Advancing service design research with design science research

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY-NC 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Advancing service design research with design science research © 2019 the Authors Accepted version (Final draft) Teixeira, Jorge Grenha; Patrício, Lia; Tuunanen, Tuure Teixeira, J. G., Patrício, L., & Tuunanen, T. (2019). Advancing service design research with design science research. Journal of Service Management, 30(5), 577-592. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-05-2019-0131 2019 1 Advancing Service Design Research with Design Science Research Jorge Grenha Teixeira and Lia Patrício Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal and Institute for Systems and Computer Engineering, Technology and Science, Porto, Portugal Tuure Tuunanen University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland Abstract Purpose: Service design is a multidisciplinary approach that is key to service innovation, as it brings new service ideas to life. In this context, the development of new service design methods and models for creating new service futures is an important stream of service design research. Such developments can benefit from a systematized research methodology that builds on existing knowledge and robustly evaluates the suitability of research contributions. To address this challenge, this article presents design science research (DSR), an established methodology from the information systems field, and examines how it can be useful for service design research by supporting the development of new artifacts, such as service design constructs, methods, and models. Design/methodology/approach: This article shows how DSR can support service design research through a step-by-step approach. As a methodology to develop prescriptive driven solutions for classes of problems, DSR can support service design research in developing rigorous and relevant research. One illustrative example of a service design research effort using the DSR approach is presented. 2 Findings: Building on DSR’s robust methodological background, this article discusses how DSR can support service design research, namely through the development of new methods and models, and how DSR can be adapted to leverage service design research participatory, iterative, humancentric, and creative approach. Originality/value: This article provides an overview of DSR and proposes it as a methodology to conduct service design research, offering step-by-step guidance on the application of DSR in service design research and discussing how it can be adapted according to the specific characteristics of service design research and drive future research. Keywords: Service Design, Service Innovation, Design Science Research, Research Methodology Article Classification: Conceptual Paper 1. Introduction Service design plays an increasingly important role in service research, as it brings new service ideas to life (Ostrom et al., 2010), thus enabling new forms of value co-creation with customers, organizations, and societal actors, in general (Patrício et al., 2018a). Service design can be defined as a human-centered, holistic, and iterative approach to the creation of new services (Blomkvist et al., 2010, Meroni and Sangiorgi, 2011). It integrates a service perspective through a creative and iterative process of exploration (understanding the experience of customers and other relevant actors), ideation (envisioning new service futures), prototyping (representing and testing the new services), and implementation (Patrício et al., 2019). Service design creates new service futures through a human-centered approach that allows a contextual and holistic understanding of customer experiences, aligning system actors to support customer experience and supporting 3 codesign and prototyping with creative tools (Yu and Sangiorgi, 2018). Overall, leveraging service design has been highlighted as a service research priority (Ostrom et al., 2010, Ostrom et al., 2015). Service design research has focused on advancing different facets of service through a full spectrum of action-oriented research approaches, from design science focused on supporting expert decision-making and problem solving to participatory service design focused on sensemaking to collectively build innovative health futures (Patrício et al., 2019). Early service design research approaches have focused on designing the frontstage and backstage of service delivery through blueprinting (Shostack, 1984). Later, service design has covered other service facets, such as service clues or the dramatic structure of events (Zomerdijk and Voss, 2010), with service interfaces playing a central role (Secomandi and Snelders, 2011). Multilevel approaches with an integrated design of service concepts, service architectures, and touchpoints have also been developed to