiential process
Serious Play designed to enhance the generation of innovative solutions
Mind Map The mind map is a tool for the visual elicitation of our
thoughts and their connections
Mock Up is a model, an illustration or a collage describing an idea.
Moodboard is a visual composition of pictures and materials that
propose an atmosphere by giving the generic perception of
it.
Motivation The aim of the motivation matrix is the understanding of the
Matrix connections between the different actors of the system.
Offering Map The aim of an offering map is to describe in a synthetic way
what the service offers to its users.
Personas The personas are archetypes built after a preceding
exhaustive observation of the potential users
Poster The service Poster is a simulation of a future promotional
advertising of the service
Role Playing 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
Role Script The role script is used for the implementation of the service
in order to orient and guide the operators toward the
 67

development of an adequate behavior

Rough The rough prototyping is a quick method to build prototypes
Prototyping using all the objects and materials available in that specific
moment and location
Service image 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
Service The service prototype is a tool for testing the service by
prototype 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
Service The service specification is a written document that grows
Specification 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
Storyboard 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
Storytelling 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
System Map 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
Task Analysis When designers have to communicate decisions to
Grid 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
Template The templates are used for a consistent implementation of
the service idea
Tomorrow The tomorrow headlines are fictional articles published on
Headlines 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
Touchpoints Conceived by Gianluca Brugnoli -teacher at Politecnico di
Matrix 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
Usability Testing the service usability means observing and asking a
68

Testing number of users about the use of existing or future products

or services in a situation of absolutely normal everyday life
Use Cases 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
Wizard of Oz 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
 69

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
70

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 – Definitions of NSD

Source: author.
Author Date Definition
Cooper et alii 1994 Involves the complete set of steps between the
conceptualization of the idea and the launching
of a new service offering
Johnson et alii 2000 Complete development process of a new
service offering
Edvardsson et alii 2000 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
 71

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; VÁZQUEZ-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.
72

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 problem-

solving 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
 73

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 Vázquez-
Bustelo (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; VÁZQUEZ-
BUSTELO, 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
74

inexpedient, and an exclusively engineering-

oriented 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
 75

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 ––
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);

19
Cognitive domain can be understood as a field of scientific research characterized by the
overlapping of different disciplines. (CAUTELA, RIZZO AND ZURLO, 2009).
76

(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.
 77

Figure 6 – Proposal for conceptual integration

Source: author.
78
 79

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.
80

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 (JÄRVINEN, 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
 81

interpretive frames of reference among

organizational actors.

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.
82

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.
 83

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 design-

research, 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
84

exact order. A graphic illustration of the method can be seen in annex

(Annex I – 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 objective-
centered 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 by-
product of a consulting experience.
 85

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 researcher‘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 ―new properties of technical,
social, and/or informational resources [24]‖.
Conceptually, a design research artifact can be
any designed object in which a research
86

contribution is embedded in the design. This

activity includes determining the artifact‘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 artifact‘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
 87

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.
88

The latter authors note that a new instantiation can be understood

as an ―extension of new constructs, models and methods,‖ (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: Design-

science 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 well-
executed 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.
 89

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 – 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. The work stages are divided into Pre-Field, Field and Post-
Field;
ii. The field work is conducted without hypotheses or specific pre-
conceptions 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

90

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.

23
Simon, H A. The Sciences of the Artificial MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA (1969)
 91

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 ―method,‖ 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
92

that allow innovation in services to occur in a more formalized manner

and not only ―happen,‖ 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 Knowledge Management
Creative [...] intentional chaos
Chaos introduced in the
organization to create a
sense of crisis by
proposing challenging
goals and ambiguous
visions.
Redundancy [...] is the intentional
overlapping of
information.
Necessary The internal diversity of
Variety an organization must
correspond to the diversity
found in the environment
in which it is inserted.
Source: Prepared by the author.
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).

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.
 93

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
94

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 (Pre-
Field) 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) See that the participants have a common understanding

(b) Generate positive alternative proposals for the service
(c) Generate negative alternative proposals for the service
(d) Share the proposed alternatives among the participants
(e) Interval for socialization
(f) Analysis of the alternatives
(g) Consolidation of the alternatives
(h) Induction to post factu reflection
(i) 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).
 95

