R:\Bau\Blog >_

Robert Bau 11/1/23 Robert Bau 11/1/23

Quests for gold • 1

The six categories of service design projects

Inspired by an article in Harvard Business Review about the underlying quests for corporate transformation (Anand & Barsoux, 2017), I have identified six categories of service design projects. While this quest-based classification is hardly MECE, it is interesting to see how different the categories are in terms of purpose, methodologies, approach, project sponsors, and desired outcomes. This is a far cry from the one-size-fits-all approach most toolkits in innovation management, product development, design thinking, and service design seem to promote.

The six project categories are:

Service Design for Disruption & Growth
Service Design for Customer Excellence
Service Design for Employee Engagement
Service Design for Operational Excellence
Service Design for Ethical Circularity
Service Design for Organisational Change

In the descriptions below, I am presuming that many (if not most) service design projects would benefit from an insights-driven, solution-agnostic approach. (See blogpost Lean & mean innovation machine • 2 for a deep dive into the differences between upstream and downstream work.)

1. Service Design for Disruption & Growth

Purpose: Crafting purpose-driven, people-centric scenarios, strategies, and concepts to help organisational leaders place strategic bets on the future and invest in transformational endeavours with confidence. In this context, strategic bets are ‘big ideas’ to (a) reinvent the core business(es), (b) create adjacent, ‘close-to-the-core-business’ businesses, and/or (c) envision ‘new-to-the-core-business’ businesses. (See blogposts Get the balance right! • 1 and Get the balance right! • 5.)

Common themes: Weak signals. Speculation and provocation. Alternative futures. White spaces and opportunity areas. Backcasting. ‘Big ideas’ to shape the future. MAYA. New sources of value. Purpose-driven, people-centric North Stars. Strategic bets. Innovation uncertainty/risk. Etc.

Preferred methodologies/toolkits: Strategic foresight and futuring (environmental scanning, trend analysis, speculative thinking, scenario planning, etc.). Design fiction and design provocation. Blue Ocean Strategy. Business model innovation. Strategic thinking. Design thinking. Product & service design. Innovation portfolio management. Etc.

Exploring the problem space: Understanding industry and market dynamics. Understanding organisational strategies, operating models, cultures, and change needs. Analysing current solution portfolio (products/services/experiences). Exploring alternative futures and defining plausible scenarios. Crafting tentative North Star. Determining innovation ambition levels. Visualising and analysing current innovation portfolio/pipeline. Identifying white spaces and opportunity areas for innovation. Designing provocations to challenge assumptions, provoke reactions, and stimulate discussions. Framing or reframing challenges/problems. Etc.

Exploring the solution space: Crafting and prototyping ‘big ideas’ for the future (imagine alternative business models, strategies, value props, production & delivery systems, etc., to either reinvent the core business or create new businesses). Continuously testing tentative solutions through storytelling, rapid prototyping, experimentation, and piloting. Continuously adapting, downselecting, and prioritising tentative solutions. Defining stakeholder and business impact. Crafting compelling stories and value cases for change. Identifying roadblocks, creating roadmaps, defining requirements, and mobilising resources for implementation and sustained success. Etc.

Project sponsors: Chief Innovation Officer, Chief Brand Officer, Chief Strategy Officer, CEO, or equivalent

Desired outcomes: ↓ innovation risk, ↑ clarity/focus, ↑ engagement, ↑ organisational learning, ↑ business growth (new sources of value)

2. Service Design for Customer Excellence

Purpose: Crafting approaches, strategies, services, processes, and tools to make end-to-end customer experiences feel reliable, convenient, immersive, enjoyable, and meaningful. This includes finding smart solutions for value creation as well as value facilitation (see blogpost Get the balance right! • 2).

Common themes: Core product and supplementary services. Production & delivery processes. Three experience phases (pre-delivery, point-of-delivery, post-delivery – or pre-purchase, service encounter, post-encounter) with moments that matter and prioritised touchpoints. Customer segments, mindsets, archetypes, and/or personas. Customer outcomes/goals/jobs. Customer activities, customer–provider interactions, and customer–employee interactions. High-touch and low-touch engagement models. Frontline employees and backstage teams. Service roles and scripts. Line of visibility (between onstage and backstage components). Value creation, value facilitation, and value co-creation. Unmet, underserved, or overserved needs. Pain/friction points. Service quality gaps. Experience mapping. Service recovery system. Etc.

Preferred methodologies/toolkits: Design research. Services marketing/management. Service quality (SERVQUAL or Service Gap Model). Customer experience management. Journey management. Outcome-driven innovation (jobs-to-be-done theory). Design thinking. Service and UX design. Ecosystem and experience mapping (value exchange maps, value stream maps, journey maps, service blueprints, flowcharts, etc.).

Exploring the problem space: Defining customer mindsets/archetypes/personas. Understanding customer drivers, needs, goals, behaviours, and blockers in existing experiences. Crafting mental models to highlight moments that matter, pivotal touchpoints/interactions, common pain points, and unmet customer and employee needs. Uncovering deep insights across multiple research methods and sources. Crafting tentative North Star CX, determining ambition levels, and identifying opportunity spaces for improvement. Framing or reframing challenges/problems. Brainstorming initial ideas and hypotheses. Etc.

Exploring the solution space: Finding smart solutions for value creation (empowering customers to get the job done better than today) and value facilitation (empowering frontline staff and back-of-house teams to serve and support customers better than today). Creating smart solutions for effective service recovery (principles, policies, programs, procedures, etc.). Continuously testing tentative solutions through storytelling, rapid prototyping, experimentation, and piloting. Continuously adapting, downselecting, and prioritising tentative solutions. Crafting ideal, future-state end-to-end experiences (onstage and backstage) for prioritised customer segments or mindsets. Defining stakeholder and business impact. Crafting compelling stories and value cases for change. Identifying roadblocks, creating roadmaps, defining requirements, and mobilising resources for implementation and sustained success. Etc.

Project sponsors: CXO, Chief Customer Officer, Chief Brand Officer, or equivalent

Desired outcomes: ↑ service quality, ↑ brand engagement, ↑ brand loyalty, ↑ customer satisfaction, ↑ NPS, ↑ customer lifetime value

Note: Desired outcomes could also cover effectiveness and efficiency indicators to measure performance in moments that matter (e.g., emotions evoked, customer response time)

3. Service Design for Employee Engagement

Purpose: Crafting purpose-driven operating models, policies, services, workflows, tools, and rituals to help leaders, employees, and teams grow, perform, and thrive in the workplace. (See blogpost Let’s accomplish amazing things together for a taster.)

Common themes: Talent and performance management. X-capability collaboration. Diversity, equity, and inclusion. Employee engagement and empowerment. Health, wellbeing, and safety. Learning & development. Hybrid work. Customer centricity and intelligence. Purpose-driven organisations and brands to provide meaning, focus, and direction. Continuous learning and improvement. ESG and CSR. Creativity and innovation. Organisational and employee adaptability and resilience. Emotional intelligence at work. Operating models, work structures, culture(s), and leadership for the future. Agile organisations, functions, and work structures (e.g., holacracies).

Preferred methodologies/toolkits: Strategic thinking. Business agility. Operating models. Organisational culture(s). Employee experience. Design research. Design thinking. Service design. Behavioural design. Process/workflow design. DEI design. Workplace design. Etc.

Exploring the problem space: Understanding organisational & HR strategies, operating models, cultures, and change needs. Defining moments that matter in end-to-end career journeys and employee experiences (from Bonjour to Au Revoir). Uncovering unmet, underserved, or overserved employee needs in these moments. Uncovering deep insights across multiple research methods and sources. Identifying opportunity spaces for improvement. Framing or reframing challenges/problems. Brainstorming initial ideas and hypotheses. Etc.

Exploring the solution space: Generating compelling ideas and crafting holistic concepts (ideally in a series of co-creation sessions with employees, leaders, and HR professionals). Setting strategic directions and creating strategic platforms. Continuously testing ideas, concepts, and strategies for desirability, feasibility, viability, etc. (through rapid prototyping, experimentation, and piloting). Continuously adapting, downselecting, and prioritising tentative solutions. Defining stakeholder and business impact. Crafting compelling stories and value cases for change. Identifying roadblocks, defining requirements, and mobilising resources for implementation and sustained success. Etc.

Project sponsors: CHRO, SVP People & Culture, SVP Employee Experience, or equivalent

Desired outcomes: ↑ organisational agility, ↓ organisational waste, ↑ employee engagement, ↑ employee satisfaction, ↑ employee loyalty, ↑ employee retention

Note: Desired outcomes could also cover effectiveness and efficiency indicators to measure performance in moments that matter (e.g., emotions evoked, goal fulfilment)

The other three categories will be covered in the next blogpost.

References

Anand, N. & Barsoux, J-L. (Nov–Dec 2017). What everyone gets wrong about change management. Poor execution is only part of the problem. Harvard Business Review.

Robert Bau 9/1/23 Robert Bau 9/1/23

Let’s accomplish amazing things together

Nine HR services to boost team performance

Operating in a post-pandemic world, progressive HR functions play a strategic role in driving collaboration, adaptability, and innovation across organisations. The shift to more fluid operating models will inescapably lead to adaptive work structures and self-organising teams. How might HR empower project teams to collaborate and perform dramatically better than today?

It takes hard work to work well together, especially in hybrid work environments. High-performing teams are equipped and enabled to lead with clarity, embody a growth mindset, forge healthy relationships, embrace cultural differences, and achieve outstanding results. And high-performing teams are equipped and enabled to stage equitable, engaging, and effective collaborative experiences regardless of where, when, and how team members choose to work.

Based on my experience of directing and leading North Star EX projects for large organisations since 2018, I have written an article in Touchpoint about how HR can help people accomplish amazing things together in project-based knowledge work (Bau, 2023). Please find below an overview of nine services that HR could deliver to improve collaboration and boost performance in project teams.

Nine HR services to boost team performance

As an internal service provider, HR could deliver nine types of coaching services that empower project teams to build collective intelligence, improve collaboration, and boost performance. These enabling, team-level services can be divided into three overlapping categories (Bau, 2023):

(A) Building and maintaining healthy, well-balanced teams

(B) Embracing continuous feedback, learning, and adaptation

Category A: Building and maintaining healthy, well-balanced teams

A1. Coaching for Team Recruitment. HR service that helps leaders form well-balanced and dynamic teams in terms of aptitude, personality, diversity, size, and governance (in the context of project requirements). This service is not only offered in the project initiation phase but also in the project execution phase (as teams grow or shrink due to changing project requirements).
A2. Coaching for Team Onboarding & Offboarding. HR service that empowers newly formed (or reconfigured) teams to lead with clarity, foster sense of belonging, build mutual trust and respect, and forge healthy relationships. Important themes include clarity of purpose, plan, and reponsibility (Rosenstein, n.d.) as well as emotional and cultural intelligence on a team level (see, e.g., Center for Creative Leadership, 2020). This service is offered in the project initiation, project execution, and project closure phases (as teams grow or shrink due to changing project requirements).
A3. Coaching for Team Health & Wellbeing. HR service that empowers project teams to take joint responsibility for their physical, social, and mental health and wellbeing. Important themes include: healthy work/life balance; workplace health & safety; team motivation & engagement; team adaptability & resilience; team diversity, equity & inclusion; and proactive conflict management.

Bau (2023)

Category B: Embracing continuous feedback, learning, and adaptation

B1. Coaching for Team Leadership & Appraisal. HR services that (a) equip and empower leaders to foster team growth and empowerment through servant leadership, and (b) equip and empower autonomous teams to become truly self-managing, self-designing, and self-governing. This includes new ways of recognising and rewarding performance – shifting the focus from infrequent, top-down assessments of individuals to continuous, multi-directional assessments of teams.
B2. Coaching for Team Learning & Development. HR service that empowers teams to embark on learning journeys, foster a learning/growth mindset, and boost their learning power. Important themes include: T-shaped team members; in-project upskilling & x-skilling; ongoing, situational, and multi-directional feedback; continuous reflection, learning, and adaptation; post-project debriefing; and knowledge management.
B3. Lean Coaching for Teams. HR service that empowers teams to make continuous improvements in projects based on uncovering, analysing, and resolving process inefficiencies, quality gaps, project impediments, performance blockers, conflict triggers, blind spots, sustainability issues, etc.