create compelling value propositions within value networks and enhance the customer experience (Patrício et al., 2011). More recently, service design has addressed increasingly complex contexts, namely service design for value networks (Patrício et al., 2018b) and for institutional change (Wetter-Edman et al., 2018, Kurtmollaiev et al., 2018). These diverse developments show how service design has evolved as a multidisciplinary field that builds upon service research (Shostack, 1984, Johnson et al., 2000, Goldstein et al., 2002, Cook et al., 2002, Verma et al., 2002, Bitner et al., 2008, Zomerdijk and Voss, 2009) and design (Sangiorgi, 2009, Mager and Sung, 2011, Kimbell, 2011, Secomandi and Snelders, 2011), as well as integrates contributions from the fields of marketing, operations, and interaction design, among other fields (Patrício et al., 2018a, Joly et al., forthcoming). These multidisciplinary contributions have enriched service design, but each field also brings different methodological approaches that are difficult to integrate (Patrício et al., 2018a). 4 Among the range of service design multidisciplinary perspectives and contributions to service research, this article looks more specifically to service design literature that focuses on developing dedicated methods for the field. Examples of such methods and tools range from service blueprinting (Bitner et al., 2008) to customer journey mapping (Følstad and Kvale, 2018), process-chain network (Sampson, 2012), and integrated approaches for designing technologyenabled services (Teixeira et al., 2017). These methods and tools are grounded on extensive applications to real-world situations. However, the development of service design methods still lacks a well-established systematized research methodology that can help service design researchers better ground their contributions on existing knowledge and more robustly evaluate the suitability of these contributions to address service challenges. The lack of such a methodology has led to calls to reinforce the foundations of service design research by exploring multiple research methods (Patrício et al., 2018a, Ostrom et al., 2015). To address these calls, this article presents design science research (DSR), a domainindependent research strategy (Van Aken et al., 2016) that was initially developed in Information Systems (IS) (March and Smith, 1995, Hevner et al., 2004, Peffers et al., 2007, Walls et al., 1992, Nunamaker et al., 1990) and is spreading to service research (Beloglazov et al., 2015, Teixeira et al., 2017, Patrício et al., 2018b), operations management (Van Aken et al., 2016), and design (Costa et al., 2018). DSR focuses on understanding organizational phenomena in context and on advancing research by creating and evaluating dual-purpose artifacts that 1) solve organizational, real-world problems and 2) advance a field’s knowledge base, i.e., offer a research contribution (Hevner et al., 2004, Gregor and Hevner, 2013). DSR artifacts are constructs, models, methods, and instantiations (i.e., applications of artifacts) that are innovative and valuable in such a way that they offer a research contribution 5 (March and Smith, 1995, Hevner et al., 2004). Constructs are the vocabulary to define problems and solutions; models are representations of the problem; methods define processes; and instantiations are applications showing that the artifacts can be implemented and can solve the identified problem (Hevner et al., 2004). For example, Secomandi and Snelders (2011) research on the conceptualization of service interfaces in service design can be considered a development in service design constructs. On the other hand, Shostack (1984) service blueprinting and Teixeira et al. (2017) MINDS method involve the development of both service design methods and tools. DSR is supported by a robust and growing literature that offers researchers a comprehensive understanding of the methodology (Hevner, 2007, Peffers et al., 2007, Hevner et al., 2004, Baskerville et al., 2018) and guides them to positioning and presenting contributions (Gregor and Hevner, 2013, Gregor and Jones, 2007, Peffers et al., 2018a) and to evaluating them (Peffers et al., 2012, Venable et al., 2012). Therefore, DSR can support service design research efforts by providing a robust and well-documented methodology that aims to rigorously develop and evaluate service design research contributions and address real-world problems. To this end, this article details the process for conducting DSR from a service design perspective, highlighting the most relevant aspects for conducting service design research using DSR. Supporting literature for each step of the process is presented, as well as an illustration of how DSR has been applied in service design research (Patrício et al., 2018b). The next section introduces the theoretical underpinnings of service design research and DSR, followed by a description of the DSR process and its application to service design research. The article concludes by discussing how DSR’s main concepts and positioning can be interpreted from a service design perspective and offering future research direction to leverage and evolve DSR for service design research. 