Service Design Movieclips

service design concepts and tools explained through scenes from movies and TV shows

[servicedesign-movieclips]

Stepping into your customer’s shoes demonstrated by Jake in Brooklyn Nine Nine

In this series about a New York police precinct, we follow the lives of smart and less smart polic officers. Jake, one of the smart officers has put two of the less smart ones, Hitchcock and Scully on a complicated case. Jake's boss is not happy about this, because now no-one knows where Hitchcock and Scully went...

Let's analyse the accuracy of the scene

One of the core elements of service design is research. I would even argue that it's the core of any well-thought-out project, whether service design or not. And while you can do research from your office desk, nothing can replace field research.

In field research, you go into the actual environment of your audience, and force yourself to see the world through their eyes. A simple literal change of perspective can do wonders. You want proof? When astronauts went to space and took a photo of Earth, an angle from which our planet has never been seen before, it kickstarted the environmental movement, as it made it clear that we all belong to one fragile ecosystem.

Jake does exactlty this - he sits in Scully's chair, and looks at the world with an open mind. Simple as that. He also focuses on an important character trait of Scully: constant hunger. This is what you should do as a service designer every once in a while: go where your customer is, do what your customer does, see whay they see. By doing this, you will get one step closer to thinking and feeling what they would.

When Jake sees a hot-dog-shaped stain, he jumps to the conlcusion that his colleagues went to eat a hot dog. So he stands up and rushes off. It turns out that Jake was correct - but you should be more cautious. Don't believe your first idea is correct. Continue looking for possibilities. Explore more options. List them, and try to proove and disprove them.

Other aspects of service design shown in the clip:

Having someone to bounce ideas off of can be super helpful. It too give us a different perspective, and a different interpretation of what we see and hear. Jake had his boss around, Terry. But they did not really interact to solve the "mistery" of the missing colleagues. A wasted opportunity. With a partner, you can divide responsibilities. Terry could have set down in Hitchcock's chair, so he and Jake could mirror the interaction between their missing colleagues.

Role playing can increase the impact of stepping into the shoes of your customer. When you do field research, you can fall into the trap of just being a researcher in the field. But with role playing, you could for a few minutes or hours actually become your audience.

Do you have additional ideas or thoughts? Let us know!

[servicedesign-movieclips]

Desktop walkthroughs demonstrated by Nigel in Top Secret

In this is classic absurd comedy, a group of anti-nazi resistance fighters want to rescue their friend from a fortress. For this they use the obvious technique: disguise themselves as a cow. There is of course much more to the plan. And the leader of the fighters, Nigel, explains it through some simple props, in the middle of a field.

Let's analyse the accuracy of the scene

Products can be prototyped relatively easily. But service have many elements, which makes them are harder to roughly sketch up. This is where desktop walkthroughs come in. In this technique you condense the building blocks of a service on an area roughly the size of an office desk, and literally walk through it from a perspective of a customer, for your team to observe. You can do this with pre-fabricated props, but also legos, or simple objects.

Nigel is not demonstrating a service, but he is telling the story of a multi-stage event. He tells the end-to-end story, linking the different stages and actors together into a cohesive arc. Well done.

The event he describes spans multiple locations, just like services. But while this event unfolds continously, there might be delays between each stage or location in the case of a service. It is important to show not just the actions where things are happening, but also the times when nothing is happening. This time and space between the touchpoints is often invisible for service providers, but can be a deal-breaker for customers.

Services consist of people, processes, and physical evidence, and these should all be shown in a desktop walkthrough. Nigel does a good job at showing the physical elements (cows, fence, gate, building), and the story forms a good process. But he fails to include people in his walkthrough. This is important, because only this way will you be able to discuss important details of the personnel in a service. e.g. How many people are involved? Is it the same person in different touchpoints? How do they behave? What are their freedomes and their limits? etc.

Obviously, Nigel goes overboard in details of the walkthrough. He starts low-fidelity, with stick and stones and dirt. You can do the same, using juts pens, postit blocks, books, or whatever you have lying on your desk. But Nigel built up an entire high-fidelity set, including a working train. The fidelity of your desktop walkthough should fit its purpose, to allow people to focus on what's really important - the service prototype.

Finally, Nigel just presents, without a debate or discussion. Desktop walkthroughs are meant to unearth shortcomings and gaps in a service, to allow quick iterations and improvements. Just showing is not enough. You need to gather feedback, even specifically ask for counter-opinions, if needed.