Bau (2023)

Category C: Supercharging people and teams for success

C1. Hybrid Work Coaching for Teams. Joint HR+IT service that helps project teams stage hyper-personalised, hyper-immersive collaborative experiences regardless of where, when, and how team members choose to work (based on Gartner’s four collaboration modes in hybrid work environments (Baker, 2021)). This includes leveraging enabling technologies such as intelligent/smart spaces, intelligent automation, adaptive AI, cloud-based ‘superapps,’ VR/XR, spatial audio, and decentralised infrastructure. Holistic B2B solutions (hardware, software, services) for inclusive meeting experiences for people and teams exist already in the marketplace (see, for example, Microsoft Teams Rooms with Logitech products such as Rally Bar, Sight, and Scribe).
C2. Performance Coaching for Teams. HR service that proactively guides teams in moments that matter in the project lifecycle to unleash human potential, foster creativity, and boost performance based on thinking modes, collective intelligence, best practices, ideal workflows, and continuous feedback. This service is important for moments in the project lifecycle that have an oversized impact on team performance and value co-creation, such as data collection & sensemaking, ideation & concepting, and participatory decision-making.
C3. Coaching for Team Augmentation. Joint HR+IT service that empowers teams to work seamlessly with the emerging capabilities of machine learning, adaptive AI, intelligent automation, and cobots (collaborative robots). This includes crafting ethical guidelines, redesigning workflows, introducing tools, and building capabilities that help teams evolve into ‘superteams,’ where human and non-human team members work effortlessly and effectively side by side. (Adapted from Schwartz, Mallon & Van Durme, 2020) This service is important for moments in the project lifecycle that would benefit from increased firepower and alternative points of view, such as data collection & sensemaking, ideation & concepting, continuous feedback & improvement, and participatory decision-making.

Bau (2023)

Core and supplementary touchpoints

All nine services would be delivered primarily through on-site or remote in-person coaching. Supplementary touchpoints range from customisable how-to guides and playbooks to AI-assisted chatbots and team simulations (Bau, 2023). See the HR engagement matrix, figure 1.

Figure 1. The HR engagement matrix: Four types of touchpoints in team coaching services (Bau, 2023)

To learn more about the ins and outs of collaboration, high-performing teams, and the strategic roles HR can play to boost team performance, please check out my article ‘Empowering people to accomplish amazing things together’ in Touchpoint Vol. 14 No. 1 (Bau, 2023). (Touchpoint is the journal of service design published by SDN; in this issue, you will find plenty of interesting articles about the intersection of service design and employee experience.)

References

Baker, M. (June 14, 2021). 4 modes of collaboration are key to success in hybrid work. Gartner.

Bau, R. (2023). Empowering people to accomplish amazing things together. Nine HR services to dramatically boost team performance. Touchpoint, 14(1), 72–77.

Center for Creative Leadership. (2020, September 9). Leading a multicultural team. www.ccl.org.

Rosenstein, J. (n.d.). How to lead with clarity of purpose, plan, and responsibility. Wavelength. Asana.

Schwartz, J., Mallon, D., & Van Durme, Y. (2020, May 15). Superteams: Putting AI in the group. Deloitte.

Robert Bau 8/15/23 Robert Bau 8/15/23

Lean & mean innovation machine • 6

Nine types of waste in upstream projects

In the world of software/product development, waste refers to any team activity that does not add value from the customer’s perspective. By continuously identifying and eliminating waste, agile teams can dramatically boost productivity and improve quality of work. What are the implications for x-functional teams working in the fuzzy front-end of service innovation?

In this blogpost, I will reintroduce the nine types of waste, present five strategic ways to eliminate waste, and discuss the pros and cons of looking at team performance through the lens of lean thinking and agile practices.

Recap: Wastes 1–9 in upstream innovation projects

W1. The cost of incongruity. The team is creating project deliverables, assets, and solutions that do not seem to fit organizational quests, cultures, and/or capabilities.

W2. The cost of irrelevance. The team is creating deliverables, assets, and solutions that service actors do not seem to need, want, or use.

W3. The cost of complexity. The team is creating project deliverables, assets, and solutions that service actors find too complex to understand, implement, adopt, adapt, and/or reuse.

W4. The cost of rework. The team is altering delivered work that should have been done correctly but was not.

W5. The cost of idle/waiting time. The team (or team member) is waiting for input and/or spending time on low-priority/non-value-added steps, activities, or tasks.

W6. The cost of distractions. The team (or team member) is getting sidetracked by internal or external time-wasters.

W7. The cost of extraneous cognitive load. The team (or team member) is suffering from unneeded expenditure of mental energy.

W8. The cost of psychological distress. The team (or team member) is burdened with unhelpful stress, which may lead to physical, mental, and emotional exhaustion.

W9. The cost of non-utilized talent and knowledge loss. The team is suffering from underutilization and/or loss of knowledge, skills, and experience.

Figure 1. Nine types of waste in upstream innovation projects mapped to the dimensions Product, Process, and People. By continuously identifying and eliminating waste, agile teams can boost productivity (Process + People) and improve quality of work (Product + People).

Five strategic ways to reduce/minimize/eliminate wastes 1-9

► Take a step back and look at the bigger picture

Craft a human-centered, purpose-driven North Star; build a compelling case for change; and instill a sense of urgency (across the organization)
Uncover long-term opportunities for industry and market disruption (rather than ‘just’ chasing short-term value creation)
Identify portfolio gaps based on long-term consumer trends, emerging technology, and industry disruptions
Flatten hierarchies and smash silos through decentralized decision-making, self-managing units and groups, radical transparency, and knowledge sharing
Retrain leaders to become coaches and servant leaders (facilitative leadership)
Recruit people with a customer-centric, collaborative, creative, and entrepreneurial mindset
Promote agile and customer-centric ways of working, and recognize and reward the right behaviors
Drive continuous learning and improvement, encourage talent mobility and skill-building, and bolster diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts
Hold leaders accountable for healthy workplaces, lifestyles, and behaviors
Redesign/optimize team workflows for moments that matter in the project lifecycle (such as onboarding, data collection, and participatory decision-making) built on best practices and best-in-class collaboration tools
Build capabilities in machine learning, adaptive AI, and intelligent automation to add firepower and alternative perspectives in moments that matter (such as collective sensemaking and systematic ideation).
Shape compelling projects that provide purpose, meaning, focus, and direction for teams
Introduce systems, workflows, and rituals for capturing, storing, sharing, and transferring knowledge.

► Set teams & members up for success

Redesign recruiting & onboarding processes for better team composition and dynamics
Provide training to improve collaboration and boost team performance (critical thinking, lateral thinking, divergent & convergent thinking, hybrid work, etc.)
Clarify project purpose, project plan, and team roles & responsibilities (upfront or over time depending on the ambiguity and ‘fuzziness’ of the project)
Clarify project methodology upfront (and be mindful of mixing and matching methodologies & tools)
Discuss and agree upon the right mix of collaboration modes and tools for hybrid work environments
Manage expectations with project stakeholders and push back early on unreasonable deadlines
Build in slack in project plans
Build in recovery & rest time in and between projects

► Boost team adaptability, nimbleness, velocity, resilience, etc.

Make teams truly autonomous and self-organizing (encourage and empower leaders to let go)
Cultivate a strong, cohesive team culture with shared beliefs, attitudes, rituals, and habits
Embrace the upfront ambiguity and ‘fuzziness’ of upstream projects (don’t emerge/converge too quickly)
Challenge project assumptions, reframe problems, and revise hypotheses through research, experimentation, and prototyping
Insert ample opportunities for experimentation, prototyping, and stakeholder feedback into the end-to-end process
Identify strategic opportunities to stop, reflect, learn, and adapt throughout the process
Encourage in-project upskilling and x-skilling
Encourage teams to make project deliverables, assets, features, and solutions that intentionally can be reused for other projects/programs

► Streamline team workflows & dynamics

Introduce team rituals for feedback, reflection, learning, and adaptation (to continuously remove impediments and optimise the flow of value)
Instil a culture of continuous, multi-directional feedback within the team and between team and stakeholders
Make teams truly autonomous and self-organizing (leaders need to let go)
Encourage and embrace multiple perspectives, workstyles, and personalities
Agree upon team process and rituals for participatory/collaborative decision-making
Incorporate proactive solutions for conflict management
Build team empathy and pay attention to team health & wellness
Introduce the role of an independent process coach (like a Scrum Master)
Redesign workflows and introduce workflow automation of mundane tasks if possible
Use machine learning and adaptive AI to provide extra firepower and alternative perspectives when required
Shield team members from time-wasters (e.g., unnecessary administrative duties)
Simplify support processes and systems (e.g., time & expense management)

► Set stakeholders & end-users up for success

Manage expectations upfront with project stakeholders with regard to project purpose, plan, and timeline (in particular for upstream projects)
Co-create solutions with project stakeholders and end-users for better engagement, relevancy, and buy-in
Simplify and hide complexity in project deliverables, assets, and solutions whenever possible
Co-create business cases, roadmaps, and other assets to streamline implementation efforts
Make it easier for stakeholders and users to understand, embrace, and adopt delivered work through familiarity, compatibility, onboarding, training, incentivization, etc.
Educate/train end-users how to best use delivered work in their day-to-day work or lives

Pros and cons

What are the pros and cons of looking at team performance in upstream innovation projects through the lens of lean thinking and agile practices?

Advantages

Relentless focus on the customer/end-user
Relentless focus on team collaboration, productivity, and performance
Relentless focus on continuous feedback, learning, and improvement
Feels relevant for most (if not all) innovation & delivery methodologies

Disadvantages

Teams or individuals may be resistant to change
Teams may not be empowered to make decisions, overcome impediments, and optimise the flow of value
Teams may not embrace the notion of continuous feedback, learning, and improvement
Teams may struggle to resolve/handle ongoing tensions between productivity and quality of work in specific moments that matter in the project lifecycle (such as data collection & sensemaking or ideation & concepting)
Teams may encounter organizational impediments that prove hard to remove/reduce, such as inappropriate/unhelpful planning cycles, reporting structures, and performance management systems
Investment required for redesigned workflows, team upskilling, new collaboration tools, etc.
No direct reference to how to best manage the golden triangle of project management, or how an agile mindset flips the golden triangle on its head – see Team Asana (2022) for a brief introduction

References

Bau, R. (2020). Nine types of waste in software development [unpublished]. Assignment in PROJ_PMI 403-0. School of Professional Studies, Northwestern University.

Design Partners. (2022). Exploring the problem space: Unleashing the human potential in teams [unpublished]. Project work for DELL about the future of collaboration.

Sedano, T., Ralph, P., & Péraire, C. (2017). Software development waste [Conference paper]. ICSE 2017, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Team Asana. (2022). What is the project management triangle and how can it help your team? Asana.

6/6

Robert Bau 8/1/23 Robert Bau 8/1/23

Lean & mean innovation machine • 5

Nine types of waste in upstream projects

In this blogpost, I will introduce three more types of waste that may have an impact on team productivity (and ultimately quality of work) in upstream innovation projects.

Wastes 7–9 in upstream innovation projects

W7. The cost of extraneous cognitive load. The team (or team member) is suffering from unneeded expenditure of mental energy.

W8. The cost of psychological distress. The team (or team member) is burdened with unhelpful stress, which may lead to physical, mental, and emotional exhaustion.

W9. The cost of non-utilized talent and knowledge loss. The team is suffering from underutilization and/or loss of knowledge, skills, and experience.

Reasons why W7–9 may occur in upstream projects

Lack of empathy/support/empowerment. No sense of appreciation or recognition at work. No/limited control over process, workload, or deadlines. No/limited empathy between team members and/or between team and project stakeholders. No safe space for team members to be vulnerable, take risks, and trust each other. No appreciation or recognition for cultural differences in the team (based on ability, age, gender, ethnicity, expertise, etc.). No joint responsibility for the physical, mental, emotional, and social health of team members. No/limited leadership accountability and support for healthy workplaces, lifestyles, and behaviours. Inadequate/ineffectual workplace or team training for topics such as self-organization, hybrid work, emotional & cultural intelligence, continuous feedback & adaptation, and emotional & mental health. Team feedback to leadership, project owners, project sponsors, etc., often ignored or downplayed.
Lack of clarity and direction. Unclear/shifting project scope, purpose, goals, plans, deadlines, backlogs, etc. Unclear/shifting project roles and responsibilities. Ill-defined or poorly designed processes, workflows, and rituals. Poor rightsizing, sequencing, and prioritization of steps and tasks (due to poorly designed workflows, mismanagement of backlogs, scope bloat, etc.). Unclear/shifting/non-existent quality standards and acceptance criteria for project at hand. Scope and feature creep. Inappropriate choice/blend of project/innovation/delivery methodologies. Unnecessary, non-productive, and counterproductive meetings. Disorganized/cluttered digital and physical workspaces.
Lack of focus and engagement. Disengaged, unreliable, or AWOL team members and project stakeholders. No shared understanding of and commitment to project goals and vision. Inability to find purpose and meaning in the work. No sense of belonging and pride due to poor team cohesion/spirit/morale. Unnecessary multitasking due to constant project or task switching. Workday interruptions/diversions (due to social media, household members/pets, household chores, colleagues, pointless meetings/catch-ups, pointless administrative work, unnecessary travel/commuting, etc.). Inadequate/inappropriate team leadership style. Lack of learning/growth mindset within team. No buffer time (in projects or between projects) to recharge and refocus. Team/individual concerns around career progression and job security. Personal issues (e.g., health issues, family matters, financial concerns).
Lack of alignment and synchronisation. High team turnover or churn. No common sense of purpose. No shared beliefs, attitudes, habits, and rituals. Incomplete, incorrect, misleading, inefficient, or absent communication (especially in handoffs, asynchronous work, and hybrid work environments). Team imbalances in terms of composition and dynamics (too big, too small, too fluid, too static, too uniform, too diverse, etc.). Conflicting/contrasting team personalities and workstyles. Ineffectual and inefficient decision-making processes (too authoritarian, too consensus-driven, too myopic, too slow, etc.). Unresolved/lingering team or interpersonal conflicts. Hard-to-manage dependencies on partners, functions, and other teams.
Lack of (timely) information and feedback. No culture of rapid prototyping and experimentation. No culture of continuous feedback, learning, and adaptation. No/slow/insufficient/unclear feedback from project owners, sponsors, and stakeholders. Unreliable or missing project-related information (project documentation, research findings, clarifications, feedback, test results, approvals, etc.). Limited knowledge transfer between team members, teams, and organizational silos. Inadequate systems for systematic feedback and/or knowledge management.
Lack of (timely) access to resources. Hard-to-use, inflexible, unreliable, unavailable, or missing collaboration tools and enablers (think: spaces, furniture, equipment, applications, supporting services, rituals, etc.). Hard-to-find, hard-to-access, or hard-to-utilize resources pertinent to the project at hand (think: data, information, facilities, equipment, software, infrastructure, methods & tools, expertise, leadership, partnerships, etc.).
(Inspired by Sedano et al., 2017; Bau, 2020; Design Partners, 2022; Gallo, 2023; Fernandez, 2016)

References

Bau, R. (2020). Nine types of waste in software development [unpublished]. Assignment in PROJ_PMI 403-0. School of Professional Studies, Northwestern University.