6 2. Service Design Research and DSR Service design is an evolving field, and although it is frequently considered as originating from and as a subfield of design, the initial contributions to service design can be traced to Shostack (1984) seminal article on service blueprinting. Recently, service design multidisciplinary contributions have been traced to service research, design, IS, interaction design, and operations management (Joly et al., forthcoming). According to this study, a service perspective provides the conceptual framework to design for value co-creation within service systems (Edvardsson and Tronvoll, 2013), whereas design offers the methods and tools to support the process of understanding and envisioning new forms of value co-creation through service (Kimbell, 2011). Marketing brings an extensive understanding of customer-centric service systems (Mahr et al., 2013) at both frontstage and backstage of service provision (Bitner et al., 2008). The design of service interfaces to support the user experience is a key contribution of interaction design (Zimmerman et al., 2011). Operations management, in turn, focuses on planning and controlling service operations and on designing the entire service delivery system to enable the customer experience (Sampson, 2012). In parallel, IS contributes with the information technology (IT) component of service systems (Glushko and Nomorosa, 2012). With such rich multidisciplinary contributions, it is not surprising that service design research assumes many forms and its methodological foundations need further exploration (Patrício et al., 2018a, Ostrom et al., 2015). Service design research is rooted in design research (Patrício et al., 2018a). Similar to service design, design research is approached from different disciplinary backgrounds, such as the fields of design (Buchanan, 2001, Archer, 1981), art (Frayling, 1993), management (Pandza and Thorpe, 2010, Kasanen et al., 1993, Van Aken, 2004), interaction design (Fallman, 2008, Forlizzi et al., 2008), and IS (March and Smith, 1995). DSR is rooted in Herbert Simon (1969) who, in The 7 Sciences of the Artificial, describes design as “how things ought to be, with devising artifacts to attain goals” and the designer as one “who devises courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones.” However, design researchers often focus on solving specific problems without developing theories or abstracting knowledge (Buchanan, 2001, Friedman, 2003, Van Aken, 2004). Friedman (2003) further adds that there is confusion between research and practice, leading to the positioning of tacit knowledge from design practice as a research contribution. DSR can contribute to overcoming this challenge by focusing on rigorously developing prescriptive-driven solutions for classes of problems, i.e., on developing abstract knowledge that contributes to a field’s knowledge base, rather than a situated solution for a specific problem (Van Aken, 2004, Hevner et al., 2004). In the IS literature, the artifact has been considered to be an IT one (Baskerville et al., 2018). These artifacts have been depicted as constructs, models, methods, and instantiations that are related to the design of IT systems or software (March and Smith, 1995, March and Storey, 2008). However, Peffers et al. (2018b) recognize the crossdisciplinary nature of DSR and argue that there are different genres of DSR that use and adapt this methodology according to each field’s characteristics. Service design research has dedicated considerable attention to the development of artifacts, such as new models and methods (Blomkvist et al., 2010). In fact, this research stream can be highlighted because of the number and impact of published research articles in peerreviewed journals (Chai et al., 2005, Bitner et al., 2008, Patrício et al., 2011, Sampson, 2012, Sousa et al., 2016, Teixeira et al., 2017, Patrício et al., 2018b). While these efforts have not, until recently, used a DSR approach, Teixeira et al. (2017) and Patrício et al. (2018b) introduce DSR to develop methods to design, respectively, technology-enabled services and services that support complex many-to-many interactions. 8 These articles show that DSR can support service design research to rigorously develop methods and models that are relevant to service design research and to real-world challenges addressed by service design. Building on the extensive literature about the process of conducting DSR, the next section presents a DSR approach to conduct service design research, and illustrates how it can be applied to service design research. 