Other aspects of service design shown in the clip:

We already demonstrated prototypes. It's worth refreshing your memory about service prototyping, and how they can be misunderstood.

Before coming up with his plan remarkably fast, Nigel does research. Specifically, he does some observation of the situation they are dealing with. This is important to avoid surprises, and to plan for reality.

Do you have additional ideas or thoughts? Let us know!

[servicedesign-movieclips]

Observation demonstrated by Jay in Men in Black

In this is a sci-fi bodycop movie, a New York police officer, Jay is being interviewed for a job at the top secret agency "MIB", along with some top military hopefuls. At what seems like an ordinary shooting test, Jay demonstrates an unexpected skill that gets him hired.

Let's analyse the accuracy of the scene

Observation is a research technique, rooted in ethnography, the sudy of cultures, societies and communities. However, we do it in our everyday lives, and at work as well. Jay probably got some training botj in police academy, and on the streets - he combines observation with street smarts - a powerful combination.

Many things can be observed - customers, activities, processes, or even an ecosystem. It is a tricky process, especially when you do not know what you are looking for. This is the case for ethnographers, and also for Jay in our clip. He was not given any directions, just thrown into a situation.

Service designers most often work in a specific context, and have some idea of what they should be looking for. However, the point of observation is not to focus on what you want to find out, but rather be fully open, take in everything, and spot even the unexpected - actions, artifacts, reactions, interactions, scenarios, etc. Jay does this superbly - he disregards what he is supposed to be doing, and focuses on what he actually sees.

Spotting something interesting during observations is just the first step. The second step is to determine why that particular occurance happened. Note how Jay connects the dots between the ecosystem (the ghetto), people (sneezing alien, little white girl), and artifacts (tissue, physics books)!

Jay does not start with action. And indeed, observation may seem passive. But the exact opposite is happening. Instead of just acting or reacting, the observer actively analyses the scene. Ideally an observer should be taking notes at this point, but clearly Jay does not have time for that.

Ethnography's goal is not take action - it is to observe, understand and record. But service design is applied observation, and here the goal of the observation is to find the appropriate action or inaction. Jay finds both of these - shooting the alien discuised as a little girl, but leaving other aliens alone.

Observation is normally done as 'participant observation' - meaning the reserachers themselves also engage in the ecosystems activities. However, jay is an outside observer. Observations should be conducted in their original context, e.g. in the shop, street, home, workplace. where non-participant observing disrupts the original equilibrium. (Just google the Hawthrone effect.)

Important: you should not take a gun to an observation, nor should you shoot your subjects... Act ethically during observation, e.g. by not recording personal information.

Other aspects of service design shown in the clip:

Research can be done alone, but is much more effective in pairs or groups. Teamworks allows division of labour: one researcher can focus on technical details such as note-taking, while the other can focus on the observation.

Jay is pretty confident in his actions. But at the end of the clip he still asks for feedback. Making sure that your throughts are well-founded is a good idea.

Do you have additional ideas or thoughts? Let us know!

[servicedesign-movieclips]

Storytelling demonstrated by Dilios in 300

This is a historically inaccurate, but visually masterful movie about about Spartan soldiers holding up the Persian army of Xerxes at the Battle of Thermopylae. However, after the treason of one of their own, they face certain defeat. Leonidas, king of Spartans, knows all strengths of his soldiers, including a gift of Dilios, to whom he assigns a special mission.

Let's analyse the accuracy of the scene

Leonidas knew that he had to spread the story of the heroic battle to achieve his ultimate goal of defeating the Persians. And natural-born storyteller Dilios did this "with force and verve" (enthusiasm). Just like Leonidas', your efforts could also go unnoticed - unless you craft a story around your efforts to amplify them.

At the core of storytelling lies a combination of captivation and persuasion. Stories reach the mind through emotions and relatable personal details. Not only did Dilios tell what happened, he also told how it happened, and what sacrifices were made. Dilios probably added details that simply weren't true - but you should not distort the reality, just know where to lay the emphasis. If your story is good enough, others may add legends around it later on...