Design Partners. (2022). Exploring the problem space: Unleashing the human potential in teams [unpublished]. Project work for DELL about the future of collaboration.

Fernandez, R. (2016, January). Help Your Team Manage Stress, Anxiety, and Burnout. Harvard Business Review.

Gallo, A. (2023, February). What Is Psychological Safety? Harvard Business Review.

Sedano, T., Ralph, P., & Péraire, C. (2017). Software development waste [Conference paper]. ICSE 2017, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

5/6

Robert Bau 6/1/23 Robert Bau 6/1/23

Lean & mean innovation machine • 4

Nine types of waste in upstream projects

In this blogpost, I will introduce three types of waste that may have an impact on team productivity in upstream innovation projects. Why does it take longer than expected for the team to deliver project-related activities, deliverables, assets, and solutions that meet tacit/explicit quality standards and acceptance criteria?

Wastes 4–6 in upstream innovation projects

W4. The cost of rework. The team is altering delivered work (deliverables, assets, and solutions for value creation, facilitation, and co-creation) that should have been done correctly but was not.

W5. The cost of idle/waiting time. The team (or team member) is waiting for input and/or spending time on low-priority/non-value-added steps, activities, or tasks.

W6. The cost of distractions. The team (or team member) is getting sidetracked by internal or external time-wasters.

Reasons why W4–6 may occur in upstream projects

Lack of clarity and direction. Unclear/shifting project scope, purpose, goals, plans, deadlines, backlogs, etc. Unclear/shifting project roles and responsibilities. Ill-defined or poorly designed processes, workflows, and rituals. Poor rightsizing, sequencing, and prioritization of steps and tasks (due to poorly designed workflows, mismanagement of backlogs, etc.). Unclear/shifting/non-existent quality standards and acceptance criteria for project at hand. Inappropriate choice/blend of project/innovation/delivery methodologies. Unnecessary, non-productive, and counterproductive meetings. Disorganized/cluttered digital and physical workspaces.
Lack of focus and engagement. Disengaged, unreliable, or AWOL team members and project stakeholders. No shared understanding of and commitment to project goals and vision. No sense of belonging and pride due to poor team cohesion/spirit/morale. Unnecessary multitasking due to constant project or task switching. Procrastination. Workday interruptions/diversions (due to social media, household members/pets, household chores, colleagues, pointless meetings/catch-ups, pointless administrative work, unnecessary travel/commuting, etc.). Inadequate/inappropriate team leadership style. Insufficient team capabilities and experience.
Lack of alignment and synchronisation. No common sense of purpose. No shared beliefs, attitudes, habits, and rituals. Incomplete, incorrect, misleading, inefficient, or absent communication (especially in handoffs, asynchronous work, and hybrid work environments). Team imbalances in terms of composition and dynamics (too big, too small, too fluid, too static, too uniform, too diverse, etc.). Conflicting/contrasting team personalities and workstyles. Ineffectual and inefficient decision-making processes (too authoritarian, too consensus-driven, too myopic, too slow, etc.). Unresolved/lingering team or interpersonal conflicts. Hard-to-manage dependencies on partners, functions, and other teams.
Lack of (timely) information and feedback. No culture of rapid prototyping and experimentation. No culture of continuous feedback, learning, and adaptation. No/slow/insufficient/unclear feedback from project owners, sponsors, and stakeholders. Unreliable or missing project-related information (project documentation, research findings, clarifications, feedback, test results, approvals, etc.).
Lack of (timely) access to resources. Hard-to-use, inflexible, unreliable, unavailable, or missing collaboration tools and enablers (think: spaces, furniture, equipment, applications, supporting services, rituals, etc.). Hard-to-find, hard-to-access, or hard-to-utilize resources pertinent to the project at hand (think: data, information, facilities, equipment, software, infrastructure, methods & tools, expertise, leadership, partnerships, etc.)
(Inspired by Sedano et al., 2017; Bau, 2020; Design Partners, 2022; Brower, 2023; Christiansen, 2023)

Wastes 7 to 9 will be covered in the next blogpost.

References

Bau, R. (2020). Nine types of waste in software development [unpublished]. Assignment in PROJ_PMI 403-0. School of Professional Studies, Northwestern University.

Brower, T. (2023, June). Distraction, diversion and discontent: The truth about remote work today. Forbes.

Christiansen, B. (2023, May). Defining idle time: How to calculate, interpret, and improve it. Limble.

Design Partners. (2022). Exploring the problem space: Unleashing the human potential in teams [unpublished]. Project work for DELL about the future of collaboration.

Sedano, T., Ralph, P., & Péraire, C. (2017). Software development waste [Conference paper]. ICSE 2017, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

4/6

Robert Bau 6/1/22 Robert Bau 6/1/22

Lean & mean innovation machine • 3

Nine types of waste in upstream projects

In this blogpost, I will introduce three types of waste that might may have an impact on quality of work in upstream service innovation projects. The following two blogposts will cover the remaining six types of waste.

Wastes 1–3 in upstream innovation projects

W1. The cost of incongruity. The team is creating project deliverables, assets, and solutions (for value creation, facilitation, and co-creation) that do not seem to fit organizational quests, cultures, and/or capabilities.

W2. The cost of irrelevance. The team is creating deliverables, assets, and solutions that service actors (customers, frontline employees, backstage teams, etc.) do not seem to need, want, or use.

W3. The cost of complexity. The team is creating project deliverables, assets, and solutions that service actors find too complex to understand, implement, adopt, adapt, and/or reuse.

Three big reasons why W1–3 may occur in upstream projects

► Suboptimal ways of working (inspired by Bau, 2020; Sedano et al., 2017; Mersino, 2015; Martin, n.d.; The Global Metacognition Institute, n.d.)

Lack of clarity. Unclear/shifting project scope, purpose, goals, and priorities. Unclear/shifting project roles and responsibilities. Ambiguous/volatile market conditions.
Lack of contextual awareness. Flawed/insufficient knowledge of long-term trends, external environment, organizational quests, organizational culture (and sub-cultures), stakeholder needs, etc.
Lack of empathy. Flawed/insufficient knowledge of service actors (due to arrogance, erroneous assumptions, blind spots, limited research, flawed personas, instable markets, flawed/biased data, etc.).
Lack of critical thinking. Inability to question/challenge briefs, problem statements, hypotheses, requirements, constraints, boundaries, assumptions, labels, etc. – even in the light of new/overwhelming evidence.
Lack of lateral thinking. Inability to generate and screen multiple alternatives (perspectives, options, ideas, etc.) throughout the process.
Lack of simplicity. Inability to address scope creep, verbosity, cluttered thinking, conflicting perspectives, bloated ideas, convoluted segmentation, fuzzy target groups, feature creep, etc.
Lack of modularity. Inability to create solutions based on the notion of interchangeable modules and shared platforms.
Lack of feedback. No/slow/insufficient feedback from project owners, sponsors, and stakeholders during the project.
Lack of metacognitive skills. Inability to identify gaps in knowledge and understanding inside and outside the team. Inability to critically evaluate the validity, credibility, and reliability of knowledge & information sources. Inability to continuously reflect, learn, and adapt during the project. Etc.
Lack of knowledge transfer. No/limited knowledge transfer between team members, between teams, and between team and organization.

► Internal barriers to adoption (inspired by Abernathy & Clark, 1985; Johnson & Scholes, 1999; Day, 2007)

Lack of institutional & technical knowledge. Flawed/insufficient understanding of the organizational capabilities and technical requirements required for the delivery, implementation, and maintenance of envisioned solutions.
Lack of suitability. Project owners feel that envisioned solutions are not aligned with organizational purpose, vision, goals, strategies, portfolio strategy, etc.
Lack of familiarity. Project owners feel that envisioned solutions are distant to existing business models, technical competencies, and markets.
Lack of feasibility. Project owners feel that the organisation/ecosystem lacks the necessary resources and capabilities to utilize project deliverables and deliver envisioned solutions.
Lack of acceptability (in terms of the risk-reward balance). Project owners feel that the chance of success is too low and/or the projected impact is not substantial enough (see blogpost Get the balance right! • 5).
Lack of motivation/commitment. No/flawed/insufficient onboarding, training, and incentivization of onstage employees and backstage teams. No shared sense of purpose and meaning in either the work or the impact delivered.
Lack of urgency. No/limited sense of urgency for change across the organization. No purpose-driven, aspirational vision (North Star) that can provide meaning, focus, and direction.

► External barriers to adoption (inspired by Rogers, 2003; Linares, 2021)

Lack of simplicity. The new solutions are perceived by change agents, influencers, and service actors to be difficult or challenging to understand, specify, buy, use, store, and recycle.
Lack of differentiation (or relative advantage). The new solutions are not perceived by change agents, influencers, and service actors to be different or superior to existing solutions in the market.
Lack of compatibility. The new solutions are not in harmony with prevailing norms, values, and beliefs. The new solutions do not fit seamlessly into existing lifestyles and experiences. The new solutions do not fit with existing ideas, networks, and solution ecosystems.
Lack of trialability & observability. The new solutions are deemed difficult to try, test, and experiment with (before purchase). The new solutions (and/or outcomes) are not visible, detectable, or perceptible to non-users.
Lack of familiarity. The new solutions may require onboarding, training, education, and incentivization (of change agents, influencers, and service actors) to encourage uptake and optimize usage.
Lack of representation & equity. The new solutions intentionally or unintentionally exclude marginalized groups from gaining access (equity of access), engaging fully in the end-to-end experience (equity of experience), or benefitting from potential outcomes (equity of impact).

Wastes 4 to 9 will be covered in the next two blogposts.

References

Abernathy, W.J. & Clark, K.B. (1985). Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction. In: Tushman, M.L. & Moore, W.L. (Eds.), Readings in the management of innovation (2nd ed.). Harper Business.

Bau, R. (2020). Nine types of waste in software development [unpublished]. Assignment in PROJ_PMI 403-0. School of Professional Studies, Northwestern University.

Day, G. (2007, December). Is it real? Can we win? Is it worth doing? Managing risk and reward in an innovation portfolio. Harvard Business Review.

Johnson, G. & Scholes, K. (1999). Exploring corporate strategy. Prentice Hall.

Linares, M. (2021, April). Frameworks for measuring product inclusion and product equity. Medium.

Martin, T. (n.d.). All you need to know about modularization. Modular Management.

Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.

Sedano, T., Ralph, P., & Péraire, C. (2017). Software development waste [Conference paper]. ICSE 2017, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

The Global Metacognition Institute. (n.d.). What are metacognitive skills?

3/6

Robert Bau 6/26/21 Robert Bau 6/26/21

Lean & mean innovation machine • 2

Nine types of waste in upstream projects

In this blogpost, I will compare and contrast four ways to drive innovation (see table 1). This will help us map the nine types of waste to upstream projects (in the next three blogposts).

Before we begin, let me clarify my assumptions:

Service innovation teams work on projects that are classified as either upstream or downstream.
Upstream projects are about addressing complex challenges and exploring wicked problems in a systemic, people-first, and solution-agnostic way. Upstream teams follow a blended systems thinking and design thinking approach. Upstream teams are manager-led (see previous blogpost).
Downstream projects are about developing and releasing specific inventions/solutions for specific customers in an incremental and iterative way. Downstream teams follow a blended lean startup and agile approach. Downstream teams are self-organizing (see previous blogpost).
In both upstream and downstream projects, innovation teams and project stakeholders embark on a learning journey based on continuous experimentation, reflection, and adaptation.
Upstream projects may lead to any number of downstream projects. And downstream projects may spark the need for bigger-picture, upstream work. Hybrid projects may occur but are (arguably) not optimal from a learning perspective.