3. Applying the DSR Methodology to Service Design Research Many different approaches to conduct DSR have been proposed in the literature, such as in the pioneering works by Nunamaker et al. (1990) and Walls et al. (1992). Hevner et al.’ s (2004) seminal article offers a set of guidelines to conduct DSR, and this is later extended and arranged into a three-cycles view, encompassing relevance, design, and rigor (Hevner, 2007). The relevance cycle bridges the research contextual and empirical ground, i.e., the organizational or societal problems addressed by the research with the design of the artifact. The design cycle involves building, designing, and evaluating the artifact. Finally, the rigor cycle relates the design of the artifact with existing and relevant scientific and methodological foundations. Offering a structured and step-by-step approach, Peffers et al. (2007) propose the design science research methodology (DSRM). DSRM is well suited for cross-disciplinary research and has already been applied in service design research (Teixeira et al., 2017, Patrício et al., 2018b). Building on DSRM and the three-cycle view, Figure 1 presents a DSR process for service design research. In this DSR process, the stages proposed by Peffers et al. (2007) were combined for improved clarity. Furthermore, Figure 1 shows how DSR builds on empirical grounds (the real world) for relevance, and combines it with the service design knowledge base for rigor. Following the overall structure of the DSRM, the process starts with the identification of the research problem(s) and the motivation for the research. Basing on evidence, reasoning, and inference, the 15 perspective of SD4VN was especially useful in a complex setting, such as healthcare. Finally, following Forlizzi et al. (2008), SD4VN was evaluated according to the criteria for design research contributions, namely process, invention, relevance, and extensibility. As such, SD4VN was comprehensively evaluated by resorting to several DSR evaluation methods, such as case study and expert evaluations. The SD4VN case shows how service design research can strengthen the rigor of its contributions without decreasing its relevance by using suitable DSR evaluation methods. 3.4.Communicating Aligned with the quest for relevance to real-world problems, as well as for research rigor, a DSR approach involves communicating the results to scholarly and practitioner audiences. Communication to these audiences aims to ensure that the contribution of DSR is added to the knowledge base (Hevner, 2007). Communication should also include the application context to ensure that the solution to the real-world problem reaches those who experience it. While DSR is already a mature methodology in the IS field, a recognizable and broadly accepted structure to present DSR has yet to be consolidated. To systematize the communication of DSR in research outlets, Gregor and Hevner (2013) propose a publication schema with the following sections: introduction (problem and objective definition), literature review (existing knowledge base that grounds the artifact development), method (DSR work), artifact description (showing how it contributes to the knowledge base), evaluation (showing how the worth of the artifact was assessed), discussion, and conclusion. The multidisciplinary background of service design research brings many potential research outlets to communicate the results of DSR work. However, as each of the service design 16 contributing fields has its own research traditions and might be relatively unaware of DSR, an approach similar to that described by Gregor and Hevner (2013) is especially useful. Regarding communication, SD4VN has been disseminated to both practitioner and academic audiences. Regarding practitioner audiences, while SD4VN has not been published in practitioner-oriented outlets, it was used in multiple workshops with stakeholders, both for the development of the EHR and in dedicated training sessions for health information systems professionals, thus disseminating the method itself. Regarding academic communication, the SD4VN method was published in research journals from different fields, focusing on both the method and the EHR instantiation (Patrício et al., 2018b, Patrício et al., 2019, Grenha Teixeira et al., 2019). Having explained the different stages of the DSR process and how DSR can be applied to service design research, the next section discusses how DSR can further foster service design research and vice versa. 