(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 Phases Preliminary Proposal of Objectives
Pre-field 1.1 Determine the focal point of the value network;
1.2 Define the initial participant list of the value network;
1.3 Define the date of the meeting
Field 2.1.1 See that participants have a common understanding
2.1.2 Generate alternative positive proposals for the service
2.1.3 Generate alternative negative proposals for the service
2.2.1 Share the alternative proposals among the participants
2.2.2 Interval for socialization
2.3.1 Analysis of the alternatives
2.3.2 Consolidation of the alternatives
2.4.1 Induction to post factu reflection
2.4.2 Registration of the reflection
Post- 3.1 Analysis of the material produced by the participants
Field 3.2 Selection of the ideas registered in the material
produced by the participants
4.1 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
96

(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) Discover;
(b) Define;
(c) Develop;
(d) 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) Generation
(b) Exploration
(c) Comparison
(d) 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) Divergence
(b) Convergence
(c) Analysis
(d) Synthesis
 97

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) Socialization (conversion of tacit to tacit);

(b) Externalization (of tacit to explicit);
(c) Combination (of explicit to explicit) and
(d) 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 Design Stempfle Brown Nonaka and
Council and Badke- Toyama
Schaub (Emphasis) 33
Pre- 1.1 Discovery Generation Analysis Socializ.
Field 1.2 Discovery Exploration Divergence Socializ.
1.3 Discovery Comparison Convergence Socializ.
Field 2.1.1 Discovery Generation Divergence Socializ.
2.1.2 Discovery Generation Divergence Externaliz.
2.1.3 Discovery Generation Divergence Externaliz.
2.2.1 Definition Exploration Convergence Combin.
2.2.2 Definition Exploration Convergence Combin.
2.3.1 Definition Exploration Analysis Combin.
2.3.2 Definition Comparison Convergence Combin.
2.4.1 Definition Comparison Analysis Internaliz.
2.4.2 Definition Comparison Analysis Internaliz.
Post- 3.1 Develop Comparison Analysis Socializ.
Field 3.2 Develop Selection Synthesis Socializ.
4.1 Deliver Selection Synthesis Socializ.

33
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.
98

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 Phases Design Council SECI (Emphasis34) Phases
Pre- 1.1 Discover Socialization 1.1
Field 1.2 1.2
1.3 1.3
Field 2.1.1 2.1.1
2.1.2 Externalization 2.1.2
2.1.3 2.1.3
2.2.1 Define Combination 2.2.1
2.2.2 2.2.2
2.3.1 2.3.1
2.3.2 2.3.2
2.4.1 Internalization 2.4.1
2.4.2 2.4.2
Post- 3.1 Develop Socialization 3.1
Field 3.2 3.2
4.1 Deliver 4.1

34
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.
 99

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 1. Designer; 1. Encounter, 1. Focal point of
Value 2. Clients 2. Discussion of cases, the value
Proposal (Decision network
maker)
1.2 Define 1. Designer; 1. Encounter, 1. Initial list of the
Value 2. Clients 2. Conceptual map participants of
Network (Decision 3. Question ―Value the ―Value
maker) Network‖ Network‖;
2. Period of
application
1.3 Invite 1. Designer; 1. Calls, e-mails, list of 1. Final list of
Participants 2. Participants contacts, calendar, participants of
of the ―Value 2. ―Snowball‖ the ―Value
Network‖ technique Network‖;
3. Question ―Value 2. Date of the
Network‖ 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-for-
service 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 – Items of the Field stage of the method

Source: author.
Phase Objective Participants Tools Results
2.1.1 Establish 1. Moderator; 1. Encounter; 1. Map of the
common 2. Participants Presentation of the consensus
understanding (Large participants obtained by the
among the Group) (without Large Group
larger group professional and 1. Photo and/or
educational Video (to be
backgrounds); verified case by
2. Presentation of case)
biographic info
relevant to the
Value Network;
3. Journey Maps
4. Photo and/or Video
(to be verified case
by case)
2.1.2 Generate 1. Moderator; 1. Encounter; 1. Photo and/or
positive 2. Participants 2. Journey Maps Video (to be
options for (Sub-Groups) Desired verified case by
the sub- case);
groups 2. Map of each
Sub-Group
illustrating:
a. Positive
Scenario
b. Real case
2.1.3 Generate 1. Moderator; 1. Encounter; 1. Photo and or
negative 2. Participants 2. Undesirable Video (to be
options for (Sub-Groups) Journey Maps verified case by
the sub- case);
groups 2. Mapof each
Sub-Group
illustrating:
a. Negative
Scenario
b. Real Case
2.2.1 Establish 1. Moderator; 2. Encounter; 1. Photo and or
common 2. Participants 3. Multimodal Video (to be
understanding (large Group) Presentations (Sub- verified case by
among the group: Combination case);
larger group A)
of the a. Conceptual Maps
scenarios b. Images
c. Theater
102

d. Stories/ Narratives
and Analogies
2.2.2 Establish 1. Moderator; 1. Encounter; 1. Photo and or
common 2. Participants 2. Small snack Video (to be
understanding (Large verified case by
among the Group) case);
larger group