Take note of how this story of Spartans' heroism serves two goals: gather the Greeks to fight together, but also to spread "sheer terror" in the hearts of the persians. It combines a story from the past with a vision for the future that harnesses the imagination of the audience. Similarly, you can spread a story both internally and externally, about your past or your futurebringing colleagues to your cause, making your company stand out for customers, but also sending a message to the market and your competitors..

You might be thinking: "my story is not as good as Leonidas'". Really? He and his entire 'project team' died, and he failed at his goal! But he actively formed the narrative for it to be about victory, not defeat. You as well can make a good story even out of a failed project. For this, you will have to admit to difficulties, struggles, and even failure. Things companies don't usually like to talk about. Looking on the bright side, you don't have to die for a good story.

Other aspects of service design shown in the clip:

Teamwork does not mean that everyone does the exact some thing to achieve the ultimate outcome. Spartrans fought and died, and Didios wanted ot be among them. But he had a gift of storytelling that no other Spartan posessed. Success in service design comes not from marching together like an army, but rather from everybody playing their own instrument, like in a band.

Do you have additional ideas or thoughts? Let us know!

[servicedesign-movieclips]

Empowered employees showcased by Phil and Jay in Modern Family

In this comedy series, Jay and Phil are relatives, who open up a parking lot business. To manage the parking of cars, they want to hire an employee, and are interviewing Joan and Tibor. But their expectations about a perfect employee are not quite the same...

Let's analyse the accuracy of the scene

Before hiring someone, you should know who you want to hire. E.g. Microsoft's default hiring process is "do not hire - unless it is a great fit". Jay and Phil did not know who they are looking for, so obviously they had disagreements after the interviews. You might say that this is an HR topic - but when you are hiring frontoffice staff, you are hiring representatives of your service, and the deliverers of your experience.

In the 'Work Rules' book, Google's former head of HR Laszlo Bock writes "Treat people like owners instead of machines. Machines do their jobs; owners do whatever is needed to make their companies and team successful." Not much to add their... except the customers!!! Not only will "owner employees" strive to make the company and team successful, but they also strive to create a great customer experience. Jay wanted a machine, Phil wanted an "owner".

Joan did something magical by focusing on the 'entry' touchpoint. She turned an operational touchpoint (entry into the parking lot) into a unique, even a high-value touchpoint. She created an experience out of a service. Quoting the book 'Designing Experiences', a service will give customers "time well saved" - but an experience gives them "time well spent".

But yes, you can get more than you bargained for. Empowered employees bring their own ideas (confetti bomb, chatting), which also means you have less control. But if you have a vision in place as a guiding light, this loss of control is a good thing. Juss look at the viral marketing that Southwest Airlines' flight attendant safety annuncements bring to the brand. Build on individual's ideas that work well, and let them scale to the whole organization.

Other aspects of service design shown in the clip:

Jay mentions after firing Joan that "there's no line, and Joan never had this many cars in the lot". But are those really the key performance indicators for Jay and Phil? If you do not know what you want to achieve, vanity metrics can easily fool you into believing you are on the right path.

Not only did Jay and Phil not know who they are looking for, they also did not know what a good fit for their brand would look like - because they had no brand. You should ideally have a vision, mission, points of differentiation and strategy, but at least values , as a guiding light for both your actions, and those of your staff. If anything, it was the interviewee Joan who articulated a vision.

In architecure, a building that conveys its purpose literally is called a 'duck'. Notice how the prototype has Derek's initials on the side, and an open book at the top. A very direct representation indeed.

Do you have additional ideas or thoughts? Let us know!

[servicedesign-movieclips]

Misunderstanding prototypes shown by Derek Zoolander in ‘Zoolander’

In this comedy, Derek Zoolander is a model who wants to quit his profession. He explains his agent about his desire to instead help children to read...and stuff. And his agent gets him a client, Mugatu who, as a surprise, offers Derek exactly his desire...

Let's analyse the accuracy of the scene

Prototypes are preliminary representations of a final product or service. They are simpler, or smaller, or less detailed, made of cheaper materials, often non-functional or less functional than the final thing they represent. Prototypes are used for presentation of a concept, or for testing of a concept by experts or users. The key: they are not final, and are meant to go through iterations. In this regard, the model of the 'Derek Zoolander Center' fits the bill - it is meant as an early model for Derek's dream, to convince him to take a job.

