Viewpoint: service design’s promise in times of crisis Open Access

The new millennium has seen a series of unprecedented crises, including financial, economic and health crises, demographic shifts, massive immigration, environmental challenges, terrorism and rapid technological change (Gryszkiewicz and Chen, 2012). A crisis refers to “an abnormal situation which presents some extraordinary, high risk to business”, in which “important decisions have to be made in a short time, where management procedures must be maintained” (Shaluf et al., 2003, p. 29). It is hardly surprising that a rising number of researchers have reflected on how crises affect businesses and how companies respond to crises to maintain their competitiveness under exceptional circumstances (e.g. Mele et al., 2021; Zuokas et al., 2022). The recent COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated how far-reaching the consequences of an unexpected crisis can be for firms (Kabadayi et al., 2020). Businesses of all sizes struggled to survive and, in many instances, were forced to shut down permanently. The pandemic particularly affected micro and traditional service firms, as well as minority and family-owned firms, due to their limited resources (Duncan et al., 2023). In times of crises, firms must find ways to mitigate their impact not only to survive but also because firm actions may help alleviate consumer suffering and assist the public sector in coping with the crisis.

Within service marketing, service design (SD) has been identified as one way to create uplifting changes in consumer well-being (Russell-Bennett and Rosenbaum, 2022). Widely seen as a human-centred, holistic and iterative approach used in service development (Holmlid and Evenson, 2008; Sangiorgi, 2009; Stickdorn et al., 2018), SD tackles complex problems. It helps businesses find opportunities amid disruptions and crises by pivoting and leveraging innovative technologies and strategies to address customer needs (Duncan et al., 2023). Studying SD and crisis is particularly relevant given SD’s pivotal role in ensuring competitive strength during times of uncertainty and ambiguity (Liedtka, 2015).

Despite these suggested benefits, we believe that SD has received too little attention in conjunction with crises. Consequently, this viewpoint proposes SD as a promising approach for mitigating crises. We aim to explore how SD has been used in connection to crises originating outside the company. To do this, we first discuss SD and crisis, including the results of a scoping review on SD in the context of crises. Thereafter, we showcase how small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) used SD during the COVID-19 pandemic. We then introduce a framework that underscores the potential of SD in crisis contexts, emphasizing its role in addressing immediate challenges and forward-looking capacity to build organizational capabilities and resilience through learning from past disruptions and preparing for future uncertainties. Finally, we discuss implications for practitioners and researchers based on this proactive approach to SD.

SD plays a crucial role in increasing the competitive edge of a company through its ability to foster innovation. The process involves gathering data about consumer needs, generating ideas based on those needs and testing these ideas with customers (Liedtka, 2015). This constitutes a process that can be integrated into broader innovation efforts. Earlier research reveals that SD helps service developers understand customer experiences (Mahr et al., 2013) and activities (Gummerus et al., 2021), envision new value propositions (Ostrom et al., 2015), gain support for technology integration (Teixeira et al., 2017), shift the focus from technology to human-centricity (Kustrak Korper et al., 2020) and adopt a broader ecosystem perspective on innovation (Vink et al., 2021). It also helps overcome cognitive biases such as overoptimism, egocentricity and endowment effects (Liedtka, 2015). SD typically takes place in close collaboration between people and builds on a deep understanding of the intended or current users of the offering – including, but not limited to, end consumers.

Despite this promising evidence of SD’s role in supporting innovation work, less is known about how SD can help firms handle crises. When consumer behaviour changes fundamentally, as it did during the COVID-19 pandemic (Kirk and Rifkin, 2020; Sheth, 2020; Mele et al., 2021), it seems plausible that firms need to respond to such changes and innovate to stay competitive and relevant in the changed business environment – and that SD can support them in doing so.

To explore how current research addresses the role of SD in handling a crisis, we searched Scopus using the search words “service design” AND cris*s in the publication keywords, limited to the categories of Business Management and Social Sciences. This search yielded 40 articles. After initial scanning, 18 articles were excluded because their abstracts did not reference “service design”. Of the remaining 22 articles, a further 15 articles were excluded due to a lack of clear evidence of SD being used concerning a crisis. The final sample of seven articles is presented in Table 1. The low number of studies suggests that, to date, limited scholarly attention has been given to the role of SD in crisis contexts.