Four ways to drive innovation

Table 1. Side-by-side comparison of four ways to drive service innovation

In the next blogpost, I will introduce three types of waste (out of nine) in upstream innovation projects.

References

Acaroglu, L. (2017). Tools for systems thinkers: Getting into systems dynamics… and bathtubs. Medium.

Beck, K., Beedle, M., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., Grenning, J., Highsmith, J., Hunt, A., Jeffries, R., Kern, J., Marick, B., Martin, R., Mellor, S., Schwaber, K., Sutherland, J., Thomas, D., & van Bennekum, A. (2001). Manifesto for agile software development.

Blank, S. (2013, May). Why the lean start-up changes everything. Harvard Business Review.

Brown, T. (2008, June). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review.

Design Council. (2007). Eleven lessons: Managing design in eleven global brands. Desk research report. Design Council, UK.

Design Council. (2021). Beyond net zero. A systemic design approach. Design Council, UK.

Kim, Daniel H. (1999). Introduction to systems thinking. Pegasus Communications.

Mersino, A. (2015). Agile project management. Vitality.

Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How today’s entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. Currency.

van Ael, K., Vandenbroeck, P., Ryan, A., & Jones, P. (2021). Systemic Design Toolkit Guide. Systemic Design Toolkit.

2/6

Robert Bau 5/31/21 Robert Bau 5/31/21

Lean & mean innovation machine • 1

Nine types of waste in upstream projects

In the world of software/product development, waste refers to any team activity that does not add value from the customer’s perspective. By continuously identifying and eliminating waste, agile teams can dramatically boost productivity and improve quality of work. What are the implications for x-capability teams working in the fuzzy front-end of service innovation?

Agile teams are self-organizing, adaptive, coordinated, collaborative, transparent, disciplined, and focused (on frequent delivery of what customers need). Agile teams are expected to organize, manage, and monitor their own work as well as resolve internal conflicts and disagreements. (See, e.g., Mersino, 2015) What can upstream innovation teams learn from lean thinking and agile practices in terms of eliminating waste, boosting team productivity, and improving quality of work? What types of waste can occur in upstream projects and what are the underlying causes?

Before diving into the nine types of waste for upstream innovation projects, I will set the stage by briefly introducing three overlapping topics: the major types of waste in software development; the dynamics of dysfunctional and high-performing teams respectively; and the characteristics of self-organizing teams.

Waste in software/product development

Thought leaders Mary and Tom Poppendieck covered the following seven types of waste in their Lean Software Development framework: Partially Done Work, Extra Features, Relearning, Handoffs, Task Switching, Delays, and Defects (Mersino, 2015).

Inspired by lean thinking and Poppendiecks’ work, Sedano et al. (2017) conducted an in-depth study of eight projects in a software development consultancy and identified nine types of waste: Building the wrong feature or product; Mismanaging the backlog; Rework; Unnecessarily complex solutions; Extraneous cognitive load; Psychological distress; Waiting/multitasking; Knowledge loss; and Ineffective communication. Reducing waste, by definition, improves efficiency and productivity.

Dysfunctional and high-performing teams

According to Patrick Lencioni (2002), management teams commonly struggle with five basic dysfunctions: Absence of trust, Fear of conflict, Lack of commitment, Avoidance of team accountability, and Inattention to team objectives. These dysfunctions cause confusion, misunderstanding, and negative morale. Needless to say, dysfunctional teams are not efficient and effective.

Related, a research team at Google studied how team composition and team dynamics affect team effectiveness and performance across the organization. Variables with a significant impact on effectiveness include psychological safety (team members feel safe to take risks and be vulnerable in front of each other), dependability (members get quality work done on time), structure and clarity (members have clear roles, plans, and goals), meaning (members find a sense of purpose in either the work itself or the output), and impact (members believe their work matters and creates change). (re:Work, n.d.) Positive team dynamics reduce project and organizational waste.

Self-organizing teams

According to Hackman (2002), there are four types of self-organizing teams based on the level or amount of authority given/delegated to them by leaders: manager-led teams, self-managing teams, self-designing teams, and self-governing teams. Manager-led teams have the least authority, while self-governing teams have the most. See figure 1.

Figure 1. Four types of teams based on the level of authority given/delegated to them by leaders (slightly adapted from Hackman, 2002).

Self-managing teams have the authority to organize, manage, and monitor their own work as well as resolve internal conflicts/disagreements. Self-designing teams have the additional authority to design the composition of the team and determine reporting structures. Self-governing teams have the additional authority to determine the purpose, set objectives, define success metrics, etc. (Hackman, 2002)

In the context of agile software/product development, self-organizing teams tend to be self-managing (see, e.g., Cohn, 2017). Acting as servant leaders, Scrum Masters play a significant role on these teams to reduce waste and improve productivity; for example, they coach team members in self-management and cross-functionality, help remove blockers and impediments to team productivity and progress, and facilitate stakeholder collaboration as requested or needed (Scrum.org, n.d.; Mersino, 2015; Jarrell, 2016).

Teams do not operate in a vacuum. Organizational leaders can drive self-organization and self-direction by encouraging collaborative play and co-creation across organizational silos and boundaries; by removing organizational impediments such as inappropriate/unhelpful planning cycles, reporting structures, and performance management systems; and by encouraging continuous learning, development, and growth across the organization. (Inspired by Bittner, n.d.; Urch Druskat and Wheeler, 2004; and Rigby, 2020.)

In the next blogpost, I will compare and contrast four ways to drive service innovation. This will help us map the nine types of waste that can occur in upstream projects.

References:

Bittner, K. (2019, February). Agile leadership is the key to self-organization. Agile Know-How Magazine.

Cohn, M. (2017, August 15). Two types of authority leaders must give to self-organizing teams.

Hackman, J.R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. HBR Press.

Jarrell, J. (2016, May 9). The 3 levels of a Scrum Master removing impediments.

Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. Jossey-Bass.

Mersino, A. (2015). Agile project management. Vitality Chicago.

re:Work. (n.d.) Guide: Understand team effectiveness. Google.

Rigby, D. (2020, July 20). The agile organization: Balancing efficiency and innovation (even in tough times) [Webinar]. Harvard Business Review.

Scrum.org. (n.d.). What is a Scrum Master?

Sedano, T., Ralph, P., & Péraire, C. (2017). Software development waste [Conference paper]. ICSE 2017, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Urch Druskat, V. & Wheeler, J.V. (2004, July 15). How to lead a self-managing team. MIT Sloan Review.

1/6

Robert Bau 4/20/21 Robert Bau 4/20/21

Get the balance right! • 5

Visualizing the innovation portfolio

Service providers need to leverage resources effectively to drive innovation and achieve desired outcomes over time. Smart visualizations of the innovation pipeline and portfolio might help leaders and teams drive fruitful discussions, uncover interconnections, make informed choices, build alignment, and ultimately get the balance right. In the first four blogposts, I widened the scope of service innovation and explored ways to visualize the innovation portfolio of a service provider. In this blogpost, I am exploring alternative ways to visualize uncertainty and risk.

Spreading bets in an uncertain world

Operating in an uncertain world, service providers place strategic bets and take calculated risks on innovation projects to unlock value in the core/legacy business and uncover new sources of value in transformational endeavors. (Adapted from Meyer, 2020, to fit the three tensions of service innovation.)

Strategists and innovators spread their bets across the innovation portfolio, balancing sure and safe bets that may have lower returns with solid, side, and slim bets that may have higher returns. At one end of the spectrum, sure bets are no-regret options with a high chance of success in all future scenarios (for a specific time horizon). At the other end, slim bets are long-shot options with a chance of success in only one or two scenarios. (Adapted from Meyer, 2020, to fit the three tensions of service innovation.) See figure 1.

Figure 1. Five types of strategic bets placed on a spectrum from low to high chance of success (slightly adapted from Meyer, 2020)

Strategists and innovators take calculated risks, placing bets after careful consideration of potential benefits, required commitments, and the chance of success/failure (based on Meyer, 2020).

Potential benefits cover financial impact (↑ revenue, ↑ productivity, ↓ waste, ↓ costs, ↑ customer lifetime value, etc.) as well as non-financial impact (↑ differentiation, ↑ brand equity, ↑ customer engagement, ↑ organizational learning, ↑ leadership commitment, ↑ organizational responsibility, ↑ employee engagement, ↑ barriers to entry, etc.). (Inspired by Meyer, 2020.)

Required commitments include resource commitment (dedicating money, capabilities, time, and attention), political commitment (securing internal support and putting your reputation on the line), cognitive commitment (embracing certain perspectives and endorsing certain scenarios), and emotional commitment (investing your heart and attaching yourself emotionally). In other words, people invest financially, reputationally, intellectually, and emotionally to make their strategic bets a success, limiting their ability to ‘play the field’ and pursue other options. (Meyer, 2020)

Failure is broadly defined as significantly missing the objectives that were used to justify the investment (Day, 2007). In a world of uncertainty, the chance of failure increases (the chance of success decreases) when:

The process of developing, implementing, launching, and scaling envisioned solutions is deemed ‘difficult’ due to internal and external innovation hurdles (adapted from Matheson & Matheson, 1997; Matheson, n.d.).
The evidence to support the desirability, viability, feasibility, and adaptability of envisioned solutions is limited to ‘slides and spreadsheets’ (Osterwalder et al., 2020).
The familiarity/fit of envisioned solutions with existing business models, technical competencies, and markets is deemed distant/poor (Abernathy & Clark, 1985; Day, 2007; Pisano, 2015; McGrath, 2020a).

Visualizing levels of uncertainty and risk

One way to visualize uncertainty and risk in the portfolio is by mapping the relative impact of individual projects against the chances of success/failure.

According to Matheson & Matheson (1997), impact is defined as the expected size of commercial value (NPV, net present value) and chance of success as the probability of overcoming internal and external innovation hurdles (the level of ‘difficulty’).

Subsequently, using a classic two-by-two matrix, innovation projects fall into four categories. Bread-and-Butter projects (low impact, low difficulty) produce reliable, if unexciting, returns. White Elephants (low impact, high difficulty) should be killed or repurposed. Oysters (high impact, high difficulty) are typically early-stage projects with blockbuster potential. Pearls (high impact, low difficulty) are exceedingly rare, only found by ‘opening a lot of oysters.’ (Matheson & Matheson, 1997; Matheson, n.d.)

According to Osterwalder et al. (2020), impact is loosely defined as how lucrative the business idea could be for the company if it turned out to be successful (‘financial potential’). Chance of failure is determined by the lack of evidence beyond slides and spreadsheets to prove desirability, viability, feasibility, and adaptability (‘innovation risk’). Subsequently, innovation projects fall into four overlapping categories: Safe Plays (small financial potential, strong evidence of success); Niche Opportunities (small potential, weak-to-no evidence); Promising Concepts (large potential, weak-to-no evidence); and Rising Stars (large potential, strong evidence).

In figure 2, I have combined Matheson & Matheson’s Innovation Screen (R&D Grid) with Osterwalder et al.’s Explore portfolio into one 2x2 matrix.

Figure 2. Mapping the relative impact of innovation projects against the chances of success/failure (Matheson & Matheson, 1997; Osterwalder et al., 2020)

A second way of visualizing uncertainty and risk is to map different types of uncertainty against each other (based on the familiarity or fit with existing business models, markets, technical competencies, etc.). For example, McGrath’s Opportunity Portfolio (2020a, 2020b) visualizes how the service provider is investing across different levels of uncertainty. Other similar visualizations include Day’s Risk Matrix (2007), Nagji & Tuff’s Innovation Ambition Matrix (2012), and Pisano’s Innovation Landscape Map (2015).

On a similar note, it is possible to map three levels of uncertainty to the innovation portfolio of service providers (see blogpost ‘Get the balance right! • 4’). Uncertainty is here defined as the lack of organizational (or ecosystem) knowledge required to improve existing solutions and/or create new solutions. Projects with medium or high uncertainty require knowledge that the service provider (or ecosystem) does not yet possess. Strategies to reduce uncertainty include: strategic foresight; exploratory research; sensemaking; experimentation; prototyping and evaluative research; continuous deployment; and piloting. See figure 3.

Figure 3. Mapping three levels of uncertainty to the innovation portfolio of service providers

References

Day, G. (2007, December). Is it real? Can we win? Is it worth doing? Managing risk and reward in an innovation portfolio. Harvard Business Review.

Matheson, D. (n.d.). SmartOrg has invented methods that support great portfolio conversations. SmartOrg.

Matheson, D. & Matheson, J. (1997). The smart organization: Creating value through strategic R&D. Harvard Business Review Press.

