Kip Lee and Jamin Hegeman are recent graduates of the Masters program at the Carnegie Mellon School of Design. As part of a team of graduate students, they collaborated on a service design project for the neurosurgery clinic at UPMC in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

I interviewed Kip and Jamin at CMU on May 13th, 2008.

Project Overview [PDF 7.8MB]

Project Deliverables:
Designing for the Clinic Experience

  • UPMC Welcome Booklet
  • Clinic Chat Concept Video
  • Research Image Cards

JEFF: Hi Kip and Jamin, we’re here to talk about your project in the service design class at Carnegie Mellon for UPMC. For people who aren’t familiar with it, can you give us a brief overview?

KIP: At UPMC they have a special group called the Center for Quality Improvement and Innovation. It’s a small group of people and they’re one of the few hospitals right now who have a devoted team that tries to focus on the experience of the staff, doctors and the patients. But Shelley had a connection there and we came in and they had worked with CMU for two or three years before us, on a whole bunch of different problems that they had. They have different departments and hospitals all around Pittsburgh.

And one of the problems that was presented was at UPMC Presby, with Dr. Kassam in the neurosurgery clinic that meets once a week on Tuesdays. And he is a superstar neurosurgeon who was featured last year on the Pittsburgh Gazette and USA Today.

JAMIN: He’s featured on TV, he’s been interviewed. He’s renowned.

KIP: He’s charismatic. About 40 years old and the chair of the neurosurgery clinic. So he’s really good. Basically able to perform neurosurgery through the nose, without cutting open the skull. So all these people—not just from Pittsburgh—but from all over the world come to see him, just to meet with him on Tuesdays to see if they can have the surgery. He’ll see up to 70 to 100 during one day.

JEFF: So the service design problem that you were addressing was the initial visit, but not the actual surgery component?

KIP: We didn’t know what to address at the time. The cool thing was that we knew nothing about the subject matter. None of us had ever been part of something like this before.

JEFF: Well, let’s talk about how you decided what to address.

JAMIN: We had an initial meeting with the Center for Quality Improvement. They presented what they thought was the problem. In that first meeting she actually drew the clinic and was talking about the “flow” problems. But didn’t actually draw it accurately. It was interesting to be given the perspective of how they saw the clinic.

They did present some initial problems of the wait time, which was too long with that many people. Some of the patients were waiting up to five hours between the waiting room and the exam room. People would be in the exam room for two hours. It’s a windowless room. They’d get angry, like: has he forgotten about me? So they were concerned. They saw that as an immediate problem. People were waiting a long time and they needed to cut that down.

What I like to say, a lot of the things they were looking at, the Center for Quality Improvement, is through a more analytical perspective and not a design perspective. They were interested in us coming up with solutions that would reduce that wait time. Because, reduce the wait time? Then there’s a better patient experience.

And so, through several visits to the clinic and getting an idea of how they operated, and how this doctor operated, one of his good qualities (and bad qualities) is that he will take anybody who wants to see him. And it could be at the last minute, and he could already have 100 patients. And someone calls up the day before and says that they need to see him and he’ll take them. So they’re not thinking about how this affects the whole system.

We recognized that as a problem, but had to think about: what if we can’t change that aspect of it? Things we couldn’t change. We saw problems with the information that patients had and having to carry charts around and whatever. But they were implementing a system in a couple years, so we decided not to deal with that.

If this guy’s going to take in all these patients; if you’re going to see 70–100 patients in an eight hour day, they’re going to have to wait. Unless you’re really regimented about only seeing them for two minutes, which was sort of the plan they were going with. Running computer simulations: if we do this, this and this, then this will reduce the wait time, but we said: let’s not focus on the wait time. Because they’re trying to address that. From our perspective especially, we’re looking more at the emotional experience of the patients. And reframed the wait time; embrace the wait time. Embrace the fact that they have to wait there and if we recognize that as a given, how can we then design for that situation?

KIP: One of the key moments of our process was actually going to the clinic and having a meeting with the staff and having this kind of preliminary, participatory design process, where we presented our initial learnings from our first immersion when we went to the clinic and saw some of the problems. So we met with them and presented the problems, and they were like: wow. I didn’t know that, or: we didn’t notice these little things before. Like, the counter these nurses worked on is filled with binders and other stuff and you can’t even get to the other parts of the counter. We presented that image to them and the next time we went to the clinic it was nice and clean. So something as little as pointing out to them what the problems are through images—which I think designers are really good at.

