Linköping Studies in Arts and Science, No.618 Representing Future Situations of Service Prototyping in Service Design by Johan Blomkvist Department of Computer and Information Science Linköping University SE-581 83 Linköping Sweden Linköping 2014 Linköping Studies in Arts and Science No. 618 At the Faculty of Arts and Science at Linköping University, research and doctoral studies are carried out within broad problem areas. Research is organised in interdisciplinary research environments and doctoral studies mainly in graduate schools. Jointly, they publish the series at Linköping Studies in Arts and Science. This thesis comes from the Human-Centred Systems Division at the Department of Computer and Information Systems. Copyright © 2014 Johan Blomkvist ISBN: 978-91-7519-343-4 ISSN: 0282-9800 Printed by: LiU-Tryck 2014 Cite as: Blomkvist, J. (2014). Representing Future Situations of Service: Prototyping in Service Design. Linköping Studies in Arts and Science, Dissertation No. 618. Linköping, Sweden: Linköping University Electronic Press. Typeset in: Calluna, http://www.exljbris.com/calluna.html by exljbris Fontin Sans RG and Fontin Sans SC, http://www.exljbris.com/fontinsans.html by exljbris URL: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-105499 The cover photos show service representations used for desktop prototyping. They were made by our students in the ‘new’ service design course 2009 (Blomkvist, Holmlid, & Segelström, 2011a). Abstract This thesis describes prototyping in service design through the theoretical lens of situated cognition. The research questions are what a service prototype is, what the benefits of service prototyping are, and how prototypes aid in the process of designing services. Four papers are included. Paper one suggests that service prototyping should be considered from the perspectives of purpose, fidelity, audience, position in the process, technique, representation, validity and author. The second paper compares research about how humans use external representations to think, with reasons for using prototypes in service design and service design techniques. The third paper compares two versions of a service prototyping technique called service walkthrough; showing that walkthroughs with pauses provided both more comments in total and more detailed feedback. The fourth paper also contributes to our understanding of how prototypes aid in designing services, by connecting the surrogate situation with the future situation of service. The paper shows how the formative service evaluation technique (F-SET) uses the theory of planned behaviour to add knowledge to service prototype evaluations about the intention to use a service in the future. Taken together the research provides a deeper understanding of what prototypes are, and their roles in service prototyping. This understanding is further deepened by a discussion about service as a design material, suggesting that from a design perspective, a service consists of service concept, process and system. The service prototype acts as a surrogate for the future situation of service. The thesis describes what the benefits of using surrogates are, and shows how prototypes enhance the ability to gain knowledge about future situations. This leads to an understanding of prototyping as a way of thinking in design. iii Acknowledgments There is a long list of people that I need to thank for all their support. First of all, Stefan Holmlid, my main supervisor, and Robert Ramberg and Daniel Kindström, my secondary supervisors. Early on, Arne Jönsson also helped me by pointing me in the right direction. Thank you all very much. I would also like to thank all the teachers and fellow students at the cognitive science program in Linköping. You are the reason I ended up doing a PhD. All the members of IxS have also helped in various ways, most importantly through tisdagsfika! The most important person for my work as a PhD student has been Fabian Segelström, with whom I have had countless discussions about service design theory, practice and teaching. Thank you very much Fabbe! Of course, my co-authors have also been important, thank you to: Mattias Arvola, Stefan Holmlid, Johan Åberg, Fabian Segelström, Daniel Kindström, Angela Bode, Bosse Westerlund, Fredrik Sandberg, Daniel Anundi, and Amy Rankin among others. I would also like to thank all the people who have read and commented on, parts or entire, versions of this thesis: Stefan Holmlid, Fabian Segelström, Nils Dahlbäck, Mattias Kristiansson, Mathias Nordvall, Daniel Kindström, Robert Ramberg, Amy Rankin, and Timothy Overkamp. During my studies I have been part of two graduate schools, and I would like to thank the teachers, supervisors and PhD students of: • SweCog - Swedish national graduate school in cognitive science. http://gradschool.swecog.se/ and v • D! - Swedish Faculty for Design Research and Research Education. www.designfakulteten.kth.se A number of people who have helped keep me sane during these years should also be mentioned. Anna, Karin and Rolf, thank you. Sture, thank you for inviting me to the football team. A big thank you also to Sara, Maria, Sanna, Jody, Fabian, Amy, Lisa, Jonas, Mattias, Mathias, Kricke, Erik, Falkenskägg, Tim, Camilla, and Robin for all the fun discussions and doktorandpubs. Anne and Lise-Lott have helped greatly in navigating the administrative side of my studies. TUS has also helped with everything from extension cords and speaker systems to software updates. A special thank you to Jody for making lunch #dagensbästastund, and to the Heroes of Golarion: Narssus, Helm, Dagg, Ulf, and almighty GM Jäger. Finally, I would like to thank the best family anyone could ever wish for: Mamma, Leif, Micke, Frida, Danne, Johanna, Svante, Kajsa, Stina, Sven, Ulfhild, Lina, Pappa, and Anita. Most of all I would like to thank Anna, you mean everything to me! vi Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgments ................................................................................................v 1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 9 1.1 Prototyping in design ...................................................................................................... 11 1.2 Aims of the thesis ............................................................................................................. 12 1.2.1 Structure of the thesis ............................................................................................. 13 1.3 Reach and scope ............................................................................................................... 14 1.3.1 My background ........................................................................................................ 15 1.4 A situated cognition perspective .................................................................................... 15 1.5 Vocabulary ........................................................................................................................ 15 2 Method ...................................................................................................... 19 2.1 Methods in the papers .................................................................................................... 20 3 Prototypes and prototyping ................................................................... 23 3.1 Prototyping ...................................................................................................................... 24 3.1.1 Prototype fidelity ..................................................................................................... 25 3.1.2 Dimensions of prototyping ................................................................................... 26 3.2 A broad view of prototyping .......................................................................................... 27 3.2.1 Explorative and evaluative prototyping ............................................................... 28 3.2.2 Prototypes as surrogate situations ........................................................................ 29 4 Representations ........................................................................................ 33 4.1 Situated cognition and cognitive science ...................................................................... 33 4.1.1 Situated perspectives on cognition ........................................................................ 35 4.1.2 Embodied cognition ............................................................................................... 36 4.2 What is a representation? ............................................................................................... 38 5 Service from a design perspective.......................................................... 41 5.1 Service logic ...................................................................................................................... 41 5.1.1 Designing of and for ............................................................................................... 43 5.2 Service as a design material............................................................................................ 44 5.2.1 Designing for ........................................................................................................... 46 5.2.2 Designing of ...........................................................................................................