Almost anything can be prototyped. Products, services, interfaces, software, processes, etc. A school to teach children to read could be prototyped in many ways. You could prototype the curricula, the interior space, the student experience, etc. Mugatu knew that Derek is...simple... So he chose to prototype the building's exterior. This fit his audience perfectly. Well, almost perfectly...

Prototypes are often misunderstood. Its creators and its observers can have a different understanding about its fidelity, i.e. its 'degree of exactness'. Mugatu suspected that Derek would realize this is not the actual building, rather a small-scale model of it. But Derek thought what he sees is the actual and final building. You need to communicate the fidelity of your prototype to the audience. Otherwise the prototype will fail to deliver on its purpose - you will get feedback on the prototype itself, not on the concept it represents.

But you will probably get feedback on the prototype as well, not just the concept. In this case, you could go into lengthy arguments about what a prototype is, and what it's supposed to do (see my lines above), or you could give your audience a win. Their argument is probably at leats partially correct (the school really should be bigger), and if their thoughts are incorporated into the next iteration, they will feel it belongs to them. This way they will embrace it more, and may event defended it for you. Mugatu's quick admition that Derek was correct was a perfect reaction.

And finally, the vision. Yes, the presenter of the prototype will have a vision, and so will the person it is being presented to, or tested on. The goal is to ensure these visions are in alignment.

Other aspects of service design shown in the clip:

The space where the prototype is presented is mostly empty, allowing Derek to focus on the prototype. The direction of attention can be used in various ways, to either direct attention on something or away from it.

In architecure, a building that conveys its purpose literally is called a 'duck'. Notice how the prototype has Derek's initials on the side, and an open book at the top. A very direct representation indeed.

Do you have additional ideas or thoughts? Let us know!

[servicedesign-movieclips]

Services are holistic, presented by the heptapods in ‘Arrival’ [spoilers]

In this science fiction movie aliens known as 'heptapods', arrive on Earth in spaceships. Why they arrive is a mystery that needs solving by a large team, among them Louise, a linguist and Ian, a physicist. To understand why the heptapods are here, they first need to understand their unique language and writing. Spoilers ahead, but the movie is awesome, so go and watch it quickly, if you haven't seen it yet...

Let's analyse the accuracy of the scene

Just like this language, services are holistic, meaning their parts are interconnected and explicable only by reference to the whole. That's a mouthful, so let's break it down into smaller element:

Much like in heptapod writing, service designers need to understand every aspect of a service. Unfortunately, unlike the aliens, we can't do this in 2 seconds. Or maybe ever. It takes a long time and many iterations to see every aspect of a service - and even then new elements will arise. That's ok. Unlike the heptapods, you should launch your service without designing every aspect of it. But over time you should aim to understand and design all details. Even if this is an impossible undertaking.

Heptapod writing has no beginning and no end. It is circular. This is true for many services as well. The entry points and exit points are different for almost all customers. And ideally encounters with a service are recurring, establishing an ever-increasing connection between the customer and the provider.

The narrator points out that "like their ships or their bodies, their speech has no forward or backward direction". It is later revealed that heptapods experience past, present and future at the same time. This way of existance effects their writing, their appearance, their spaceships, their thinking. Similarly, services should have a central concept that overarches every element of it. The big picture should be recognizable in the small details, and small details should be derivable from the big picture.

Other aspects of service design shown in the clip:

Later in the movie it is revealed that by understanding their language, Louise becomes able to perceive past, present and future at the same time. This speaks to the theory that language shapes the fundamental worldview and cognition. So again, the heptapods thinking, writing, appearance, construction techniques, etc, are all connected. This echoes systems thinking, an interdisciplinary approach that studies how parts of systems are connected, and how systems work together a system of systems. So in the end, no service is independant. They effect the world around them.

Cracking the alien language required cooperation between various nations. Fueling this cooperation was the main purpose of the heptapod arrival in the first place. Without teamwork, services cannot work either. A silo-less approach is required.

[servicedesign-movieclips]

Experiences are personal - demonstrated by Ego in Ratatouille

In this animated movie, Remy, a rat, discovers he has a gift for cooking. But that's beside the point. A food critique, Ego comes to a restaurant where Remy is cooking with his human helper, Linguini. To impress the food critique, they have to serve him something truly special. Instead of a sophisticated dish, they cook a common dish - ratatouille. But the reaction is priceless...