McGrath, R. (2020a, December). Building a proficiency for game-changing innovation and growth: Mastering the Opportunity Portfolio. Medium.

McGrath, R. (2020b, December). Put your resources against your best opportunities! Innovation Roundtable. YouTube.

Meyer, R. (2020). Strategic bets framework. TIAS School for Business and Society.

Nagji, B. & Tuff, G. (2012, May). Managing your innovation portfolio. Harvard Business Review.

Osterwalder, A. et al. (2020). The invincible company: How to constantly reinvent your organization with inspiration from the world’s best business models. Wiley.

Pisano, G. (2015, June). You need an innovation strategy. Harvard Business Review.

5/5

Robert Bau 3/12/21 Robert Bau 3/12/21

Get the balance right! • 4

Visualizing the innovation portfolio

Service providers need to leverage resources effectively to drive innovation and achieve desired outcomes over time. Smart visualizations of the innovation pipeline and portfolio might help leaders and teams drive fruitful discussions, uncover interconnections, make informed choices, build alignment, and ultimately get the balance right. In the first three blogposts, I widened the scope of service innovation by unpacking three tensions. In this blogpost, I am exploring alternative ways to visualize the innovation portfolio of a service provider.

Visualizing tension 1 (WHY) and 2 (WHAT)

I have devised a simple three-by-three matrix to show the mix of innovation projects within a service organization or ecosystem. One dimension in the matrix represents value creation (how customers create value), and the other represents value facilitation (how the organization facilitates value creation). In addition, each cell in the matrix represents an opportunity for value co-creation (how customers engage in the production process). See figure 1.

Figure 1. Visualizing the mix of innovation projects within a service organization or ecosystem across the two dimensions value creation and value facilitation.

Each bubble in the matrix represents a specific project in the portfolio. Bubble size (area, not radius) depicts relative project size based on funding, projected return, team size, or development time. Bubble color classifies projects based on strategic importance, development phase, complexity, risk, probability of success, market segment, target audience, team health, or ownership. Connecting lines between bubbles highlight dependencies (and line thickness degree of affinity).

The matrix can also be used to visualize the balance between investments in core/legacy businesses (to unlock value) and investments in new, transformational endeavors (to create new sources of value). See figure 2.

Figure 2. Visualizing the tension or balance between investments in core/legacy businesses and investments in new, disruptive endeavors.

Visualizing tension 3 (WHEN)

The Futures Cone (Voros, 2001) is a common way to depict the range of possible futures for the near future, the intermediate future, and the distant future. See figure 3.

Figure 3. The Futures Cone (slightly adapted from Voros, 2001).

The cone is typically divided into three cross-sections; each plane (in the shape of a circle) is here used to show the distribution of scenarios and projects across the four types of futures for a specific time horizon. All innovation projects should arguably be linked to one or more scenarios. In addition, each plane can show the distribution of scenarios and projects across two or more sectors (geographical territories, market segments, customer groups, solution areas, etc.). See figure 4.

Figure 4. The Futures Cone (adapted from Voros, 2001). The cross-sections are used to show the distribution of scenarios (S1, S2, etc.) and innovation projects (A, B, etc.) across the four types of futures for specific time horizons.

In my next blogpost, I will explore alternative ways to visualize uncertainty and risk in the innovation portfolio.

Reference

Voros, J. (2001, December). A primer on futures studies, foresight, and the use of scenarios. Prospect, Foresight Bulletin, 6. Swinburne University of Technology.

4/5

Robert Bau 2/15/21 Robert Bau 2/15/21

Get the balance right! • 3

Three tensions in service innovation

Before diving into the intricacies of innovation portfolios, we need to widen the scope of innovation beyond the unimaginative, product-centric definitions of innovation that merely pay lip service to services. Let’s do this by unpacking three tensions in service innovation. The third one is covered below.

Tension 3: Innovation for the near future vs. innovation for the distant future

Service providers need to get the balance right between investing in innovation for the near future, the intermediate future, and distant future. This is ultimately about leaders and employees making sense of weak signals, placing strategic bets, and actively shaping the future they want to happen.

McKinsey’s influential framework ‘Three Horizons of Growth’ (Baghai et al., 2000) is based on the assumption that it might take years for an organization to build new and profitable businesses to displace the core ones. Horizon 1 encompasses the businesses that are at the heart of the organization; the management challenge is shore up competitive positions and extract as much value as possible before the inevitable decline and death. Horizon 2 comprises fast-moving, entrepreneurial ventures (‘emerging stars’) that are expected to complement or replace current core businesses. Horizon 3 contains strategic bets or options on future opportunities (‘the seeds of tomorrow’s businesses’) based on research projects, test-market pilots, minority stakes, alliances, etc. (i.e., real investments in the future as opposed to ideas on post-it notes). Each horizon requires different focus, management, tools, and goals. The organization should allocate its R&D and innovation budgets across all three horizons.

McKinsey’s Three Horizons of Growth and similar time-based frameworks are arguably based on the notion of diminishing returns of current technologies and the performance-improving potential of new and disruptive technologies (for more information about technology S-curves and the timings of technology transitions, see, e.g., Foster, 1988).

However, critics argue that the three horizons are no longer bound by time, and that Horizon 3 initiatives can in fact be delivered as quickly as Horizon 1 and 2 projects. According to Steve Blank (2019), “In fact, it’s the speed of deployment of Horizon 3 products, strategies, and capabilities that are a devastating upset to the status quo.” Airbnb, Uber, and Tesla are all examples of Horizon 3 disruptions based on existing technologies and unique business models, deployed and scaled in short periods of time (Blank, 2019).

A potentially more powerful way of thinking about time and innovation is through futures studies (also called strategic foresight or futures thinking), which provide the mindset, process, methods, and tools required to reflect upon the future in a structured, open, and collaborative way (see, e.g., Voros, 2001).

Voros (2001) proposes three fundamental premises or laws of futures studies. (1) The future is not predetermined; we should therefore consider many potential alternative futures. (2) The future is not predictable; we are therefore able and forced to make choices among many potential alternative futures. (3) Future outcomes can be influenced by our choices (and inactions) in the present.

Alternative futures can be classified in four ways: possible futures (what may happen), plausible futures (what could happen), probable futures (what will likely happen), and preferable futures (what we want to happen). The interrelationships between these four types of futures can be visualized using the Futures Cone. (Voros, 2001)

The creation of scenarios is one means of generating forward views, but, according to Voros (2001), “[it] should come at the end of a careful and detailed process of wide information gathering, careful analysis, and critical interpretation.” An alternative view is that we should move away from carefully crafted and well-written scenario narratives to immersion and interaction in participatory scenario workshops (Hines & Bishop, 2015).

In my next blogpost, I will explore alternative ways to visualize the innovation portfolio of a service provider.

References

Baghai, M., Coley, S. & White, D. (2000). The alchemy of growth: Practical insights for building the enduring enterprise. Basic Books.

Blank, S. (2019, February 1). McKinsey’s Three Horizons Model defined innovation for years. Here’s why it no longer applies. Harvard Business Review.

Foster, R.N. (1988). Timing technological transitions. In: Tushman, M.L. & Moore, W.L. (Eds.), Readings in the management of innovation (2nd ed.). Harper Business.

Hines, A. & Bishop, P. (2015). Thinking about the future. Guidelines for strategic foresight (2nd ed.). Hinesight.

Voros, J. (2001, December). A primer on futures studies, foresight, and the use of scenarios. Prospect, Foresight Bulletin, 6. Swinburne University of Technology.

3/5

Robert Bau 2/15/21 Robert Bau 2/15/21

Get the balance right! • 2

Three tensions in service innovation

Tension 2: Innovation for value creation vs. innovation for value facilitation

Service providers need to get the balance right between investing in innovation for value creation and investing in innovation for value facilitation. This is ultimately about empowering customers to create value and empowering employees to facilitate that value creation. (If this feels a tad too commercial, simply replace ‘customers’ with passengers, guests, patients, residents, citizens, clients, etc.)

Value co-creation is a relatively new paradigm in the domain of innovation, management, and marketing. Multiple theoretical perspectives on value co-creation compete for attention (Galvagno & Dalli, 2014); for the purpose of this blogpost, I will use Christian Grönroos’ rather pragmatic perspective (2011) to capture the fundamentals of (and differences between) value creation and value co-creation:

Reciprocal value creation is the fundamental basis of business, with service as a mediating factor.
The service provider is fundamentally a value facilitator. The provider is in charge of its own production process, where resources for customer use are designed, developed, manufactured, and delivered without direct interactions with customers.
The customer as the user and integrator of resources is a value creator. Value-in-use means that value is created by the user for the user (and is the one who determines whether value emerges or not).
Co-creation of value only takes place in service encounters (interactions) between the service provider and the customer. In other words, co-creation of value emerges when the customer is engaged in the production process as co-researcher, co-developer, co-designer, co-producer, co-marketer, and so on.
Needless to say, interactions between the service provider and the customer may also have a negative impact on the customer’s value creation process (i.e., value destruction).
By supporting and facilitating the customer’s value creation process, the service provider can gain financial and non-financial value in return.

Based on Grönroos (2011), I have teased out eight opportunity areas for service innovation:

New/untapped sources of value creation (as identified by underserved/overserved customer needs, segments, markets, geographies, etc.)
New/improved value propositions and customer offerings (core products and supplementary services)
New/improved pricing strategies, profit models, risk-sharing schemes, incentive programs, etc.
New/improved ways to enable and empower customers in their value creation processes
New/improved ways to entice, engage, and empower customers and employees in value co-creation
New/improved ways to enable and empower employees in value facilitation
New/improved ways to produce resources and facilitate customer value creation
New/improved ways to continuously learn, improve, and innovate

The eight opportunity areas can easily be tagged to the four elements of a business model (who, what, how, why), the three layers of the Golden Circle (why, how, what), the two dimensions of dual transformation (what we do, how we do it), and the five questions in the play-to-win strategy (e.g., where will you play, how will you win) (Gassman et al., 2014; Sinek, 2009; Gilbert et al., 2012; Lafley & Martin, 2014).

In my next blogpost, I will unpack the third tension in service innovation.

References

Galvagno, M. & Dalli, D. (2014). Theory of value co-creation: A systematic literature review. Managing Service Quality, 24(6), 643–683.

Gassman, O., Frankenberger, K. & Csik, M. (2014). The business model navigator. FT Publishing.

Gilbert, C., Eyring, M. & Foster, R. (2012, December). Two routes to resilience. Harvard Business Review.

Grönroos, C. (2011). Value co-creation in service logic: A critical analysis. Marketing Theory, 11(3), 279–301.

Lafley, A.G. & Martin, R. (2013). Playing to win: How strategy really works. Harvard Business Review Press.

Sinek, S. (2009). Start with why – how great leaders inspire action [Video]. YouTube. TEDx talk.

2/5

Robert Bau 2/15/21 Robert Bau 2/15/21

Get the balance right! • 1

Three tensions in service innovation

Before diving into the intricacies of innovation portfolios, we need to widen the scope of innovation beyond the unimaginative, product-centric definitions of innovation that merely pay lip service to services (see, e.g., Keeley et al., 2013; Viki et al., 2019). Let’s do this by unpacking three tensions in service innovation. The first one is below.

Tension 1: Innovation for core businesses vs. innovation for new businesses

Service providers need to get the balance right between investing in core/legacy businesses (to unlock value) and investing in new, transformational endeavors (to create new sources of value). This is ultimately about determining the overarching purpose and desired outcomes of innovation efforts.

Incremental innovation: Service providers can unlock value in core/legacy businesses by identifying and exploiting opportunities to

drive growth (↑ desirability, ↑ inclusion, ↑ differentiation, ↑ loyalty, ↑↓ price, ↑ revenue streams, ↑ channels, ↑ segments, ↑ geographies), and
improve organizational performance (↑ focus, ↓ waste, ↑ service productivity, ↑ service quality, ↑ employee engagement, ↑ customer experience).

Transformational innovation: Service providers can uncover new sources of value by identifying and exploiting opportunities to

adapt, reinvent, and reposition the core businesses (think Netflix),
create adjacent, ‘close-to-the-core-business’ businesses (think Facebook),
create ‘new-to-the-core-business’ businesses (think Virgin or Alphabet), and/or
challenge conventions, transcend industry boundaries, and create uncontested market spaces (think Cirque de Soleil).

This tension rhymes with influential frameworks and mental models such as Product-Market Strategies for Business Growth (Ansoff, 1957), Seven Degrees of Freedom for Growth (Baghai et al., 2000), ‘little i’ and ‘Big I’ Innovations (Day, 2007), Hierarchy of New Service Categories (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2010), Innovation Ambition Matrix (Nagji & Tuff, 2012), and Transformation A and B (Gilbert et al., 2012).

In my next blogpost, I will unpack the second tension of service innovation.

References

Ansoff, I. (1957, September–October). Strategies for diversification. Harvard Business Review, 113–124.

Day, G. (2007, December). Is it real? Can we win? Is it worth doing? Managing risk and reward in an innovation portfolio. Harvard Business Review.