The studies address various types of crises, including the logistics crisis following the COVID-19 pandemic (Wang et al., 2023), the ecological and social crisis (Huang and Chen, 2024), the financial crisis (Salinas, 2022), the environmental crisis (Touloum et al., 2018) and the refugee crisis (Nasr and Fisk, 2019). These crises are complex and involve multiple stakeholders (Touloum et al., 2018). Most of the research uses qualitative methods, particularly interviews with tourists, civil servants, workers, professionals or experts. These studies reveal SD’s potential for understanding consumer behaviour (Touloum et al., 2018), fostering innovation during crises (Huang and Chen, 2024) and grasping the scope of crises while improving tools for alleviating them (Nasr and Fisk, 2019). Moreover, SD has been shown to enhance service performance (Megawati et al., 2024) and support understanding both the present and the envisioning of possible and desirable future scenarios (Salinas, 2022).

Despite the strengths identified in these studies, it is noteworthy that many largely overlook the human-centred nature of SD. Only three out of seven papers explicitly discuss human behaviours (Huang and Chen, 2024; Nasr and Fisk, 2019; Touloum et al., 2018). SD methods such as the double diamond process (Huang and Chen, 2024; Salinas, 2022; Touloum et al., 2018), World Café (Huang and Chen, 2024) and user journey mapping (Touloum et al., 2018) were applied in the data collection and analysis to understand the case studies. However, there is limited insight into consumer behaviour itself. For instance, consumer trends in the textile industry were briefly mentioned in Huang and Chen (2024) as emerging but marked post-pandemic anxiety. Refugee needs were emphasized by Nasr and Fisk (2019) as important, yet the study did not elaborate on specific needs beyond the basic human necessities. Touloum et al. (2018) used persona-UX techniques to illustrate user behaviour patterns, noting a general lack of studies in this area. Across the literature, no study has provided in-depth empirical data on changes in consumer behaviour.

Overall, there is a lack of empirical evidence on how companies use SD to handle crises. This highlights the need for further exploration of how SD is applied in practice during such events. In the following section, we present a small exploratory study among SMEs in Finland – a European country significantly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. As a global crisis, the pandemic had a profound impact on both customer behaviour and firm operations.

We chose a qualitative exploratory approach, which is suited to understanding a phenomenon that has not been widely explored and that occurs in a non-controlled environment, such as a crisis involving unexpected changes. The data were collected from SMEs that develop digital technologies. The main themes in the interview guide (see  Appendix) focused on the changes in SD that the firms had made in response to consumers’ changed behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic.

SMEs play a dominant role in the economy in most countries. For example, in Europe, they account for 99% of all enterprises, 72% of total employment, 50% of total value added and 55% of exports (European Commission, 2022). Moreover, new technology is the main driver of service innovation (Toivonen and Tuominen, 2009), which makes this field particularly relevant for research.

To capture empirical variability while ensuring that the companies are not too different from each other, we selected similar-sized companies, with the number of employees ranging between 50 and 100. The companies’ offerings pertained to digital technologies within e-commerce, mobility, energy, health care and wholesale. Only companies that provided evidence on their webpages of having used SD before and after the pandemic outbreak were included in the sample. After the initial screening, 12 companies were contacted, of which 10 agreed to participate in the study.

The informants worked directly with SD in developing services (design, tech and IT consultants). Semi-structured interviews were conducted from April to September 2021. The interviews took place either in person or online, lasted approximately 60 min and were recorded. After transcription, the data were classified and labelled, starting with base categories and then abstracted to identify patterns and groups. The categories were compared across cases.

The data analysis followed an inductive reasoning process. To capture “the most empirically grounded and theoretically interesting factors” (Azungah, 2018, p. 391), the data were carefully examined line by line and coded as sentences or paragraphs that uncovered concepts. This approach is suitable because it facilitates rich interpretive data analysis, which is necessary for discovering previously unidentified themes and frameworks of SD in crisis management. This led us to identify two main themes: changes in consumer behaviour during the crisis and navigating the crisis with SD. Sub-themes are discussed under these main themes. Next, the results will be discussed, starting with the changes in consumer behaviour that shaped the companies’ business environment.

Substantial adjustments in consumer behaviour became prominent during the pandemic and can be roughly summarized in four themes.