Let's analyse the accuracy of the scene

Experiences are always personal. Remy and his human helpers are good chefs, so they can prepare great food. But the visceral reaction from Ego could not have been predicted. You can plan for a great service in detail... but how it is experienced will depend on the consumer. His or her previous experiences, memories, expectations are the filter through which your service is consumed.

The more you know about your consumers, the more you can personalize your service, and the better the reaction you can expect

The ratatouille that Remy prepared probably tatsed good (the other guest seemed to like ti as well). But it was not the taste that won Ego over. Rather, the emotions associated with the dish. Emotions create a higher order of experiences - though still not the highest. For the highest order of experiences, co-creation is also required.

Other aspects of service design shown in the clip:

Every service element can be unique and innovative. It might not be clear from the scene, but the waiter is actually using rollerblades, to overcame to manpower shortage.

A service requires teamwork. The entire plan almost fell apart when the kitchen staff left earlier in the movie. But Remy's rat friends and Linguini's love interest showed up to save the day.

And, well, yeah, rats prepared the food. But the guests knew nothing about this. And they still enjoyed their meal. Your backstage services can remain invisible to the consumers. You can chose to make them visible, as Linguini does to Ego later in the movie. But for sure, they should be aligned with the frontstage elements of the service, and not force your consumers to adapt to you processes.

Do you have additional ideas or thoughts? Let us know!

[servicedesign-movieclips]

Silo-less services explained by Leonidas in ‘300′

This is a historically inaccurate, but visually masterful movie about about Spartan soldiers holding up the Persian army of Xerxes. How could a handful of soldiers stop a giant army? Through coordination. But this has a price, as explained by Spartan king Leonidas to eager but disfigured Spartan soldier-wannabe, Ephialtes.

Let's analyse the accuracy of the scene

Leonidas explains that Spartans "fight as a single inpenetrable unit. That is the source of our strength". Each soldier defends the soldier on his left, and together they become more than the sum of their parts. This is also the hallmark of an organization without silos. Silos are isolation in an organization, that do not want to, or can not share information or knowledge with each other. It is the larger goal that everyone at an organization should they strive for and are measured on. While every team has their role, coordination among teams is more important.

The persian army is larger, with more resources. Yet they send those men into battle without coordination. They attack in silos. As seen later in the field, persian soldiers sometimes kill other persian soldiers. Similarly, uncoordinated efforts among silos of an organization can cause harm to the overall goal, even if the silo itself sees its own goal fulfilled.

Service design is customer centric, but also deals with the organizational structure. Maintaining customer-centric front-stage operations without a proper backstage structure is at best inefficient, at worst impossible.

Other aspects of service design shown in the clip:

Leonidas is portrayed as a good king in the movie. Yet in this scene he seems to lack empathy. Ephialtes wants to fight, but Leonidas offers him secondary roles. Had the king put himself into the shoes of Ephialtes, he would have realized that his proposal does not fulfill the wannabe soldier's desires. This thinking could have avoided the following treachery by Ephialtes, which later leads to the fall of the Spartan army.

Do you have additional ideas or thoughts? Let us know!

[servicedesign-movieclips]

Innovation theater  realized by Buzz Lightyear in Toy Story

In this movie, toys come to life when people are not watching, and they live their everyday life, fully aware of their role. Until Buzz Lightyear comes along - a toy who believes he is actually a space-travelling hero. Realization dawns on him in an ugly way...

Let's analyse the accuracy of the scene

'Innovation theater' as a concept to be avoided. IT is the practice of practicing innovation just for chepar PR, without the intention to actually scale up the innovative practices, or to really dedicate enough resources to it.

Probably nobody is hired to do innovation theater. They are hired to do real innovation. But along the way they realize that management's dedication was either never there, or that it wanished along the way. This is a bitter realization. Just like Buzz, you believe you were something, only to realize you are just a shadow of it.

Unlike Buzz, real innovation can still come from innovation theater. If the team is dedicated enough, and is well enough connected, they could find the right sponsor within the organization. With the right sponsor come resources, and opportunity to turn a PR stunt into actual new opportunity.

Do not mistake innovation theater with strategic bets. A wise ambidextrous organization will focus on not just the present business, but also future, still-hidden opportunities. It will run a series of calculated experiments, many of which will never prove worth keeping, but some of which will succeed.

How to tell innovation theater and experiments apart? If the right KPIs and success metrics are in place, if you are required to provide a business case instead of media mentiones, and the topic of your activity is business critical, than you probably will not bounce down stairs like Buzz. But better prepare for impact, as experiments fail moe often than not.