Gilbert, C., Eyring, M. & Foster, R. (2012, December). Two routes to resilience. Harvard Business Review.

Keeley, L. et al. (2013). Ten Types of Innovation: The Discipline of Building Breakthroughs. Wiley.

Nagji, B. & Tuff, G. (2012, May). Managing your innovation portfolio. Harvard Business Review.

Viki, T., Toma, D. & Gons, E. (2019). The corporate startup: How successful companies can develop successful innovation ecosystems. Management Impact Publishing.

Wirtz, J. & Lovelock, C. (2010). Services Marketing: People, technology, strategy (8th ed.). World Scientific.

1/5

Robert Bau 1/31/21 Robert Bau 1/31/21

Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes

Four approaches to change management

Innovation drives change. Change requires innovation. Innovation and organizational change are so intertwined it almost feels disingenuous to untangle them. How can service designers empower change leaders in top-down and bottom-up change processes?

Just like design, change can be seen as a verb (the act or process of becoming different, or making something or someone different), a countable noun (the final result or outcome of the change activity or process), and an uncountable noun (the situation or process of change).

Following this train of thought, I have devised a two-by-two matrix to capture four distinctive approaches to change management. While it is admittedly impossible to encapsulate every single change theory in a single matrix, the purpose is simply to facilitate a discussion about how service design can support and drive change. It also serves as a reminder that not all change theories are by nature top-down, sequential, and outcome-driven (see figure below).

Figure 1. Four high-level approaches to change management (Bau, 2020).

One dimension in the matrix explores whether the change process seems inherently planned or is in fact emergent. A planned process implies deliberate, coordinated, and integrated actions across the organisation. An emergent process implies autonomous or semi-autonomous actions within the organisation that may or may not become coordinated and integrated over time.

The other dimension explores whether the change outcome is inherently planned or emergent. Planned outcomes in terms of organizational quests, long-term goals, vision statements, etc., are determined more or less from the outset and imposed over time. Emergent outcomes materialize over time, shaped through the qualities and capabilities of the organisation. Furthermore, planned and unplanned actions will have intended and unintended consequences, and internal and external factors may push change in unknown directions.

Subsequently, each quadrant in the matrix represents a distinctive, high-level approach to change management, with specific metaphors, characteristics, strategies, and benefits. There is no winner or best approach; given context, situational factors, leadership philosophy, and organizational culture, any one of these four approaches (or combinations thereof) might be deemed effective.

The four approaches to change management are:

Directed change – like winning hearts and minds in occupied territories. A top-down, leadership-driven approach to change supported by a compelling vision, deliberate action plans, and ‘scientific’ evidence. Employees are spurred or forced into action through a series of top-down interventions. According to proponents, this is the fastest way to drive first-order and second-order change. Resistance to change is typically high but (ultimately) futile. This approach is based on the Empirical–Rational, Power–Coercive, and Normative–Re-educative change strategies by Chin & Benne (1969) and Thurley & Wirdenius (1973).
Guided change – like wandering into the unknown with sherpas by your side. A bottom-up, systematic effort to improve the problem-solving capabilities of the system as well as to unlock and foster growth in the individuals and groups that make up the system. Employees are empowered to change through expert facilitation in experiential learning and action research. According to proponents, this approach is best suited for first-order change. Resistance is minimized thanks to heavy employee involvement. This approach is based on the Action-centered change strategy by Thurley & Wirdenius (1973), the Normative–Re-educative change strategy by Chin & Benne (1969), and the experiential aspects of Organizational Development (Brown & Harvey, 2006).
Self-directed change – like jazz improvisation, which is all about studious practice and being in the moment (O’Donnell, 2012). Organizations are complex, adaptive systems operating in diverse, dynamic, and interconnected environments. The system continually evolves through a cycle of interactions, emergence, and non-linear feedback loops. Leaders should set teams and employees free to self-organize, interact, adapt, and learn. According to proponents, this approach is the best way to explain how organisations adapt, evolve, and survive in turbulent environments. Resistance is minimal or even non-existent (since everybody is a change agent). This approach is based on complexity and chaos theory (Stacey, 1996).
Darwinian change – like Battle Royale (the 2000 Japanese dystopian thriller). Predetermined quests, visions, long-term goals, and values function as a lighthouse to guide innovation efforts and change initiatives within the organisation (and ecosystem). Autonomous or semi-autonomous units are encouraged to come with fresh perspectives, experiment with new ideas, battle for attention, and fight for resources. The ‘fittest’ ideas make the cut and get adopted. According to proponents, this is the best way to drive first-order and second-order change when the path to desired outcomes is deemed unclear, uncertain, or unpredictable. Resistance to the ideas of others is actively encouraged (to a certain degree). This approach is inspired by van de Ven and Poole’s single and dual-motor change theories (1995).

Service designers can become effective change agents in all four change approaches:

Directed change. Service designers help leaders make the case for change through compelling, human-centered North Stars, stories, concepts, value cases, etc. The most important service design roles in this type of change are The Storyteller, The Navigator, and The Maker.
Guided change. Working side-by-side with expert facilitators in experiential learning and action research, service designers make bottom-up innovation happen through systemic and systematic co-creation. The most important service design roles are The Servant Leader, The Sensemaker, and the Maker.
Self-directed change. Service designers create the conditions for change, creativity, and collaborative play by helping change leaders ‘loosen’ or ‘tighten’ the system. The most important service designer roles are The Servant Leader, The Sensemaker, and The Creator.
Darwinian change. Service designers design the rules and set the tone for the organization-wide game of innovation (and, upon invitation, we can also take part as active players). As the ‘game designer,’ the most important service design roles are The Servant Leader, The Navigator, and The Creator.

To learn more about the four approaches to change management and the critical roles service designers play, please check out my article ‘Service Design to the Rescue’ in Touchpoint Vol. 11 No. 3 (Bau, 2020). (Touchpoint is the journal of service design published by SDN; in this issue, you will find plenty of interesting articles about the intersection of service design and change management.)

References

Bau, R. (2020). Service design to the rescue. The critical roles service designers play in organizational change. Touchpoint, 11(3), 74–79.

Brown, D. & Harvey, D. (2006). An experiential approach to Organization Development (7th ed.). California State University–Bakersfield.

Chin, R. & Benne, K. (1969). General strategies for effecting changes in human systems [Research report]. Boston University.

O’Donnell, E. (2012, April 9). Is improvising really improvising?

Stacey, R. (1996). Strategic management and organizational dynamics (2nd ed.). Pitman.

Thurley, K. & Wirdenius, H. (1973). Supervision: A reappraisal. Heinemann.

van de Ven, A. & Poole, M. (1995, July). Explaining development and change in organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 510–540.

Robert Bau 12/30/20 Robert Bau 12/30/20

Climbing to the top • 2

The mountain guide as a metaphor in service design

Metaphors can be used to explain abstract concepts by identifying hidden similarities between two unrelated entities. What can we learn about service design by comparing the certified mountain guide with the seasoned service designer?

In this blogpost, I will highlight the final three similarities between the certified mountain guide and the seasoned service designer:

Planning and thinking ahead [see previous blogpost]
Managing and mitigating risk [see previous blogpost]
Utilizing tools to tackle complex problems
Simplifying and de-stressing the experience
Committing to life-long learning and continuous improvement

3. Utilizing tools to tackle complex problems

Before each tour, the mountain guide assembles a bespoke toolbox to tackle specific problems that will or may occur. Tools include climbing gear (ropes, slings, carabiners, quickdraws, etc.), climbing techniques, and fall-protection systems. Individual tools may not be that hard to learn, but it takes plenty of knowledge, practice, and experience to know which tool or tools to use in specific situations.

During the tour, the guide will identify viable solutions for the situation at hand and find the best possible one by weighing arguments for and against. Some solutions may create new problems ‘further down the road,’ and some situations may lack satisfactory solutions altogether.

Like the mountain guide, the seasoned service designer dips into his or her toolbox to help clients and project teams identify and solve problems in a systematic, creative, human-centered, collaborative, and efficient way. It takes experience to know which methods or tools to use in certain situations, and why. It also takes experience to know how to adapt, combine, and synchronize tools over time.

Furthermore, most problems addressed in innovation projects are by their very nature wicked (complex, ambiguous, interconnected, unstable, etc.), which means it is inherently challenging for the team to truly understand the solution space and to fully explore the solution space.*

* See Buchanan (1992) for a solid overview of Rittel’s wicked problem approach (in the context of design thinking)

4. Simplifying and de-stressing the experience

Mountain guides appreciate how important the climbing experience is for clients (who are spending good money and valuable vacation time). The emotional job of the guide is to simplify, de-stress, and augment the experience as much as possible, especially for inexperienced climbers.

Acting as instructors, teachers, and trainers, mountain guides devise courses of action, give concise instructions, test for understanding, and provide encouragement to make the climbing experience easier, smoother, faster, and safer for everyone. This puts less pressure on the climbers and makes the experience more enjoyable.

Like mountain guides, the emotional job of seasoned service designers is to make project teams and clients feel they are tackling complex projects and wicked problems in an engaging, efficient, and effective manner – despite the built-in ambiguity, intermittent ‘chaos,’ and iterative nature of the process. Acting as coaches, facilitators, and trainers, seasoned service designers constantly transfer their designerly ways of knowing, thinking, and doing to clients and project teams in discussions, meetings, and co-creation sessions. (Unlike traditional business coaches, who ‘merely’ ask powerful questions to guide individuals and teams toward their own solutions.)

5. Committing to life-long learning and continuous improvement

Elite fitness levels. Genuine passion for mountaineering and mountain climbing. Years of dedication to the craft. Commitment to life-long learning and continuous improvement. A rigorous certification process that may take years to complete. Becoming a certified mountain guide is certainly no walk in the park.

Mountain guides need to master and balance three types of skills (imbalances may have grave consequences in unforgiving settings):

Physical skills – strength, power, endurance, mobility, balance, etc.
Technical skills – bouldering, sport climbing, traditional climbing, ice climbing, resort skiing, Nordic skiing, backcountry skiing, endurance running, snowmobiling, orienteering, weather-map reading, medical training, self-rescue skills, gear repair, etc.
Psychological skills – performing at your best under intense stress; exercising sound judgment in critical situations; communicating and instructing effectively under pressure; managing expectations, fears, hopes, and desires (yours as well as others); exercising patience (especially with others); eliminating/avoiding individual and team biases (that will cloud judgment and dim perceptions of risk); etc.

To become the best of the best, mountain guides believe in life-long learning and continuous improvement. They are always looking for ways to move faster and safer by simplifying things, cutting out unnecessary steps, removing fancy/unnecessary devices, and reducing weight (‘lightness’). They stay on top of innovative technologies and techniques, experiment with tools, read books, attend clinics/workshops, and learn from fellow climbers and guides.

According to Malcolm Gladwell (2008), it takes 10,000 hours of concentrated practice to possess a world-class skill in something.

In service design, it takes comprehensive knowledge, a considerable amount of concentrated practice, and a commitment to continuous learning to fully:

master the rather extensive toolbox for people-centered research, service innovation, design thinking, HCD, UX, agile, etc.
master the distinct flavors or genres of service design projects (growth/disruption, customer excellence, operational excellence, cultural transformation, product development, service/product branding, etc.)
master the idiosyncrasies and intricacies of specific service sectors (healthcare, energy, hospitality, retail, etc.)
master the process to drive innovation and tackle wicked problems in complex organizations and ecosystems
master both upstream and downstream projects equally well (upstream = exploring, envisioning, strategizing, conceptualizing; downstream = designing, building, piloting, launching, refining)
master the art and science of empowering multi-disciplinary teams, co-creating with clients and other stakeholders, and transferring designerly ways of working

Finally, it is worth adding that SDN (2020) offers an accreditation program for service design professionals and service design masters.

Pros and cons

Just like any metaphor, the mountain guide puts the spotlight on certain aspects of thinking and working as a service designer (and neglects or downplays others).

Advantages

Highlights the roles seasoned service designers can perform in projects (guide, facilitator, instructor, teacher, and trainer)
Highlights the need to carefully plan and prepare projects before kick-off
Highlights the importance of constantly identifying, assessing, prioritizing, and mitigating risks during projects
Highlights the importance of assembling the right toolbox to solve complex (wicked) problems
Highlights the need to simplify, de-stress, and augment the experience, especially for inexperienced clients and team members
Highlights the extensive technical and psychological skills required to become masterful
Highlights the commitment to life-long learning and continuous learning

Disadvantages

Does not stress the value of teamwork, open communication, adaptability, self-management, co-creation, diversity, non-hierarchical structures, continuous feedback, retrospectives, etc. (here the metaphor of a high-performing team of experienced climbers would be more apt)

References

Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers. The story of success. Little, Brown and Company.

SDN. (2020). SDN Accreditation Programme for service design professionals and masters.

