Systemic service design

Implementing the 2019 Green Deal of the European Union (EU), and its work plan, requires creating new, more sustainable forms of supply chain management which are possible to deliver using systemic approaches within service design. Generally, service design is based on the principles of user-centredness, co-creativity, sequencing, evidence and holism (Stickdorn et al., 2011)². Penin (2018)³ has updated these principles by adding narratives and systems. Maglio et al. (2009, p. 1)⁴ suggest that a service system is “a configuration of people, technologies, and other resources that interact with other service systems to create mutual value”. 

Service design can also be framed as a multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary or even transdisciplinary activity (Suoheimo et al. 2020).5 In a multidisciplinary setting, two or more disciplines work together. In inter- and transdisciplinary settings, the boundaries between professions are blurred, and the team learns from each other's disciplines or even creates new ones. 

Accordingly, the Systemic Design Framework (SDF) (see Figure 1), has been the latest development in a sequence of so-called ‘double diamonds’ for service designers and other design fields to apply in their projects. The aim of a SDF is not to simplify systemic challenges such as sustainable supply chains, but to explore what they are and then reframe how to tackle them in the first diamond. In the second diamond, interventions are created that will hopefully catalyse changes. The understanding of systems leads to orientation and vision-setting at the start of the process, and then in the end, one needs to acknowledge that this is only the start of a longer journey. 

Geels´ (2005)1 ‘Multi-Level Perspective’ model to create transitions

Geels´ (2005)1 ‘Multi-Level Perspective’ (MLP) model (see Figure 2) provides a framework for understanding sustainable transitions, such as the shift to sustainable supply chains. These transitions are viewed as sociotechnical, encompassing both technical and social dimensions. According to Geels, sustainability transitions can be analysed through three interconnected levels: the socio-technical landscape, the socio-technical regime and niche-innovations. 

Socio-technical landscape (macro-level): This macro-level encompasses broad, external factors that influence the entire system, such as climate change, economic trends and major societal shifts. These elements exert pressure on existing structures, potentially destabilising the status quo and prompting change.

Socio-technical regime (meso-level): The meso-level represents the established practices, rules and technologies that dominate current systems. Within supply chains, this includes the institutions, regulations and industry norms that maintain current operations. Changes at this level are often gradual and face resistance due to vested interests and institutional inertia.

Niches (micro-level): At the micro-level, niche innovations are spaces where radical innovations and new ideas can develop. These innovations are initially protected from the full force of market pressures and can evolve into robust alternatives to the existing regime. Over time, successful niche innovations can challenge and eventually transform the regime.

In the context of sustainability transitions in supply chains, the MLP framework helps identify where and how changes can be initiated and supported. However, while MLP offers a comprehensive theoretical understanding, it has been critiqued for its lack of practical tools to enhance stakeholder agency and engagement in the transition process (Geels, 2011).⁶ This can be addressed by the application of systemic service design.

‘Mess Mapping’ and ‘Gigamapping’ of transitions

‘Mess Maps’ and ‘Gigamaps’ have similar aims of creating shared understanding and connections of a specific wicked problem (Sevaldson, 20227; Horn & Weber, 20078) but with different areas of focus. Both mapping tools aim to make the wicked problem at hand tangible through visualisation (see Figures 3 and 4). It is then easier to create problem statements and also understand where to make interventions in the form of services, once one is better aware of the domino effects that the interventions will trigger. 

Mess Maps are more context-specific and typically created in workshops with external stakeholders. Figure 3 shows an example of a Mess Map of long-term care integration in Alameda County, California. Gigamaps focus on large scale systems and can also be created without workshops, making the method more agile. Figure 4 shows an example of a Gigamap of the working life in Norway.

Besides giving an overview, Gigamaps have also been used to point to what possible futures could look like and how to transition to them. Similarly, Mess Maps can be used in combination with Resolution Maps, to outline a transition to a desired future (Horn & Weber, 2007).8 In Resolution Mapping, an ideal future is depicted and then the steps are designed to reach that future. Many of the steps can be guided by the previous Mess Maps, as they can show what should happen and what should not happen to reach the ideal future.

On an even smaller scale (the micro level of MLP), service blueprints can be used. These are presentations of front and backstage actions of a specific service. Front stage actions include issues such as a user going through a service experience; for example, in the logistics field, this could be a person screening packages to be sent further. In the backstage, an example could be an administration team that makes the calculations of costs, general planning and HR that will plan the capacity of the personnel, etc.

A combination of different mapping tools can be relevant in designing sustainability transitions. For example, service blueprints (example in Figure 5) can make up part of a larger Gigamap (Sevaldson, 2022).⁷ Combining service blueprints into the larger mapping can aid in understanding what the current situation is at a micro- (and even meso-) level, but can also show what the potential new ‘ideal’ service blueprint could or should look like. 