Other aspects of service design shown in the clip:

Buzz takes a mighty fall. But he does get back up again. Good toys are made to take a pounding. Similarly, good services are resilient, and consider all possibilities, even misuse.

Do you have additional ideas or thoughts? Let us know!

[servicedesign-movieclips]

Too much convenience shown in Wall-e

In this movie, humanity has escaped an overpolluted earth, and have been roaming around in space for 700 years. During that time, robots have taken good care of humans. Maybe too good care. Is there such a thing as too much convenience?

Let's analyse the accuracy of the scene

In a previous post, I showed that convenience is an absolute must-have in services. A service becomes good not through delivering what the organization wants, but what the customer needs. In the world of Wall-e, humans get everything handed to them.

The two characters we see at the beginning are trying to figure out what to do in their day. They live on a spaceship where entertainment is the primary goal, and yet they do not seem to be having fun. Removing effort from services will decrease the satisfaction the consumer derives from it. Too much convenience may alienate your clients.

The two men in floating chairs float right next to each other, yet talk over a video-conferencing service. The solution to a problem is not always another app. But sadly, consumers fall victim to using services by habbit. Even when it becomes a blocker instead of an enabler.

We see multi-modal interaction: people use buttons, voice commands and hand gestures to achieve what they want. This enables them to use whatever interaction method best suits the task - a best practice!

Voice commands are automatically enriched with contextual data by the service provider. The consumer doesn't say "Pod, bring a cup of apple juice to Chair 24601", but just says "Pod, over here!". In the backstage we can suspect spacial recognition, voice-based identification, historical data analyisi and awareness of personal preferences, all working togther in synch. The system thinks for the user.

A good service is good for the consumer, good for the service provider, and good for society as a whole. Service designers have a responsibility to identify the future impact of the services they design, counteract the negative outcomes, while strengthening the positive ones. Clearly, this responsibility was neglected in Wall-e's world.

Other aspects of service design shown in the clip:

At the end of the scene, Wall-e causes a disruption in the system. As a consequence, a person falls off his chair, blocking the road. Instantly and automatically traffic is stopped, diverted, assistance is called in, and the victim is told what to expect. Great example of smooth error handling!

Do you have additional ideas or thoughts? Let us know!

[servicedesign-movieclips]

Psychological safety (or lack thereof) demonstrated by Miranda Priestly in ‘The Devil Wears Prada’

In this movie about the inner workings of a fashion magazine, the young protagonist finds out how difficult it is to work with a demanding editor-in-chief, Miranda Priestly, played by Meryl Streep. In the clip she learns why teamwork is especially difficult in such an environment.

Let's analyse the accuracy of the scene

In a research, Google has identified the biggest contributor to successful team cooperation: psychological safety. This is the belief that you will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns or mistakes. Literally the opposite of what Meryl Streep's character represents.

The clip shows a toxic work environment pretty accurately. This 'bashing out' is sadly too often used either to establish oneself as dominant or knowledgeable, or to outright discredit the other person. This does not need to come from a superior. Unfortuantely peers, and even junior people can act this way.

Silence. It's palpable in the scene. Multiple people get their share of bashing first, so they do not want to get caught up in the fire when someone else is being shot at. Not speaking up against such acts is a common mistake, and perpetuates the negative behaviour. As Moliere said, "It is not only for what we do that we are held responsible, but also for what we do not do."

Attacks like this are used in public, yet often in 'stealth mode'. Notice how the work continuous while the bashing is ongoing, as if incidentally. This in itself is an attack, rendering the person insignificant on the power of two.

Instead of being 'the Devil', aim for a work environment where team members can feel safe to take risks, and be vulnerable in front of each other.

Other aspects of service design shown in the clip:

Funnily enough, the protagonist is hired by the vicious editor-in-chief exactly because she is different than others. Hearing an outside point-of-view on your projects often brings tremendous new insights. Meryl Streep's character know this, but than forgets to take the outside perspective as useful - acting against her own earlier good judgement.

Do you have additional ideas or thoughts? Let us know!