So we presented these things to them and were like: okay, can you draw a diagram of all the people relevant in your sphere of influence. We were shocked to find that in none of them— they had doctors and nurses, but they didn’t have patients in their diagrams. So we thought that maybe we need to focus on patients and they were like: yeah, yeah. We need to do that. We have experts and specialists focusing on the simulations models and whatnot, but you guys seem like you know what you’re doing with the patients, so why don’t you focus on that?

JAMIN: Prior to that meeting, we went to the clinic twice and just hung out there all day, both in the exam room and back in the rooms. We didn’t work too much in the exam rooms at the time initially. And then we did this presentation where we basically mirrored what we saw. And they were like: yeah, you’re just showing us where we work. But we were also showing it from a slightly different perspective.

JEFF: How did you present that perspective? Was this a report that you wrote? Photographs?

JAMIN: This was just our initiative. We put together a presentation of our research findings. We thought it was important to share that with them in order to get them to understand what we were doing. When we first went in there, they didn’t know why we were there. The Center for Quality Improvement, our contact, would be there when we went, but they weren’t really sure why we were there.

JEFF: Someone just told them you were going to show up…

JAMIN: Yeah, we were introduced as designers. And they thought: great, you can come by this weekend and help us redecorate our homes. But that’s not really what we do… so we thought it was important to show them: here’s why we’re here. We’re looking at X, Y and Z and we actually grouped it into three primary stakeholders. The patients, and they have different needs and there’s the staff and this is what we see and then there’s Dr. Kassam so has different needs and so that was our initial presentation and they said that they were working on some initial staff workflow things already and Dr. Kassam, we might not be able to change him, so why don’t you focus on the patient experience? In that early presentation, we had rephrased the “reduce wait time” to “embrace wait time.” And they were just like: wow, what an interesting idea.

KIP: To help support that, to your point, as designers we showed them the service blueprint, and the first blueprint image that we had we have three images, basically addressing each stakeholder and the first one shows the disconnect for the wait times that happen all along the experience and there are like seven or eight of them and we asked: what’s going on here? These people are waiting in the exam rooms and the wait rooms but there’s no interaction between the staff and the patient so they’re always trying to squeeze that time so we pointed out that there are seven or eight moments—big chunks—

JEFF: Where things are happening back stage that they can’t see.

KIP: Right, you can’t see it at the front stage so we asked why not try to do something during these moments and have good interactions. So although it’s a simple diagram, it supports what we were saying.

JEFF: And that’s the blueprint that’s in your final presentation?

KIP: Yes.

JEFF: So you gave that presentation. Showed how you saw the process. Did you continue to work with the staff throughout the project?

JAMIN: So we did an initial design exercise with them. After that, our relationship with them changed, dramatically. As I was saying, we initially were just sort of in the hallway, in the way. Just being flies on the wall. After that, their attitude toward us changed in that they were really happy to see us and they understood why were were there. They started doing things on their own just actively coming up to us: I’m doing this because I feel it would have a better effect on the patient experience, and you know. Or, hey, here’s this patient. You might want to check this patient out. Eventually, Dr. Kassam actually came over—

KIP: And said, you should come in the room with us. He opened up access where they were now helping us to get the information that we needed. At first we would say that we really needed to interview patients and that we hadn’t had a chance to interview them and we knew they were waiting in the waiting room for an hour, so could you just help us out? And they were just: sure! And they picked out patients for us and it got to the point where we could just walk into the rooms; they were fine with us just walking in while someone was waiting. They were happy with us presenting ourselves. We usually didn’t even say we were working with CMU, just that we were working with the clinic to improve the patient experience and we’d like to hear your thoughts. Whether we were showing them the cards, images, trying to get them to transpose their experience. Would you like your experience to be something like this? We’d show them a picture of someone playing the piano, sort of push at their understanding of what a doctor visit should be. But yeah, Dr. Kassam inviting us into the room himself, while he was diagnosing people for the first time, which was powerful.

JAMIN: And eventually the O.R. as well. We got to see surgery.

KIP: That help us get a feel for who this guy is. Not so much the patient experience, because you’re just on the table and you’re getting surgery. To see this guy in action, in the clinic and in the surgery room.

JEFF: I guess that’s what it’s all about.