2.3.1 Evaluate the 1. Moderator; 1. Encounter 1. List of Items

alternatives - 2. Participants 2. List of Items for for evaluation
Sub-Groups (Sub-Groups) Evaluation (all the groups
3. Journey Map evaluate the
other groups:
positive and
negative
highlights)
2. Map of
Consensus of
the Sub-Group
2.3.2 Consolidate 1. Moderator; 1. Encounter 1. Photo and or
the 2. Participants 2. Journey Map Video (to be
alternatives – (Large 3. Multimodal verified case by
Large Group Group) Presentation: case);
a. Conceptual Maps 2. Map of
b. Images Consensus of
c. Theater the Large-
d. Stories/ Group
Narratives and
Analogies
2.4.1 Induce post 1. Moderator; Prepare ―task‖ to be 1. Edit the ―task‖
factu 2. Each realized after a
reflection Participant; determined period
2.4.2 Register the 1. Designer; Message with ―task‖ 1. Consultants
reflection 2. Each (sent by the send the ―task‖
Participant Moderator after the 2. Participant
determined period) 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 – 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 sub-
groups 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 sub-
groups 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 large-
groups, 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 Phases Description Duration (min.)
Pre- 1.1 Define the value proposal Not determ.
Field 1.2 Define the value network Not determ.
1.3 Invite participants Not determ.
Field 2.1.1 Align understanding of the large-group 60
2.1.2 Generate positive alternatives for the sub-groups 15
2.1.3 Generate negative alternatives for the sub-groups 15
2.2.1 Develop common understanding of the large group 30
about the scenarios
2.2.2 Align the understanding of the large group 20
2.3.1 Evaluate the alternatives - Sub-Groups 20
2.3.2 Consolidate the alternatives – Large Group 20
 107

2.4.1 Induce post factu reflection 10

2.4.2 Register the reflection Not determ.
Post- 3.1 Conduct - Analysis Not determ.
Field 3.2 Conduct - Synthesis Not determ.
4.1 Deliver 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 ―generate better quality solutions‖
(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 Participants Tools Results
3.1 Conduct - 1. Consultants 1. Encounter 1. Initial proposal
Analysis 2. Information of new value
collected: proposal
a. List of items 2. New proposal
prepared by sub- for business
groups model
b. Photos and/or
Videos (to be
verified case-by-
case
c. Journey Maps
110

d. Conceptual maps
e. Service Wallchart
f. Touchpoints
g. Tasks realized by
the Participants
3.2 Conduct - 1. Consultants 1. Encounter 1. Proposal of the
Synthesis 2. Clients 2. Multimodal value proposal
(Decision Presentation – Revised
maker) 3. Journey Map 2. Proposal of the
business model
- Revised
4.1 Deliver 1. Consultants 1. Encounter 1. Proposal of the
2. Clients 2. Final Report value proposal
(Decision - Final
maker) 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 – Possible registers

Source: author.
Type Description Phase Quant.
Conceptual Conceptual map about the service 2.1.1 01
Map provision being studied by the
large group.
Multimodal Multimodal images prepared by the 2.1.2 4 per sub-
images sub-groups portraying two positive and group
and two negative scenarios about 2.1.3
the service provision being studied.
Each pair of scenarios allows
portraying a real situation and
 111

another ideal one, both positive as

well as negative.

List of List of positive and negative 2.3.1 2 per sub-

factors factors defined by the knowledge group
sharing that occurs during the
dynamic about the service
provision in study.
Messages The messages generated by the 2.4.1 1 per
with participants with questions, participant
reflections reflections and or instructions.
Return The messages of return with the 2.4.2 1 per
messages texts of the reflections prepared by participant
the participants.

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): ―Quality is then a probabilistic function of quantity‖.
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 Graduate
1 Lib. employee Library Sciences Computing UFSC
2 Doctoral cand. Industrial Engineering PPEGC-UFSC
3 Lib. employee Library Sciences PPEGC-UFSC
4 Lib. employee Library Sciences Not informed
5 Master‘s cand. Library Sciences Computing UFSC
 117

6 Lib.employee Not informed Not informed

7 Master‘s cand. Not informed Not informed
8 Not informed Not informed Not informed
9 Not informed Not informed Not informed
10 Master‘s cand. Library Sciences Computing UFSC
11 Undergrad Production Engineering -
12 Doctoral cand. Art Education 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
1 What can be done to improve the signage at the
university library?
2 Identify the key processes of a library, or that is the
flow of aggregation of value of the organization and the
products of the library.