[servicedesign-movieclips]

Iterative approach, demonstrated by Michael in ‘The Good Place’ [spoilers]

In this TV comedy show, an eternal being called Michael tries to create a new version of the afterlife. His first attempt goes wrong, but he convinces his ‘boss’ to try again. The second attempt fails too, but he keeps trying. [spoilers ahead] While his ‘guests’ think he is trying to recreate Heaven, he is actually trying to create a version of Hell where people unwillingly torture each other.

Let's analyse the accuracy of the scene

An iterative approach is about continuous testing and improvement. It's a fundamental concept in many design disciplines, from industrial design to service design. Michael calls his approach an "experiment" from the very beginning - so iterations also seem to work for improving the afterlife...

Michael does a great job at being systematic. He makes daily note logs to record what is being done. He analysis data to see what works, and what does not. This is important both for a project, and for the organization as a whole.

Changes are not being made randomly: what works is kept (e.g. the physical environment), and things that do not work are changed ("soulmates"). Results are recorded, and tweaked until they work well. Handle your project as the sum of small changeable parts, but also keep an eye on the bigger picture.

Michael is not shy about making radical changes, such as assigning a female or a dog as a soulmate for our female protagonist.

He gets disapointed at one point, as his undertaking does not seem to be working. It's important to be able to have outside advice, and own the project as a team, rather than as an individual. Actually, this happens in the series at a later episode.

Not being open about the number of iterations to his 'boss' ("Shaun") is a mistake. Transparency is key not only towards your boss, but the wider team, and potentially even your customers (not an option for Michael, as he is trying to actively trick them).

It is not stated what success looks like for this new afterlife. Setting an ultimate goal, and/or smaller interim ones is important. And so is defining your key performance indicators (KPIs). Otherwise you won't know when you succeded.

Other aspects of service design shown in the clip:

Most people in this afterlife are built-in 'agents', who do continuous 'participant observation' - a reserach technique. which is a re. In reality operating hundreds of people just to observe 4 'customers' is not viable. Nonetheless, continuous observation and measurement along set parameters are key.

Do you have additional ideas or thoughts? Let us know!

[servicedesign-movieclips]

The 5 whys demonstrated by Louie’s daughter in ‘Lucky Louie’

In this TV show Louie CK plays a divorced comedian, who has to man up to the task of raising his daughter. One of their early discussions in the series illustrates very well how you can find underlying truths using the qualitative research technique known as '5 whys'.

Let's analyse the accuracy of the scene

The '5 whys' technique pretty much works as demonstrated in the clip. Once you get an answer to a question in a stakeholder interview, you ask 'why', to dig deeper. And you ask again. And again. etc. The goal is to find underlying reasons. To uncover more of the problem space, and be able to reframe a problem, finding its root cause.

You can very clearly see the effects of this technique near the end of the clip. First the interviewee becomes a bit defensive. But than he opens up, and actually reflects on his own choices and underlying reasons. The '5 whys' technique does not only give insights to the interviewer - it also helps the interviewee see his situation/work/challenges in a new way.

When doing this part of your stakeholder interview, you should probably be more nuanced than just monotonously asking 'why'. Some research suggested that this specific word ('why') makes people defensive. So add some variety, e.g. "what was the reason for that?"

Other aspects of service design shown in the clip:

Although it is obvious for this specific scene, but it's important to note that the questioning is taking place in a situation that is familiar and comfortable to the interviewee: this home. When posisble, go to where your audience is: it creates a more relaxed research environment, and you can see your stakeholder in their natural context, and make observations.

Do you have additional ideas or thoughts? Let us know!

[servicedesign-movieclips]

Brainstorming, explained by the Avengers in ‘Endgame’

In this movie, a group of superheroes takes on a super-villain to save half of all living things in the galaxy, by travelling back in time. Simple. Before putting all their power together, they put all their knowledge together... in a brainstorming session.

Let's analyse the accuracy of the scene

I'd argue this is actually a workshop, aiming to bring knowledge and expertise of various people together. 'Brainstorming' is rather focused on coming up with many different (even crazy) ideas, based on shared information. But let's not get lost in technicalities.

There is a facilitator (Captain America), who briefly summarizes the situation, and the task ahead. This is exactly how a workshop should start.

People take turns sharing what they each know, bringing their own expertise and knowledge. Others listen and pay attention. Someone is taking notes. This is exactly how a workshop should go.

They have a dedicated 'war room' that they can use as they need. They also have presentations and visual aids. Perfect.