In terms of mountain climbing and mountain guides (two topics I admittedly knew precious little about before collecting my thoughts), I leaned heavily on The Mountain Guide Manual by Marc Chauvin and Rob Coppolillo. I am also indebted to several blogs and websites about mountaineering in general and mountain guides in particular.

2/2

Robert Bau 12/30/20 Robert Bau 12/30/20

Climbing to the top • 1

The mountain guide as a metaphor in service design

The core job of a mountain guide is to guide and assist client climbers up and down the mountain in a safe, efficient, and rewarding way. The guide will significantly improve the climbing experience, especially if the climbing party lacks the expertise, equipment, and/or experience required for the terrain ahead.

Climbing parties may face quite a few hazards during the tour: the terrain itself; inclement weather; extreme temperatures; performance anxiety; stress; dehydration; fatigue/exhaustion; illness; physical injuries; equipment failure; getting lost; and fellow climbers (who may be overconfident or underconfident in their abilities, often due to inexperience).

This means that the guide is constantly handling complex situations and making life-or-death decisions, based on extensive experience, tons of practice, rigorous planning, solid problem-solving capabilities, and a sound approach for on-the-spot decision-making (to avoid personal and team biases).

The experienced service designer often functions as the expert guide and facilitator in challenging innovation projects, guiding cross-functional, multi-disciplinary teams all the way from exploration to implementation. Project teams may face multiple hurdles throughtout the innovation and design process, and the seasoned service designer will need to  handle complex situations, make important decisions, and manage risk.

In two blogposts, I will highlight five similarities between the certified mountain guide and the seasoned service designer:

Planning and thinking ahead
Managing and mitigating risk
Utilizing tools to tackle complex problems
Simplifying and de-stressing the experience
Committing to life-long learning and continuous improvement

1. Planning and thinking ahead

The mountain guide is responsible for the safety of the climbing party. Before each tour, the guide is planning and thinking ahead by:

Reviewing weather forecasts and snowpack conditions
Collecting data about the location, frequency, and severity of objective hazards
Obtaining advice, tips, and general information on how to successfully complete (or protect) particular climbing routes
Gauging the experience and capabilities of the climbing party
Planning reasonable routes for conditions and climbers
Determining options and bailout possibilities
Making hard choices about food, water, clothing, and equipment (it would be nigh impossible to carry everything you want)
Gathering the climbers, providing information, determining ground rules, setting realistic expectations, and strengthening bonds

Like the mountain guide, the seasoned service designer is planning and thinking ahead before the project kicks off:

What is the overarching need (or rationale) for the project? What type of solution is envisioned?* What are the desired outcomes?
Who are we targeting, and why? Who will be affected, and how? Who are we intentionally including and excluding, and why?
What explicit and implicit assumptions are we making in this project? How do we reveal hidden biases and illuminate blindspots?
What external and internal forces are driving change and resisting change respectively?
How will organizational quests, strategies, beliefs, sub-cultures, and processes shape the project (or vice versa)?
How does the project fit into the innovation portfolio? What level of risk and uncertainty is the organization willing to accept?
What interdependencies exist with other solutions and/or components in the business ecosystem?
What constraints do we need to take into consideration?
What are our knowledge gaps about market segments and target audiences?
What is the right approach/process for the challenge or problem at hand? What tools and spaces do we need for our process?
When and how often should we engage users and other stakeholders throughout the process?
What is the right timing and timeframe?
What obstacles are we facing in this project and how do we overcome them?
What does success look like and how do you measure it?
What type of capabilities do we need? Who should we recruit or partner with?
How can we empower and engage team members, especially if the team is inexperienced or newly formed?

* For a discipline-neutral classification of potential solution areas (rather than predetermined solutions), see Richard Buchanan’s four broad areas in which design is explored (1992) and GK VanPatter’s process model Design 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0 (Jones, 2009).

2. Managing and mitigating risk

The mountain guide is constantly identifying, assessing, and prioritizing risks and constantly finding ways to control or mitigate them. As the climbing party is ascending or descending, the guide controls the situation at hand by:

seeing and assessing the terrain above and below the group
observing current and changing conditions (inclement weather, avalanche danger, rock fall potential, etc.)
weighing all the evidence and exercising sound judgment
identifying the right decision points and routes to scale the terrain in a safe way
choosing appropriate tools, techniques, and fall-protection systems to manage risk effectively
modifying plans on the fly (because of fatigue, changing weather conditions, etc.)
determining contingency paths in case of emergency
providing clear, unambiguous instructions to the group
exercising patience with inexperienced climbers
managing the expectations, fears, hopes, and desires of individual climbers

Scope creep. Cost overruns. Shifting goalposts. Inadequate stakeholder engagement. Unmet expectations. Fluctuating velocity. Disengaged team members. Resistance to change. Large, complex service design projects are fraught with expected and unexpected risks. Like the mountain guide, the seasoned service designer constantly identifies, assesses, and prioritizes project risks, and explores smart ways to manage or mitigate them (e.g., by speeding up or slowing down the process). Needless to say, the service designer should be taking into consideration the relative (in)experience of the team while devising specific courses of action.

(to be continued)

References

Buchanan, R. (1992, Spring). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.

Jones, P. (2009, March). Design 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0. The rise of visual sensemaking. NextD Journal. NextDesign Leadership Institute.

1/2

Robert Bau 11/30/20 Robert Bau 11/30/20

Bringing down the house • 3

Theatre as a metaphor in services marketing and service design

Theater has been used for decades as a metaphor to highlight the differences between services marketing and product marketing. Standing on the shoulders of giants, I am using my version of the 7P framework to draw parallels between theater productions and service experiences.

(Product, Place, Physical Evidence, People, and Process were covered in previous blogposts.)

Promotion: Integrated marketing, sales, customer education, etc.

For theater productions, this means attracting sponsors, selling tickets, balancing demand and capacity, building loyalty, educating the audience (for example through podcasts and talkbacks), etc. For service providers, the equivalent would be carrying out integrated marketing activities before, during, and after the delivery of the service to attract, retain, and grow the right customers. To balance demand and capacity, service providers can either adjust capacity to demand or shape demand patterns (e.g., by shrinking or stimulating demand through innovative pricing strategies) (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2010).

Price: Revenue streams, pricing strategies, etc.

For for-profit theaters, the main revenue streams are corporate sponsorships, membership fees, ticket sales, concessions, merchandise, corporate events, etc. An effective pricing strategy for tickets must do two things: attract the right audience(s) to the show and raise sufficient income to make a profit; the difficulty is that these two aims are often at odds. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the theater typically attracts multiple audiences, which may require multiple pricing strategies. (Caird, 2012). Service providers can utilize a wide range of business models, from freemium services to multi-sided platforms. Just like theaters, service providers need to determine the right pricing strategy (or strategies) based on costs, perceived value, and the competition (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2010).

Work is theater

Taking the theater metaphor one step further, Joseph Pine and James Gilmore published the influential book Welcome to the Experience Economy: Work is theatre & every business a stage in 1999. To them, theater is not a metaphor (‘work as theater’), it is a model (‘work is theater’). Workers are on stage and must be directed to act accordingly.

The authors argue that companies compete not by making better products or by delivering better services but by staging better experiences. A ‘good’ experience is perceived to be meaningful, memorable, and ultimately transformative (creating a better version of ourselves).

Pine and Gilmore (1999) identified four forms of theater: platform theater, street theater, matching theater, and improv theater. For example, platform theater is the traditional theater where the script does not vary, the performance takes place in front of the audience, and the audience has little to no input into the performance. In improv theater, the actors think on their feet, responding to new and changing demands from the onlookers. According to the authors, all four types of theater have their place in the business world.

Pros and cons

Just like any metaphor, theater puts the spotlight on certain aspects of the production and delivery of services (and neglects or downplays others).

Advantages

Highlights the three-act structure of service experiences (acts and scenes)
Highlights the importance of roles and scripts to plan, manage, and control behaviors
Highlights the importance of place and physical evidence to manage expectations and determine service quality
Highlights the contribution of backstage/invisible aspects to the effective delivery of services
Highlights the need for a visionary and creative artistic director to set the vision and bring all of the elements together
Highlights the importance of cross-capability collaboration to plan, design, stage, and support live performances
Highlights the importance of enabling processes to attract, retain, and grow the right talent (casting and rehearsals)
Highlights the importance of customer education (to understand and enjoy the experience)
Highlights the need to balance demand and capacity (e.g., through innovative pricing strategies)

Disadvantages

Does not work as well for services that are highly personalized and customized (which require customers to become co-creators)
Does not work as well for services based on automation and self-service
The audience typically plays a more passive role in theater performances than in high-contact service experiences
Most service providers do not have the equivalent of the artistic director

References

Caird, J. (2012). Theatre tickets: When is the price right? The Guardian.

Pine, J. & Gilmore, J. (1999). Welcome to the Experience Economy: Work is theatre & every business a stage. Harvard Business School Press.

Wirtz, J. & Lovelock, C. (2010). Services Marketing: People, technology, strategy (8th ed.). World Scientific Publishing.

3/3

Robert Bau 11/30/20 Robert Bau 11/30/20

Bringing down the house • 2

Theatre as a metaphor in services marketing and service design

(Product, Place, and Physical Evidence were covered in previous blogpost.)

People: Customers, frontline employees, backstage teams

The audience. For service experiences, the equivalent would be customers and other participants. Far from playing a passive role, customers are often (heavily) engaged in the co-production and co-delivery of the service; in essence, customers become partial employees (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2010).

Actors/performers. For service experiences, the equivalent would be frontline employees interacting with customers to co-produce and co-deliver the service over time. Needless to say, frontline employees are extremely important for the overall perception and performance of the service (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2010).

The artistic director. In the world of theater, the director interprets the playwright’s script; sets the creative vision for the production; hires the right artistic and technical talent; plans the production together with dramaturgs, choreographers, designers, and technicians; runs rehearsals and provides critique; and ultimately coordinates all elements into the finished production. In service organizations, the equivalent is arguably hard to find – perhaps the visionary, people-centered CX leader, CMO, or CEO?

Many other people are involved in planning, designing, staging, and supporting live performances – such as the producer, the production manager, the stage manager, the music director, the choreographer, the dramaturg, the costume designer, the lighting designer, the set designer, the sound designer, the technical director, the master electrician, the master carpenter, the sound engineer, the props master, the build crew, and the run crew. In service organizations, the equivalent would be multidisciplinary innovation & design teams (for envisioning, designing, and piloting new or revamped services), cross-functional technology teams (for building digital products and digitally-enabled services), and cross-functional service delivery teams (for co-producing and co-delivering services with the customers).

Process: Enabling and core processes for service production & delivery

Production and delivery processes. From the customer’s perspective, live performances and services are experiences. From the provider’s perspective, theatrical productions and services are processes that need to be designed and managed to deliver the desired customer experience. (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2010) These co-production and co-delivery processes can be designed (or redesigned) using techniques/tools such as value stream mapping, flowcharting, service blueprinting, and process mapping. Identifying potential fail points at the design stage and designing ‘fail-proof’ services can greatly reduce the frequency and severity of service failures (Shostack, 1984).

Onstage/visible and backstage/invisible components. Back in 1982, Lynn Shostack (1984) introduced the service blueprint, emphasizing the need to include the invisible or hidden aspects of the service delivery which may impact the overall performance (in terms of service productivity and quality). While she did not explicitly use the theater metaphor, the blueprint was split into two sections divided by the ‘line of visibility.’ In 2007, Mary Jo Bitner showed the evolution of Shostack’s original service blueprint into five interconnected components (imagine layers, stacks, or swimlanes): Physical Evidence, Customer Actions, Onstage Contact Employee Actions, Backstage Contact Employee Actions, and Support Processes (Bitner et al., 2007).

Roles and scripts. Taking a leaf from theater production and performers, employees and customers take on specific roles, act out their parts, and stay in character following scripts, conventions, social norms, unwritten rules, etc. (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2010). Service scripts determine the sequences of behavior employees (and customers) are expected to learn and follow during service production and delivery. To reduce variability and ensure uniform quality, many service dramas are tightly scripted. Highly customizable services typically require heavy customer involvement and more flexible scripts. (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2010) On the flip side, scripts might (a) encourage ‘mindless’ and ‘habitual’ behaviors, and/or (b) make employees less attentive to non-verbal cues from customers (Harris et al., 2003).

Since high-contact services and experiences are so dependent on face-to-face interactions between customers and employees, two enabling processes worth highlighting are casting and rehearsals.

Casting. The artistic director works with the casting director to find the right people for the roles. They pay attention to training, experience, and past accomplishments; physical characteristics and vocal technique; personality traits, personal liveliness, and stage presence; ability to understand the play; suitability for the style of play; and general attitude, cooperativeness, and ‘directability.’ In service organizations, the equivalent to casting would be attracting, recruiting, and onboarding the right talent as well as staffing the service delivery teams with the right people across the organization.

Rehearsals. In rehearsals, actors interpret the script, rehearse their parts, memorize lines, discover new avenues of interpretation, etc. In service organizations, the equivalent to rehearsals would be team building, training, feedback, recognition, incentives, etc., to motivate and engage employees.