3 What would be a mental map of the needs of from a

user‘s perspective?
4 Levels of need of the user?
5 What is the level of information (capacity) the people
who work in reception must have to filter the users‘
needs?
6 How am I going to improve my autonomy in the
library?
7 What are the users‘ needs? What do they look for in the
library?
8 How can signage at the library be improved?
9 How can the signage be improved?
10 Why don‘t the library users know about the services (or
most of them)?
11 How can the different users be classified for the
services offered by the university library?
12 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 –Return of the reflections

Source: author.
Participant Date Sent Date of Return
1 May 26, 2010 May 26, 2010
2 May 26, 2010 May 27, 2010
3 May 26, 2010 May 28, 2010
4 May 26, 2010 Not returned
5 May 26, 2010 May 27, 2010
6 May 26, 2010 Not returned
7 May 26, 2010 May 28, 2010
8 May 26, 2010 Not returned
9 May 26, 2010 Not returned
10 May 26, 2010 May 26, 2010
11 May 26, 2010 Not returned
12 May 26, 2010 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 – 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 semi-
structured 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 No. of
Occurrences
Lockers • Have sufficient lockers; 02
• Locker key
Hours • Hours; 02
• Expand hours;
Employees • Employees; 03
• Lack of personnel;
• Level of information of
employees;
Services • Identify key processes; 03
• Remote access;
• Ignorance of the services;
Layout • Layout Entrance/Exit; 04
• Return at the entrance;
122

• Return on the 1st floor;

• Loan desk
Reception • Service desk; 04
• Information desk;
• Trained reception;
• Incorrect information at
reception;
Users • Education of the user; 06
• Autonomous users;
• Make the user autonomous;
• Train users;
• Classify users;
• User needs;
Signage • Signage; 08
• 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.

37
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 post-
field 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. 1291–1313. 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. 73-
78, 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. 57, p. 374-391. doi:

10.101016/S0148-2963(02)00272-2, 2004.

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. 6-
15, 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/S0925-
5273(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/S0263-
2373(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/S0364-
0213(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.1-
257. Harvard Business School Press, 2005.
 137

KIMBELL, L. Beyond design thinking: Design-as-practice and designs-

in-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: 10.1007/978-0-387-
76578-5, 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/s11747-009-
0143-3, 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 knowledge-

creating 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. 635-
652. 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. 466-
484. 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.129–136. ACM, 2004.

PARTAN, S. R.; MARLER, P. Issues in the classification of multimodal

communication signals. The American naturalist, v. 166, n. 2, p. 231-
45. 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.1540-
5915.2009.00239.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 co-

creation 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. 137–168, 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. 215-
237, 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 Knowledge-

Intensive 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 selective-

retention: 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. 473–
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/design-
research-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 co-

creation: 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. Human

Organization, v. 59, n. 4, p. 377–388. SFAA, 2000.
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 – 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

<REMOVIDO>
 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: Mauricio Manhães <[REMOVIDO]>

To: <[REMOVIDO]>
Date: May 26, 2010 09:07
Subject: Service Design | Reflections
Sent by: 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: <[REMOVED]>
To: <[ REMOVED]>
Subject: Service Design| Final Date
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 Nº 01 (reflections received on May 28, 2010)

From: <[REMOVED]>
To: Mauricio Manhães <[REMOVED]>
Date: May 28, 2010 09:19
Subject: Re: Service Design | Reflections
Sent by: 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 Nº 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 Nº 03 (reflections received on May 28, 2010)

From: <[ REMOVED]>

To: Mauricio Manhães <[ REMOVED]>
Date: May 28, 2010 18:38
Subject: Re: Service Design | Reflections
Sent by: 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 Nº 05 (reflections received May 27, 10)

From: <[REMOVED]>
To: Mauricio Manhães <[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 Nº 07 (reflections received May 28, 2010)

 171

From: <[ REMOVED]>

To: Mauricio Manhães <[ REMOVED]>
Date: May 28, 2010 18:33
Subject: Re: Service Design | Reflections
Sent by: 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: <[ REMOVED]>

To: Mauricio Manhães <[ REMOVED]>
Date: May 26, 2010 14:47
Subject: RE: Service Design | Reflections
Sent by: 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
don‘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 – 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 Nº 12 (reflections received on May 28, 2010)

From: <[ REMOVED]>

To: Mauricio Manhães <[ 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 – UDESC/CEART.

b) Year of Graduation: 2001.

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

Methodology in EAD – 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