4. Implications and Future Research Service design research has already successfully applied DSR to develop new service design methods. However, advancing service design as a human-centered, participatory, and multidisciplinary approach to creating new services can benefit from dedicated DSR approaches for service design. This cross-fertilization between DSR and service design has several implications and opens new and promising avenues for research. Table 1 summarizes the implications of using DSR for service design research, particularly addressing 1) how artifacts can be viewed in light of service design research, 2) how DSR 17 processes, such as DSRM, can be adapted to better fit service design research, and 3) how service design research contributions developed with DSR can be positioned. (Insert Table 1 around here) First, as depicted in this paper, a focal concept of DSR is the artifact. DSR describes artifacts as constructs, models, methods, and instantiations, (March and Smith 1995; March and Storey 2008). DSR artifacts can be associated with IT systems or software (Baskerville et al., 2018). However, authors, such as Peffers et al. (2007), take a more social science approach, talking of methods for understanding user needs for an IS. Other authors have extended the use of artifacts to business models (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2012). As such, the use of the artifact goes well beyond IT systems, and the term should be contextualized to the field of research in question. Service design methods can be considered as artifacts when applying DSR to service design research, which is well aligned with extant DSR literature. However, other types of artifacts can also be explored by service design. For example, service design models, such as service blueprints (Shostack, 1984, Bitner et al., 2008), can be developed using DSR. Perhaps more importantly, the characteristics of service design artifacts are different from those of IS artifacts. While IT artifacts in the IS literature are related to IS or software, service design artifacts are service centered. This means that service design involves an understanding of the needs of different service system actors to design new service solutions that meet such needs (Lin et al., 2011). Therefore, artifacts developed when applying DSR in service design research are based on an understanding of different actors’ experience, and/or include participation from relevant actors of the service system in the design decisions. For example, the SD4VN method 18 includes a qualitative study to map different service system actors experience and interactions, and involves the active participation of relevant actors in the design process as a part of the method itself. Second, the DSR process has been systematized by several authors. For example, Peffers et al. (2007) offer a clear path to presenting the development of artifacts and their relevance for research and practice. The adaption of Peffers et al. (2007) and Hevner (2007) processes for service design research (Figure 1) highlights the interaction between the service design knowledge base and empirical grounds and includes the following four main phases: 1) problem identification and definition of a solution objective, 2) the design of the artifact (solution), 3) the application of the solution in the real world and evaluation, and 4) communication of the findings. This DSR process for service design research is aligned with the iterative, participatory, and human-centered nature of service design (Patrício et al., 2018a, Sangiorgi, 2010). Iterations are suggested by several DSR methodologies (Peffers et al., 2007, Hevner, 2007), and a DSR process for service design research can include them at different stages. First, several rounds of data collection can be performed to improve the understanding of the actors’ experience. Second, prototypes can iteratively test new service solutions with their intended audience. In addition, service design often uses a participatory approach, in which the expertise of customers, users, and/or employees is leveraged by integrating it in the design process (Sangiorgi, 2010). This participatory approach is relevant and a DSR approach for service design research should involve relevant actors in the design process. Third, service design research can develop several types of contributions by using a DSR approach. The nature of research contributions has been a topic of debate for DSR studies, with Gregor and Hevner (2013) proposing three types of research contributions: (1) adapting and extending solutions from one field to another, (2) developing better solutions for known problems, 19 and (3) creating new solutions for newly identified problems. First, as a multidisciplinary field, service design is a fertile ground for extending solutions from one field to another, such as applying DSR to adapt existing service design methods and models to contexts that have not been explored. For example, this could involve following a DSR approach to expand service design in general or apply a method such as the Multilevel Service Design (Patrício et al., 2011), to other research areas such as sports management or marketing (Kallitsari and Theodorakis, 2018). Second, service design