JAMIN: Right. So when we were looking at these emotional journey maps that we made, these dips… the patient has no needs when they’re knocked out on the table. So it goes down. Whereas family needs are high during those times. We didn’t focus specifically on solutions— well actually we did have a concept for that time period. In terms of getting and understanding of the whole journey, initially we were focusing on the visit to the clinic being the reason why they were there and at one point, on the service blueprint where Dr. Kassam is highlighted, but they’re really there to get fixed. To get their tumor removed, and there are all these other visits around that. That are part of the process.

KIP: The ultimate point of the service delivery is when they’re unaware of it.

JEFF: After you had worked with the staff and had a better idea about what’s going on, you had talked to patients… you had mentioned these “image cards” you used to talk with them. Could you tell me a little about that process and what you got out of that?

JAMIN: So we created these nicely printed cards and branded them UPMC and tried to get an array of experiences from different arenas. From piano playing to a child sleeping on a couch to an idyllic outside woodsy scene, trying to get people to get out of… Because what we found was that people had very hard notions of what a doctors visit should be like. And to the extent that they were willing to put up with a bad experience, because that’s what they expect. So saying that you could make this experience better was actually uncomfortable for a lot of people, because they thought, first of all we’re not here to have a good time. But it also seems weird in that, if you’re going to have to be here anyway, could this be a better experience, and it was really hard for people to imagine that. So we were just trying to push at that by showing them different images and just handing them to them and asking: what if you got to play games? Or just showing different service experiences; emotional pieces.

KIP: To just add to what Jamin just said, we had actually two sets of cards. The first set was just sharing some of the findings from our initial research. Like, here’s our problems. Can you identify with these? So the ultimate purpose of the cards was just to get them to talk. Share and express, as opposed to simply asking “how do you feel when you come here?” Show them, this is what other people feel; these bad experiences. Do you identify with them, first of all? Some people did and some people didn’t and then we showed them these “what if” cards and just, as Jamin said, that was to push them, to challenge their notion of the nature of a hospital experience and by this time people would be saying: yeah, this would be totally cool or pointing out other things. Like there was an image of a checker table, and in the background there was this really nice scenery. And we were trying to focus on the checker table, like to play games and interact with other people. And they said: you know this is really cool; I like the background scenery. So getting them to talk, and they would talk about things we hadn’t even thought about.

JAMIN: We wanted to validate some of the things we saw, and get further input. Just to get them talking. And it was challenging to get them talking, especially in the exam rooms where people are waiting to be diagnosed, who don’t even know if they have a brain tumor to get them talking. So this was a way for us to break the ice, as well. A by-product of that: I don’t know if we would have labeled them design ideas, but I think that design ideas could come out of their suggestions.

KIP: Stories. There was one image with a bunch of computer kiosks, and they’d start about their son: He’s 16 and he has to take a day off from school and he’s in the waiting room while I’ve been in the exam room for five hours. I wish— that’d be really cool if he could be online while I’m here. There were stories that really helped.

JEFF: What were your next steps in the process?

JAMIN: We started generating concepts, if not before then at the same time. One of the methods that we used as a team. We actually didn’t drop— so in that presentation we identified the staff, patients and Dr. Kassam’s needs and they told us to focus on the patient, we decided not to drop all of them. We decided to focus on the patient experience be we learned so much about the staff that we decided to develop concepts for that as well. So we developed concepts on half sheets of paper and gave them a name and drew some sort of image of what it could be, related to each of those segments. And as a team made sure that we were communicating with each other that once anyone had an idea we listened to it and it went up on the board and once it was done we had this, I don’t know, 50-70 concepts related to the themes, and from there really narrowed down and went broad, and then chose the ones that we thought would be interesting. That we would be interested in exploring, and we arranged that. We developed a visual map of the concepts for the presentation. Just a two-by-two with a cost/value relationship and created storyboards from all the quadrant so we weren’t just thinking, where whatever’s the highest value and the lowest cost, that’s what we’ll do… We wanted to see, what’s something that may be small, like installing a coat rack, versus something that seems really high cost and risky like putting a live video feed of the surgery so that the families could watch, to push at what they’re willing to accept, so maybe that’s too extreme, but what information do you really need?

JEFF: So you did some generation and filtering of ideas as a team.

JAMIM: Yes, and then we took those storyboards that had little scenarios that had pictures and words describing the story back to the clinic, to the exam room and gave them to patients and their families and had them read through the different concepts and see, do these resonate with you, what are you thinking, what are you feeling? And then we could use them as design ideas.