The place starts out organized, but turns messy, people eat in the room, sit and lay on the desks, alcohol gets involved. Again, a perfect illustratrion of how workshops (sometimes) happen. And their is nothing wrong with this. Chaos leads to new insights.

At one point, after the information is shared, Scarlett Johansson's character has an insight. A 'lighbulb moment'. A realization that only emerges once all details have been laid out. This is the ideal outcome of a workshop. Although, compared to reality, they arrive at it quite quickly.

The insight they arrive at is not the solution. It just leads to it ("we have a plan!"). You can not expect everything to happen in one sitting. So this again is a good illustration of reality. Though how they actually come up with the plan remains hidden...

Not everyone behaves cooperatively - sadly, this is again accurate. Rocket (the racoon) is being condescending. Thor goes off topic and gets lost in technicalities (see my first point...). Ironman and Captain America compete for the role of facilitator. Several people are not there all the time. These are all realistic parts of a workshop, even if some are unfortunate.

Other aspects of service design shown in the clip:

It is a multidisciplinary team that comes up with the solution. Antman has "no idea what you'all are talking about", but he brought the technology for the solution. Black widow does not have superpowers, yet it is her who takes notes, and comes up with the insight. Include many types of people in your workshops, you never know where the idea will come from.

Do you have additional ideas or thoughts? Let us know!

[servicedesign-movieclips]

Signature Experiences demonstrated by Edna Mode and Elastigirl in ‘The Incredibles’

In this movie about a family of superheroes getting back into business, Elistigirl gets more than she bargained for when visiting her old-time costume-maker friend.

Let's analyse the accuracy of the scene

"Words are useless, that is why I show you my work" - as Edna states at the beginning, demonstrating what your service or its product components do is more valuable than just talking about it.

Edna takes her client behind the scenes, into a workshop/test/demonstration facility reserved for important guests. Or at least that is the impression we get. Opening up and showing some of the mechanics of your business proves you have nothing to hide, and will earn you brownie points with your customers.

The two characters have not met for years. Yet Edna still remembers that Elistigirls likes her tea with cream and sugar. Personal attention will build trust and loyalty.

Anticipate needs. When Elistigirl's husband ordered a new costume, Edna presumed the entire family is getting back to doing superhero business. So she created customized costumes for every family member. Obviously the invested work is disproportionate, but going the extra mile will show you care about the client, not just their money.

While everything turns out well in the end, Edna actually did the entire work without consulting her clients. She seems to know the family extremely well, and delivers something they can't say no to. Still, this approach can get a business into trouble - what if your presumptions are ill-placed?

Other aspects of service design shown in the clip:

It does not look like Elistigirl is fully enjoying the presenttaion - remember that focusing on your audience is more important than trying to create a signature experience - your efforts may backfire.

Do you have additional ideas or thoughts? Let us know!

[servicedesign-movieclips]

Convenience (or lack thereof) shown in ‘Love, Actually’

In this movie about the many aspects of love, Harry, a company owner, tries to buy a necklace for his lover, while christmas-shopping with his wife. Wrong, on so many levels. Luckily his service experience is practically torture:

Let's analyse the accuracy of the scene

The company is hell-bent on providing what they consider a great experience. You can see how ideas were piled on each other. Small box! Ribbon! Bag! Flowers! Cinamon stick! Bigger box! Holly! Instead of making your exprience great by adding stuff, try removing what your customers don't need.

No clarity is provided: What is "gift wrapped"? How long will it take? How much will it cost? This lead to a mistmatch between expectations, and delivery on those expectations.

Harry, the customer, objects and states his needs clearly, but is not listened to. At one point he even wants to pay, but is refused! The vendor is focusing only on doing things 'by the book'. Lack of flexibility can kill your business.

At the end the customer walks away withoutpaying, because his needs are not met. Quite realistic!

Other aspects of service design shown in the clip:

The small jewelry store does realize it has 2 audiences: the buyer, and the person receiving the gift. They try to please them both, which is great. But they do it in the wrong way (see above), so they fail.

While staying on-brand, you should empower your employees in how they approach clients. This makes the experience more natural and personal. 'In the flashiest of flashes' and 'Prontissimo' was definitely not in any service script, but add uniqueness to the experience.

There is a place for signature experiences in service design. But they are something your audience should be open to, or even expecting.

Do you have additional ideas or thoughts? Let us know!