research has already used DSR to develop better solutions for identified problems, namely by developing service design methods for complex value networks, as well as to design technology-enabled services (Patrício et al., 2018b, Teixeira et al., 2017). Finally, service design research can also leverage the creative nature of service design to create entirely new solutions for new problems. Leveraging DSR as research methodology for service design also offers a rich set of research opportunities, as illustrated in Figure 2. This research potential can be structured in three main areas: expanding service design research real-world impact; evolving DSR for service design research; and expanding service design research knowledge base. (Insert Figure 2 around here) First, DSR can help service design research to expand its real-world impact. By being focused on solving real-world challenges, DSR is well-suited to support service design in engaging in transformative service research (Anderson et al., 2013) and contributing to societal well-being. Perhaps more importantly, by focusing on solving classes of problems, and not single instances, DSR can help service design research in developing generalizable knowledge that can have a 20 greater and transformational change, truly broadening service design research impact in the realworld. DSR can also contribute to expanding service design research in the real-world by addressing the challenges brought by ever-changing technology. As artificial intelligence, service robots and the internet of things have increased relevance for service (Huang and Rust, 2018, Ng and Wakenshaw, 2017, Wirtz et al., 2018, Čaić et al., 2018), DSR can help service design research to develop new models, methods and theories to understand and design value co-creating services with these technologies. Finally, service design has a rich and active practitioner community that can be engaged to pursue research endeavors by using DSR well-defined, step-by-step approach. With its unique blend of solving real-world problems and offering research contribution DSR can be presented to the practitioner community as a way to support their work, while building a more robust and generalizable knowledge base that can further enrich research and practice. Second, service design researchers can focus on evolving DSR for service design research by adapting existing DSR methodologies to their research contexts, as well as combining DSR with other research approaches. For example, Costa et al. (2018) combined a design research approach coming from design with the evaluation phase of DSR to develop new methods for integrating product–service system and service design. Also, the applicability and adaptation to service design research of other DSR methodologies can be considered, such as design-oriented IS research (Kuechler and Vaishnavi, 2008) or action design research (Sein et al., 2011). Finally, other adaptations can involve the specific aspects of the DSR process, namely, by developing evaluation techniques for service design research contributions developed with DSR. This might include integrating other contributions from fields associated with service design, such as Forlizzi et al. (2008) criteria for evaluating design research contributions already used in SD4VN; the development of adapted evaluation processes, such as in the work of Venable et al. (2016); or the 21 integration of DSR with design research approaches coming from a design background (Costa et al., 2018). This way, more than using the current DSR literature, service design research should develop its own genre of DSR, one that leverages service design literature’s rich background, creativity, and, most importantly, service-centricity. Finally, DSR can help expand service design research knowledge base. First, by building upon DSR systematic approach and IS origins, service design research can expand its knowledge base by bridging with more technical-oriented and engineering-related fields. Using DSR as a common ground with, for example, software engineering, new interdisciplinary service design methods can be developed to address emerging challenges brought by technologies such as artificial intelligence, service robots or the internet of things. DSR roots on design research can also further strengthen the link between service design research and design studies (Fallman, 2008). 