JEFF: Would these kind of changes have involved staff changes as well? I would imagine you would have to change something about the operation.

JAMIN: Some of the concepts did focus on staff changes.

JEFF: I know you talked in the past about how to get buy-in for these large scale changes on the part of the staff, or administration. Was that a challenge?

JAMIN: I think, and going back to our initial presentation, getting them involved and making them feel like they’re involved in the design process. So they have ownership over it, but they were involved. Before that first presentation they had no idea why we were there, and we had no relationship with them, but we started conducting interviews with them so it’s really important to interview the stakeholders you’re working with because it gives them a sense that you really care what they think. And you should care about what they think. And I’ve thought about this as well in terms of interviewing people, from my background in reporting, how do you get people to want to open up to you when you’re interviewing them, and besides that, there’s a lot of buy in for what you’re doing. Because if you’re interviewing them well and you’re genuinely interested in what they have to say, they’re willing to open up. Like, you might be able to do something. They started to recognize us as potential agents of change. And they were involved somehow in that, and that was inspiring for them, and as Kip said, we started to see evidence of Design Thinking evolving in their minds even though we weren’t talking about it. We weren’t even thinking about trying to make them more “designerly.”

KIP: I think also the nature of the healthcare system right now, before we even went in, they came to us and presented tons of problems, so there’s a huge need as opposed to going to a company where things are complacent and they’ve had a lot of success but they know there is a problem, but they don’t have time or the resources to do that. So I think that was really helpful to work with and we, as designers have the ability to be really empathetic and identify with them, moving about and asking what’s going on, and can we help in some way. That was really, I think, all part of the buy-in. No one was antagonistic I think.

JAMIN: One of the downsides of this type of project, and it was over in the course of a semester, was that we were doing other work, and this wasn’t our only focus and so it felt a little short. To me, it would have been great to have a longer engagement with them and to— because what we ultimately wound up presenting to them was our research process because we saw that we were having an effect on how they thought. Our presence was having an effect. And we wanted to give them an artifact that was a reminder of our presence.

JEFF: So you put together a process book.

JAMIN: This book was what we delivered to them and that’s the reason why we chose this form. But it also included different design concept ideas centered around the four stakeholders, and we included family later on, the more we talked to patients the more we realized that this is someone else that we have to think about as well.

We weren’t really sure what they were going to do with our ideas. Even with the Center. They didn’t really have a plan for implementing; they were really just curious about what we would do if we came into this space. So we developed a bunch of concepts around the different stakeholders. Here are the things we think would work and improve the patient experience. Some of them were not very difficult to implement, like we had this wall of hope idea that the patients resonated with, just for them to post physical messages to, and could act as a distraction while people are waiting and it could also be support, and then we created a welcome booklet that captured the language— when we went into the rooms we really say the charisma of this doctor. He was a very empathetic person and to understand how he delivers the news: hey, you’ve got a brain tumor but we’re going to take care of it. And also say: but yeah, you’ve only got a 90% chance of living… There’s still like a chance but the way that he delivered it would comfort the people and we thought that was important to bring that into the experience outside of just meeting with him, so can we embody that in just a welcome booklet.

JEFF: So would that welcome booklet be a takeaway? Or would they get it when they first come into the clinic?

JAMIN: We were thinking that this was the first visit. We found that a lot of people didn’t really know what this guy was about. And so thinking about, how do you comfort somebody when they don’t even know if they have a brain tumor. Look, you’re meeting this guy, and there’s a proof of concept for the clinic, here’s an example. We created some concepts.

The last things that we delivered was the Clinic Chat idea, and we mostly presented that in a video format. Say, okay, here’s a future vision that embodies some of the main design implications that we found: information, interaction, distraction and support.

KIP: Even that little book we presented was testament to our design process. Because they had other stuff about Dr. Kassam, generic picture of him and the message that he’s performed over blah, blah surgeries successfully. He graduated from this university with a blah, blah, blah degree. And people were getting that kind of analytical information. They weren’t getting the emotional— what is the essence of this guy and his charisma and personality, the things that I think—

JAMIN: The things that make him a person—

KIP: That comforts people. And not to say that the other things don’t but this was a complementary thing that they might have been looking for.

JAMIN: And to distill it down, so I think that we did keep—

JEFF: It’s a fairly short booklet.