(To be continued)

References

Bitner, M.J., Ostrom, A.L., & Morgan F.N. (2007). Service blueprinting: A practical technique for service innovation. Center for Services Leadership, Arizona State University.

Harris R., Harris K. & Baron S. (2003). Theatrical service experiences: Dramatic script development with employees. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 14, 184–99.

Shostack, L. (1984). Designing services that deliver. Harvard Business Review.

Wirtz, J. & Lovelock, C. (2010). Services Marketing: People, technology, strategy (8th ed.). World Scientific Publishing.

2/3

Robert Bau 11/30/20 Robert Bau 11/30/20

Bringing down the house • 1

Theatre as a metaphor in services marketing and service design

Theater has been used for decades as a metaphor to highlight the differences between services marketing and product marketing.

According to my research, Stephen Grove and Raymond Fisk (1983) were the first to publish an in-depth research paper about services as theater; more papers and articles were to follow in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s (Grove & Fisk, 1983, 1989, 2004; Grove et al., 1992). The theater metaphor is considered particularly apt for restaurants, hotels, airlines, hospitals, and other high-contact service providers serving many people simultaneously (Grove & Fisk, 1983; Wirtz & Lovelock, 2010).

In the world of services marketing, services are co-produced and co-delivered over time in a sequence of encounters between customers and service providers. (These encounters are often called ‘moments of truth’ – a bullfighting term and a metaphor in its own right.) Because of the intangible nature of services, both mentally and physically, it is deemed important to provide tangible cues or evidence to help customers manage their expectations and determine the effectiveness of the experience. (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2010)

Standing on the shoulders of giants (Grove & Fisk, 1992; Wirtz & Lovelock, 2010; Morgan et al., 2008; Fanning, 2020), I will use my version of the 7P framework (the extended marketing mix for services) to draw parallels between theater productions and service experiences. The irony is not lost on me – the original scholars of services and relationship marketing in the 1980s and 1990s wanted to mount a serious challenge to the product-focused marketing mix paradigm (Grönroos, 1994).

Product: Customer offering and customer experience

The performance. In the world of theater, the core product is arguably the play/show/performance itself. Supplementary services wrapped around the product such as online reservations, seating areas, and talkbacks make it easier for the audience to discover, book, pay for, enjoy, and digest the experience. (Adapted from Wirtz & Lovelock, 2010.)

Acts. The performance can be divided into a number of acts, typically three. While service experiences do not necessarily follow the three-act structure of plays (e.g., The Setup, The Confrontation, The Resolution), it is common to divide the end-to-end customer experience into three stages or phases: the pre-delivery experience, the delivery experience, and the post-delivery experience (e.g., the pre-flight experience, the inflight experience, and the post-flight experience) (Bau, 2013). A five-stage alternative is Doblin’s landmark Compelling Experience Model (Attraction, Entry, Engagement, Exit, Extension) from 1997 and the subsequent 5E’s model (Entice, Enter, Engage, Exit, Extend) (Doblin Group, 2020).

Scenes. Each act can in turn be divided into a number of scenes. For service experiences, the equivalent would be customer activities (e.g., discussing with family members potential holiday destinations), customer–provider interactions (e.g., booking the flight online), and customer–employee interactions (e.g., being served dinner onboard the flight).

Place + Physical Evidence: Service channels, service environments, tangible evidence

Onstage is the part of the theater on which the acting takes place, in full view of the audience. The set design shows the audience where the action takes place, but can also communicate abstract concepts such as themes and symbols. A wide range of scenic devices such as backdrops, projections, flats, furnishings, props, lighting, sound effects, music, temperature, and aroma are used to convey a sense of place, time, mood, and atmosphere. The equivalent of the onstage area in high-contact service experiences is the service environment (serviscape) in terms of exterior design, interior design, layout, customer flows, wayfinding, merchandising, ambient conditions, thematics, etc. (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2010). Some service experiences may take place in multiple, interconnected environments or settings (like an airport or shopping mall).

Backstage is the area of the theater hidden from the audience’s view. This is where the technicians operate equipment to control lighting, sound, and other aspects of the set during the performance. Other backstage areas include dressing rooms, green rooms, and storage areas. For service experiences, frontline employees are enabled and empowered by data, information, tools, etc., powered by backstage teams, intangible processes, and ‘hidden in plain sight’ systems.

Other places and physical evidence for theatrical productions are branded and non-branded touchpoints such as social media, apps, websites, marketing collateral, printed programs, tickets, uniforms, press/media campaigns, and sponsorships.

(To be continued)

References

Bau, R. (2013, October). What it takes to become a superb service designer. SX 2013 [Adaptive Path’s Service Experience conference], San Francisco, CA.

Bitner, M.J., Ostrom, A.L., & Morgan F.N. (2007). Service blueprinting: A practical technique for service innovation. Center for Services Leadership, Arizona State University.

Doblin Group. (2020). Doblin’s journey.

Fanning, S. (2020). The circle of satisfaction. The metaphor business as theatre. The Marketing Concept.

Grove S.J. & Fisk R.P. (1983). The dramaturgy of services exchange: An analytical framework for services marketing. In: Berry, L.T., Berry, L.L., Shostak, G.L., & Upah, G.D. (Eds.), Emerging perspectives in services marketing. American Marketing Association.

Grove S.J. & Fisk R.P. (1989). Impression management in services marketing: A dramaturgical perspective. In: Giacalone, R. & Rosenfeld, P. (Eds.), Impression management in the organization. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grove S.J., Fisk R.P. & Bitner M.J. (1992). Dramatizing the service experience: A managerial approach. In: Swartz, T.A., Brown, S., & Bowen, D. (Eds.), Advances in services marketing and management. JAI Press.

Grove S.J. & Fisk R.P. (2004). Service theater: An analytical framework for services marketing. In: Lovelock, C.H. & Wirtz, J., Services marketing (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.

Grönroos, C. (1994). From marketing mix to relationship marketing. Management Decision, 32(2), 4–20.

Morgan, M., Watson, P., & Hemmington, N. (2008). Drama in the dining room: Theatrical perspectives on the foodservice encounter. Journal of Foodservice, 19, 111–118.

Wirtz, J. & Lovelock, C. (2010). Services Marketing: People, technology, strategy (8th ed.). World Scientific Publishing.

1/3

Robert Bau 10/29/20 Robert Bau 10/29/20

Comparing & contrasting innovation & change roles

How designers drive innovation & change

Based on my consulting and teaching experience, service designers perform seven critical roles on complex, multi-faceted innovation projects: The Empathizer, The Sensemaker, The Creator, The Maker, The Navigator, The Storyteller, and The Servant Leader (Bau, 2013, 2020). A specific mix of roles is required for each phase of (or mode of activity in) the innovation process.

As mentioned in a previous blog post, the core roles for explorative, generative, and evaluative research are The Empathizer, The Sensemaker, The Maker, and The Storyteller. The core roles for ideation, concepting, prototyping, and piloting are The Creator, The Maker, and The Storyteller. The core roles for strategy development, value case development, and implementation planning are The Navigator, The Servant Leader, and The Storyteller. Finally, the core role for project initiations, recruitment, onboarding, process coaching, project tracking, post-mortems, etc., is The Servant Leader.

Let’s compare and contrast the 7 roles of service designers with the ‘designerly’ innovation and change roles identified by Kelley & Littman (2005), Yee et al. (2017), and IIT Institute of Design (2020).

Kelley & Littman (2005) identify ten roles people can play in organizations to foster innovation: The Anthropologist, The Experimenter, The Cross-Pollinator, The Hurdler, The Collaborator, The Director, The Experience Architect, The Set Designer, The Caregiver, and The Storyteller. For example, The Anthropologist ventures into the field to observe how people interact with products, services, and experiences to come up with new innovations. According to the authors, individuals should be encouraged to take on multiple roles and constantly switch between them as required.

Yee et al. (2017) identify seven roles to drive innovation and change within organizations: Cultural Catalyst, Framework Maker, Humanizer, Power Broker, Friendly Challenger, Technology Enabler, and Community Builder. For example, the Humanizer injects empathy into the process, creating a human dimension to the work and making business challenges easier to relate to and engage in. All seven roles use design to drive organizational transformation at three levels: (1) changing products and services, (2) changing the organization, and (3) changing the nature of organizational transformation.

IIT Institute of Design (2020) identifies four design roles to lead the organization from setting the intent to realizing the effect (the so-called Intent-to-Effect Pathway). The Executive Vision Partner is a visionary, business-oriented design leader who helps the executive leadership articulate its vision. The Vision Interpreter is a strategic design leader who translates the high-level vision into strategic opportunities, problem statements, and action plans. The Action Aligner is a strategic design leader who builds internal alignment around specific opportunities or problems. The Producers create the solutions, offerings, experiences, etc., required to realize the desired effect.

Kelley & Littman (2005), Yee et al. (2017), and IIT Institute of Design (2020) all emphasize the larger change journey organizations embark on, and the substantial impact innovation and design can make to drive change. In summary, this means that organizations need to create a compelling, purpose-driven North Star that people and teams can rally around; clarify the organizational need for innovation; determine the principles and desired behaviors underpinning all initiatives; define roles, responsibilities, and decision-making powers; establish ways to initiate, orchestrate, and balance initiatives across the organization; determine how to assess initiatives, measure performance, and reward desired behaviors; boost organization-wide innovation and design capabilities; smash silos and encourage cross-capability collaboration; and create the right environment (including physical spaces) for continuous collaboration and innovation.

See table 1 for a side-by-side comparison of ‘designerly’ innovation and change roles. These roles are mapped to the Double Diamond design process (Design Council, 2019) and the seven modes of the design innovation process (Kumar, 2013). I have added the pre-phase (or Phase 0) ‘Envision & Enable’ to the Double Diamond to emphasize the need to foster a culture of innovation and empower innovation teams across the organization (before framing and kicking off specific innovation projects).

Table 1. Comparing and contrasting ‘designerly’ innovation & change roles.

Additional takeaways:

Kelley & Littman (2005), Yee et al. (2017), and IIT Institute of Design (2020) all underline the importance of putting people at the heart of the transformation as well as putting users at the heart of the innovation process. This relentless focus on human needs brings a renewed sense of purpose across the organization, works as an antidote to corporate naysayers and devil’s advocates, and helps smash internal silos and diffuse tribal tensions.
IIT Institute of Design (2020) in particular seems to support the ‘directed change’ approach (Bau, 2020) – the top-down, leadership-driven and/or expert-led approach to change, supported by a compelling vision, deliberate action plans, and ‘scientific’ evidence. Employees are spurred or forced into action through a series of planned interventions (whether design-driven or not).
While Kelley & Littman (2005) and Yee et al. (2017) touch upon grassroots initiatives, it would be valuable to specifically discuss the role of design leaders and designers in bottom-up change processes (see Bau, 2020).
Kelley & Littman (2005), Yee et al. (2017), and IIT Institute of Design (2020) all downplay the contribution of specific design disciplines to innovation. While Kelley & Littman (2005) and Yee et al. (2017) highlight the need for researchers, experimenters, and storytellers on innovation projects, many other design competencies/disciplines seem to be missing. IIT Institute of Design (2020) puts the spotlight on design leadership roles.
Despite the emphasis on realizing the executive vision, IIT Institute of Design (2020) covers the post-production/implementation phase (piloting, launching, maintaining, and scaling solutions) in a rather cursory fashion.
The framework for the 7 roles of service designers might be missing a senior design leadership role to foster a culture of systematic innovation across the organization; explore and craft alternative futures; frame high-level innovation opportunities and manage the innovation portfolio; and provide oversight to implementation efforts. Perhaps this role could be a hybrid of The Executive Vision Partner and The Vision Interpreter.

References

Bau, R. (2013, October). What it takes to become a superb service designer. SX 2013 [Adaptive Path’s Service Experience conference], San Francisco, CA.

Bau, R. (2020). Service design to the rescue. The critical roles service designers play in organizational change. Touchpoint, 11(3), 74–79.

Design Council UK. (2019). What is the framework for innovation? Design Council’s evolved Double Diamond.

IIT Institute of Design. (2020). Lead with purpose. Design’s central role in realizing executive vision.

Kelley, T. & Littman, J. (2005). The ten faces of innovation: IDEO’s strategies for beating the devil’s advocate and driving creativity throughout your organization. Currency/Doubleday.

Kumar, V. (2012). 101 design methods: A structured approach for driving innovation in your organization. Wiley.

Yee, J., Jefferies, E., & Michlewski, K. (2017). Transformations: 7 roles to drive change by design. BIS.

10/10

R:\Bau\Blog >_

Five strategic ways to reduce/minimize/eliminate wastes 1-9

Waste in software/product development

Dysfunctional and high-performing teams

Self-organizing teams

Visualizing tension 1 (WHY) and 2 (WHAT)

Visualizing tension 3 (WHEN)

R:\Bau\Blog >_