5. Conclusion DSR is a well-known and documented methodology in IS but despite being used increasingly in service design and service research, it is still new to many scholars in these fields. This article makes a first attempt at introducing DSR literature, terminology, and processes, including potential contributions and respective evaluations, to service design researchers. This article also presents an application of DSR, showing how it can be used to support service design research. Finally, this article presents how future research can leverage DSR to expand service design research impact on the real-world, expand service design research knowledge base, and evolve DSR for service design research. These research directions also address recent calls for future research in service design and innovation Patrício et al. (2018a) namely: expanding the foundations of service design 22 by integrating multiple perspectives and methods, advancing service design by leveraging the role of technology; and strengthen research impact through transformative service research. DSR was already successfully used to conduct service design research (Patrício et al., 2018b, Teixeira et al., 2017). However, these are still early-efforts to leverage this methodology and use it so that service design research can offer relevant real-world contributions, while solving classes of problems that offer rigorous research contributions. By showcasing DSR, how it can be applied to service design research and suggesting future research directions, this article is enriching service design research toolset and hopefully setting the groundwork for establising DSR as a cornerstone methodology for service design research. References ANDERSON, L., OSTROM, A. L., CORUS, C., FISK, R. P., GALLAN, A. S., GIRALDO, M., MENDE, M., MULDER, M., RAYBURN, S. W., ROSENBAUM, M. S., SHIRAHADA, K. & WILLIAMS, J. D. 2013. Transformative service research: An agenda for the future. Journal of Business Research, 66, 1203-1210. ARCHER, B. 1981. A view of the nature of design research. Design: science: method, 1, 30-47. ATKINSON, P. & HAMMERSLEY, M. 1994. Ethnography and participant observation. In: DENZIN, N. K. & LINCOLN, Y. S. (eds.) Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications. BARON, S., PATTERSON, A., MAULL, R. & WARNABY, G. 2018. Feed People First:A Service Ecosystem Perspective on Innovative Food Waste Reduction. Journal of Service Research, 21, 135-150. BASKERVILLE, R., BAIYERE, A., GREGOR, S., HEVNER, A. & ROSSI, M. 2018. Design science research contributions: finding a balance between artifact and theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19, 358-376. BELOGLAZOV, A., BANERJEE, D., HARTMAN, A. & BUYYA, R. 2015. Improving Productivity in Design and Development of Information Technology (IT) Service Delivery Simulation Models. Journal of Service Research (JSR), 18, 75-89. BITNER, M. J., OSTROM, A. L. & MORGAN, F. N. 2008. Service Blueprinting: A Practical Technique for Service Innovation. California Management Review, 50, 66-94. BLOMKVIST, J., HOLMLID, S. & SEGELSTRÖM, F. 2010. Service Design Research: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. In: STICKDORN, M. & SCHNEIDER, J. (eds.) This is Service Design Thinking. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers. 23 BLOMKVIST, J. & SEGELSTRÖM, F. 2014. Benefits of External Representations in Service Design: a Distributed Cognition Perspective. Design Journal, 17, 331-346. BUCHANAN, R. 2001. Design Research and the New Learning. Design Issues, 17, 3-23. ČAIĆ, M., ODEKERKEN-SCHRÖDER, G. & MAHR, D. 2018. Service robots: value co-creation and codestruction in elderly care networks. Journal of Service Management, 29, 178-205. CHAI, K.-H., ZHANG, J. & TAN, K.-C. 2005. A TRIZ-Based Method for New Service Design. Journal of Service Research, 8, 48-66. COOK, L. S., BOWEN, D. E., CHASE, R. B., DASU, S., STEWART, D. M. & TANSIK, D. A. 2002. Human issues in service design. Journal of Operations Management, 20, 159-174. CORBIN, J. M. & STRAUSS, A. L. 2008. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, Thousand Oaks, California, Sage Publications, Inc. COSTA, N., PATRÍCIO, L., MORELLI, N. & MAGEE, C. L. 2018. Bringing service design to manufacturing companies: integrating PSS and service design approaches. Design Studies, 55, 112-145. DIANA, C., PACENTI, E. & TASSI, R. Visualtiles: Communication tools for (service) design. Conference Proceedings ServDes. 2009; DeThinking Service; ReThinking Design; Oslo Norway 24-26 November 2009, 2012. Linköping University Electronic Press, 65-76. EDVARDSSON, B. & TRONVOLL, B. 2013. A new conceptualization of service innovation grounded in SD logic and service systems. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 5, 19-31. EISENHARDT, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review, 14, 532-550. FALLMAN, D. 2008. The Interaction Design Research Triangle of Design Practice, Design Studies and Design Exploration. Design Issues, 24, 4-18. FEAST, L. & MELLES, G. Epistemological positions in design research: A brief review of the literature. 2nd International Conference on Design Education, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, 2010. FØLSTAD, A. & KVALE, K. 2018. Customer journeys: a systematic literature review. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 28, 196-227. FORLIZZI, J., ZIMMERMAN, J. & EVENSON, S. 2008. Crafting a Place for Interaction Design Research in HCI. Design Issues, 24, 19-29. FOWLER JR, F. J. 2013. Survey research methods, Sage publications. FRAYLING, C. 1993. Research in art and design, Royal College of Art London. FRIEDMAN, K. 2003. Theory construction in design research: criteria: approaches, and methods. Design studies, 24, 507-522. GLUSHKO, R. J. & NOMOROSA, K. J. 2012. Substituting information for interaction: A framework for personalization in service encounters and service systems. Journal of Service Research, 16, 2138. GOLDSTEIN, S. M., JOHNSTON, R., DUFFY, J. A. & RAO, J. 2002. The service concept: the missing link in service design research? Journal of Operations Management, 20, 121-134. GREGOR, S. & HEVNER, A. R. 2013. Positioning and Presenting Design Science Research for Maximum Impact. MIS Quarterly, 37, 337-355. GREGOR, S. & JONES, D. 2007. The anatomy of a design theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8, 312. GRENHA TEIXEIRA, J., PATRÍCIO, L. & PINHO, N. F. D. 2019. Bringing Service Design to the Development of Health Information Systems: The Case of the Portuguese National Electronic Health Record. International Journal of Medical Informatics. GRONRÖOS, C. 2008. Service Dominant Logic Revisited: Who Creates Value? and Who Co-Creates? European Business Review, 20. 24 GUMMESSON, E. 2008. Extending the service-dominant logic: from customer centricity to balanced centricity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 15-17. HAYRINENA, K., SARANTOA, K. & NYKANEN, P. 2008. Definition, structure, content, use and impacts of electronic health records: A review of the research literature. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 77, 291-304. HEVNER, A. 2007. The three cycle view of design science research. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 19, 87. HEVNER, A. R., MARCH, S. T., PARK, J. & RAM, S. 2004. Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 28, 75-105. HUANG, M.-H. & RUST, R. T. 2018. Artificial Intelligence in Service. Journal of Service Research, 21, 155172. JOHNSON, S. P., MENOR, L. J., ROTH, A. V. & CHASE, R. B. 2000. A Critical Evaluation of the New Service Development Process: Integrating Service Innovation and Service Design. In: FITZSIMMONS, J. A. & FITZSIMMONS, M. J. (eds.) New Service Development: Creating Memorable Experiences. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. JOLY, M., TEIXEIRA, J. G., PATRÍCIO, L. & SANGIORGI, D. forthcoming. Leveraging service design as a multidisciplinary approach to service innovation. Journal of Service Management, 0. KALLITSARI, Z. & THEODORAKIS, N. Application of the Multilevel Service Design method to redesign a sport event. 26th European Sport Management Conference, 2018 Malmö, Sweden. KASANEN, E., LUKKA, K. & SIITONEN, A. 1993. The constructive approach in management accounting research. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 5, 243-264. KIMBELL, L. 2011. Designing for Service as One Way of Designing Services. International Journal of Design, 5, 41-52. KUECHLER, W. & VAISHNAVI, V. 2008. The emergence of design research in information systems in North America. Journal of Design Research, 7, 1-16. KURTMOLLAIEV, S., FJUK, A., PEDERSEN, P. E., CLATWORTHY, S. & KVALE, K. 2018. Organizational Transformation Through Service Design: The Institutional Logics Perspective. Journal of Service Research, 21, 59-74. LIN, M. C., HUGHES, B. L., KATICA, M. K., DINING-ZUBER, C. & PLSEK, P. E. 2011. Service design and change of systems: Human-centered approaches to implementing and spreading service design. International Journal of Design, 5. MAGER, B. & SUNG, T.-J. D. 2011. Special Issue Editorial: Designing for Services. International Journal of Design, 5, 1-3. MAHR, D., KALOGERAS, N. & ODEKERKEN-SCHRÖDER, G. 2013. A service science approach for improving healthy food experiences. Journal of Service Management, 24, 435-471. MARCH, S. T. & SMITH, G. F. 1995. Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15, 251-266. MARCH, S. T. & STOREY, V. C. 2008. Design science in the information systems discipline: an introduction to the special issue on design science research. MIS quarterly, 32, 725-730. MERONI, A. & SANGIORGI, D. (eds.) 2011. Design for Services, Surrey: Gower. MORELLI, N. & TOLLESTRUP, C. 2007. New Representation Techniques for Designing in a Systemic Perspective. Nordic Design Research Conference. Stockholm, Sweden. NG, I. C. L. & WAKENSHAW, S. Y. L. 2017. The Internet-of-Things: Review and research directions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34, 3-21. NUNAMAKER, J. F., CHEN, M. & PURDIN, T. D. M. 1990. Systems development in information systems research. Journal of management information systems, 7, 89-106. OSTERWALDER, A. & PIGNEUR, Y. 2012. Designing business models and similar strategic objects: the contribution of IS. Journal of the Association for information systems, 14, 3.