JAMIN: It’s a short booklet, we used big phrases like: I’ve got some good news for you. Something that he would say, and it’s really weird to hear that in this situation. But we did keep some of the language, that he’s performed over 800 of these surgeries but so minimal that people are actually going to get this information. When we presented this idea to the patients, we did have a prototype of this book before we finalized it, and they were really perceptive. They said they didn’t even know that that he had done this much and that would have comforted me, and so giving something that would be more easily accessible to them and have information that would comfort them and introduce Dr. Kassam and his staff to the patients we thought was important and different from what they were using currently.

JEFF: So, it’s been a whole semester since you delivered this. Do you know if they’ve picked up any of these ideas or made any changes?

KIP: I’ve been sending e-mails here and there, and I think they were very excited about it, but I don’t know how much they’ve implemented.

JEFF: But it got them thinking in a different way?

KIP: It got them thinking; we also had some key members who came on the last day of our final presentation. Not just the Center for Quality Improvements but also some key high level people from UPMC and they were very eager: wow, that’s very cool stuff, we need to do some more of this.

. . .

JEFF: Let’s switch gears for a moment and talk about a broader theme. You guys have been talking about service design and what you did for the UPMC project. What do you think is the difference between how you approached that project and how you approach interaction design generally?

KIP: A lot of our methods were similar. Concept validation, research. Maybe the blueprint was something new for us certainly. Looking at the whole experience, although we do try to do that for interaction design anyway. I think, maybe the comparison isn’t between interaction design and service design, because I tend to look at it as the same thing.

As Buchanan says, interaction design is this third mode of interaction where we have service and action under this kind of umbrella. So the first, we have graphic design— communication design. Then we have industrial design; artifacts. Then we have actions and behaviors. And so services are part of interaction design and vice versa. But I think that one thing that we’re trying to push and challenge is the notion of service design as a purely logistical thing. Where people need something from A: you give them A. They need something from B: you give them B. We were thinking of service design as more of a conversation, and that was what we were trying to push for through Clinic Chat, where we have this interaction that constantly takes place with the staff, and with doctors and patients, because if you think about it: doctors don’t have time for this. Staff, maybe a little more. But, looking at Dr. Kassam, there are still moments when he has to go take a bathroom break. Or come back to his computer and make a phone call and take time to recuperate because the guy has to come back after seeing each patient, so what about those critical key moments, maybe he can take a moment, because of his personality.

One of the questions that came up was, do you think we can implement something like this for a different doctor. I don’t know; it’s definitely situational and Dr. Kassam is the kind of person who would take the time to—even one or two seconds—he’s so curious about the patients. He explicitly was saying to us: yeah, I want you guys to focus on the waiting room, because I don’t really get to go out there physically. But he is curious about what’s going on out there. So service design emerges more as a conversation, as a dialectic. Giving people what they need at different times.

JAMIN: I think to begin answering that question, it helps to understand the way we might define interaction design and it’s definitely not limited to interface design. That’s just a small component of it. In its most general sense it’s just actions and behavior. That’s what we’re designing for. And what’s the realm of actions and behavior? There is none. But within that, there’s definitely service design. You’re looking at how some entity delivers a particular service. And the whole extent of that. So not a particular product. The result of a service design engagement might be a product, but it’s not that someone came to us and asked us to design a booklet. Or, if it were a cellphone, asking us to design an interface for this thing that we’re making. It’s: here’s this situation, to get a designerly understanding of the problems and then think about where you can start making an impact which is why our solutions were across the board, because we weren’t actually implementing them, we were like: you could do this, or this. We have a feeling that all of these will improve the experience. And that’s sort of the unique thing. I don’t know if it’s unique to interaction design vs service design…

KIP: I would add that we were doing some sort of organizational design, this fourth mode of design, because when designers talk about things they’re always angry: how can I change the organization I’m in? I’m having organizational problems with programmers and how do we make an impact and how do we get to the table? But maybe that’s the project that we were doing; we got the buy-in from UPMC. It was beyond interfaces, dealing with certain parts, not just the staff, but the organization as a whole. Maybe it wasn’t just our project with the UPMC Presby and the neuroclinic but I think all four groups coming together and presenting before these key members of UPMC. Just addressing parts of the organization, different projects. I think this is more than the common notion that most people think of interaction design as just sitting in front of a computer and making interfaces and websites. We were dealing with management.