Proposing a template

We created a template (see Figure 6) that merges the presented systemic mapping methods (Mess/Resolution Maps and Gigamaps/service blueprints) with Geels’ MLP model. The aim of the template is to provide more analytically articulated systemic service design efforts in order to understand and catalyse sustainability transitions.

In the macro level of the Geels´ MLP framework (see also Figure 2), current and future trends are important as they drive the changes such as megatrends, pandemics or crises. These landscapes, influencing meso- and micro-levels, can be ‘gigamapped’ via desktop research or mapping workshops with experts and users on the ground. Mess Mapping can also be useful as it can map out the wicked problem or the ‘mess’ that is at hand in a collaborative manner (Horn & Weber, 2007)^.8 

To create change in the meso- and micro-levels, we propose using service blueprints to create a diagnosis of the supply chain management. These can focus on users, stakeholders or even objects such as shipping containers. Users can be understood as the people who are forwarding shipping containers in a service system. After knowing what is happening in the current service, it is then possible to create the intervention or transition to change it.

A key feature of systemic service design is the recognition that landscape changes such as global warming are triggering systemic change, and wicked problems of macro-level mapping (see above) are fully considered when doing the micro- and meso-level service blueprints.

When designing a service, one should consider all three layers and especially the influence of the macro level. Larger scale transitions also typically require longer timeframes to complete, from ten to 50 years. 

Service design, as an approach, has the aim to connect a web of different people and planetary actors together, making them an active part of a multi-stakeholder participatory design process. In supply chain management, typical stakeholders include material suppliers, producers, distributors, retailers and consumers. As the participants of the process are most knowledgeable on the field they represent, often they can provide most plausible ‘solutions’ or interventions that can create change.

The template itself can be used as a boundary object to facilitate the visualisation of the complexity, but at the same time it can also act as a strategic tool to create interventions. A boundary object is any object (e.g., artefacts, classifications, maps, materialised representations) that handles and organises information and can help in the communication of the information between different parties. 

An important aspect of the template is its ability to make complex challenges both tangible and visible. This aids stakeholders to come to a common ground and makes visible the social structures or larger systems that need to be redesigned.

It also allows for the fact that users and stakeholders each experience services from their own perspectives. For example, in a healthcare context, a patient can have a different service experience than both their doctor, and from that of administrative person supporting the service. 

Discussing the template

We should not propose a template without critically evaluating it. It is essential to recognise that each wicked, social ‘mess’ is unique and one-of-a-kind (Rittel & Webber, 1973), therefore we cannot make generalisations. Proposing a general template such as that presented in Figure 6 risks oversimplifying a problem, although the Mess and Gigamapping approaches themselves can uniquely describe specific situations.

It is also good to bear in mind that using the template requires adaptation to each specific situation. The template in Figure 6 proposes using Mess/Gigamapping, service blueprints and the MLP model together in a systemic service design approach and facilitation, and other tools could still be added-on if needed.

Setting up boundaries on what to map, and what not to map, within the template is an important aspect and will always somewhat limit the use of the template. One will always need to prioritise what is important in a service system to be able to design it.

It is still important that when designing an intervention in a system, one needs to be aware of the unintended consequences that might affect other areas. These could be positive or negative, which highlights the importance of having the right people at the table to discuss the problem at hand. The template helps guard against reductionist thinking and to recognise that there are no right solutions, but rather ones that will be ‘muddled through’ (Sevaldson, 2022).7

By using service blueprints, it is possible to map the experience of multiple users and stakeholders in a system. At the same time, by applying systems design, one can understand how a change in the system can make the experience of e.g. an employee better, so that they are motivated to drive change in a participatory manner. 

Our template, based on systemic service design principles, could be one way to inject agency to the Geels (2005) 1 MPL model. However, this study is limited since the template itself has not yet been tested in practice. Case studies from practice would be needed to determine its value and how it could be applied in the supply chain field, or other fields that require transitions. These could include healthcare, education, tourism and public services in general.

The template could also be further developed to cover explicitly future-oriented or speculative designs through service blueprints, such as Resolution Mapping or Backcasting. Resolution maps and Backcasting share similar principles, where an ideal future is imagined or created by the participants, and then participants look at the necessary steps to achieve it, and potential hindrances.

Conclusions

Through this article, we argue for service design with a systemic angle as a way to facilitate sustainable transitions of complex supply chain systems. We provide a template that can serve as a basis for sense-creation and then, through interventions, shape transitions. 

Service design can play a pivotal role in engaging supply chain stakeholders to understand and comply with regulations related to sustainability, but also in the development of new regulations that promote sustainable practices on a macro level. By acting as impartial systemic facilitators, service designers have the potential to overcome the strong dependencies that exist within supply chains, typically caused by the dominant role of buying power effecting the multi-stakeholder collaboration. 

We recognise that in contemporary supply chains, systemic service design in collaboration with intermediaries is key in facilitating the sustainability transition and combining micro-, meso- and macro-levels.