JAMIN: I think that it’s interesting that— you asked if we did a particular service design project within UPMC. And then we presented this to people who were at higher levels. And that created the conversation that we were just talking about where they want to have a closer relationship with the school, where it can affect their organization overall. And in fact, that was one of the things they were interested in; The Center for Quality Improvement. When they came to us, was solutions that could be applied to other areas. Which was a nice thing about Clinic Chat. It didn’t have to be Dr. Kassam; it wasn’t Doctor Kassam-chat. It was Clinic Chat. I could be for any clinic. It was those needs that we identified. Those needs were not dissimilar for other people. The way it’s delivered might be slightly different because of people. But the idea could potentially affect the higher organization.

KIP: They don’t want to work with just us. They want to work with CMU. We’re part of something bigger, which is a sign that this isn’t just a flat line that is in front of you. In trying to do a service design project we were able to redefine what interaction design means for us, and that’s always a good thing.

JAMIN: And in terms of how that project has impacted the other work that we do, at least in the background if not more forward, that you are designing for a holistic experience and you have to think about all the different relationships and stakeholders and that is very difficult to do depending on your project, but at least have some understanding, different from how anyone else would design, or if you’re a good designers, should you not be considering the implications around whatever it is you’re designing? You certainly should, so I don’t know how it is specifically different than doing interaction design. It’s nice that you have something that you can call a part of interaction design that you can distinctly separate from UI Design, but that doesn’t mean that interaction design and service design are different. Or that I would practice them differently. I think, as Kip said, this was the scope that we were given, so we will approach it in a service or organizational design type way. If they had come to us and said specifically that we need you to redesign this operating system for interacting with patients over the web then that probably wouldn’t have— I don’t know. I would have been an interesting thing, that specific. And if we were calling it service design what would that have meant to our process.

KIP: I think one of the questions we also had when we were talking about service design through the process was: so what is the product of all this? And as you see the booklet and Clinic Chat, and maybe our previous solution was you make products as an end product; the final thing that we deliver. I see that booklet and Clinic Chat as the means to something greater. I don’t know. I think we still have to challenge ourselves in terms of…

JEFF: So it’s more than just touchpoints?

KIP: It’s definitely more than just touchpoints. Those things are just parts of something else. Understanding, as Jamin said, something a lot bigger.

JAMIN: These are conversations for further involvement, but ultimately it’d be great to create something real and see the impact of it. Sort of an interesting question about what is design.

KIP: Is that the end question? What is the difference between service design and interaction design?

JEFF: It’s an interesting question. Lots of people are asking and trying to define it and they have been for thirty years. And I think it’s starting to evolve and starting to have more interest throughout the design community.

JAMIN: I think it may just be thinking more about the experience in service delivery, rather than optimizing flows, or… I don’t know. Even at Emergence, some of the people that were there talking were less service design-y and more from the business context but kind of thought… definitely operating in the service space. The way they were talking about what they were doing. I don’t know, is delivering a good experience from a design perspective different than a marketing perspective? I’m not sure I could even explain what I think I mean by that, but it seemed like some of what they were talking about at Emergence was like they recognized that it was just good business to deliver a good experience. You know, it’s pretty obvious. But then how do you actually design for that, or is a designerly approach to solving that problem different than like: we need to do this because it’s good for business, and we need to make money to survive. And I think that’s definitely the perspective that Kip and I have, in our work, in terms of the empathy and emotional needs of people. We’re not delivering products to make UPMC money, which is where some of the people at Emergence suggested that they recognized that they need to deliver this good experience because they want to make money—which is fine; we want to make money too. But I’m not sure that’s the primary motivator for the work that we do.

KIP: It’s interesting that you said that service design started maybe 20 or 30 years ago, because Dick was saying that service design began at the turn of the century.

JEFF: True; I’m sure that people have been designing services a lot longer than people have been writing about service design.

KIP: And Mr. Todd Wilkens talked at Emergence and was really interesting about Kodak—

JEFF: “You push the button and we do the rest.”

KIP: Right, and if you think about Mr. John Dewey and his whole “having an experience” thing, maybe it’s been around and we just need to— and maybe that’s why the argument is that we are good at it as designers.

JEFF: We just hadn’t articulated it before.

JAMIN: So it’s weird to think of it as something new. Or as something that’s getting attention in the design world. Designing services: it’s always existed. Things were always being designed. Just maybe not explicitly by designers thinking in a designerly way.




    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

    Connecting to %s