Consumers adhered to COVID-19 safety regulations, adopting behaviours such as wearing face masks, frequent handwashing and sanitizing and maintaining social distancing:

Due to lockdown-related travel restrictions, consumers favoured domestic travel and local vacationing. Many also returned to their hometowns during the lockdown period:

With office closures, consumers were forced to switch to remote or hybrid work models. Many struggled to adapt to this new way of working:

Consumers significantly integrated their use of digital services and online purchasing. This trend spanned all age groups with some – particularly the elderly – requiring assistance to navigate digital tools:

Informants from the studied companies reported significant changes to SD, driven by shifts in customer behaviour and limitations on employees’ ability to work on-site. These changes were categorized into three main themes: market intelligence, management workflow and tools and methods. Each theme is elaborated below with illustrative quotes (C = companies using SD, BC = business clients/customers, EC = end consumers).

Market intelligence refers to the collection, analysis and communication of market and user information to support decision-making in SD. Due to restricted customer contact, activities such as interviews, workshops and user testing transitioned to virtual formats. This shift required enhanced online tools and settings to replace in-person communication:

The move online also demanded increased digital readiness among staff to collect customer feedback. Communication shifted from deep, in-person interactions to more frequent but less personal online exchanges, using tools like email and Microsoft Teams for project briefs, drafts and deliverables.

Management workflow encompasses the SD tasks and processes that ensure efficient operations. As SD work moved online for all stakeholders (C, BC and EC), companies faced challenges in adapting their workflows. Traditional methods for user research and testing were replaced or modified:

Engaging consumers became more difficult, as virtual methods lacked the excitement and depth of in-person interactions:

SD tools and methods had to evolve to accommodate changes in consumer behaviour, particularly in testing, evaluation and improvement phases. Informants noted a loss of physical context and emotional cues, which hindered understanding of customer needs:

This lack of direct contact increased the risk of cognitive biases, such as over-reliance on internal assumptions.

To address these challenges, companies adjusted their SD tools and methods. In-person interviews were replaced with phone or virtual meetings, and new or modified digital tools were developed to interpret user feedback:

During the testing phase, physical contact with customers was limited. All testing was conducted online, which made qualitative evaluation more difficult. Designers had to rely solely on verbal feedback, testing features individually rather than in groups, which reduced consumer reflexivity:

Our findings indicate that SD was actively adapted in response to the crisis and the resulting changes in consumer behaviour. In the next section, we explore how these adaptations and behavioural changes evolved in parallel.

SMEs that develop digital technologies found alternative solutions and turned challenges into opportunities by adjusting SD to the changed business environment – particularly in response to shifts in consumer behaviour. These changes are summarized in Figure 1, where C2B refers to the relationship between SMEs and their business customers, and C2E refers to the relationship between SMEs and end consumers.

Firstly, due to travel and safety restrictions, service designers were forced to switch from in-person interviews and testing to virtual and online meetings. Although these remote settings lacked contextual cues, emotional depth and human connection, service designers adapted by using more flexible interview questions and alternative testing approaches.

Secondly, face-to-face SD workshops for ideation, modelling and testing could no longer be conducted. To address this challenge, SD tools and methods were transitioned to virtual platforms and further developed to support effective online workshops.

Third, SD in development activities was adjusted by shifting the focus to online service development. This included testing features individually, based on observed user behaviour, while also minimizing risk.

Figure 2 introduces a conceptual framework illustrating the potential of SD in times of crisis. It adopts a forward-looking perspective, proposing that SD can evolve beyond reactive measures to become a way to proactively strengthen firm capabilities and resilience. By learning from past crises and preparing for future disruptions, SD could help organizations mitigate different kinds of crises more effectively.

Building on insights from our small-scale study on the COVID-19 pandemic as a case of crisis, the framework begins by identifying how firms use SD to respond to crises. The key changes in consumer behaviour observed during the pandemic, such as increased attention to health and safety, a preference for localized mobility, the widespread adoption of remote work and greater reliance on digital services prompted service designers to adapt their practices in three main areas (market intelligence, management workflows and the tools and methods used in design processes). In response, companies moved their research and collaboration activities online, upgraded digital tools and restructured workflows to support remote engagement. These adaptations enabled the creation of new or modified services and interfaces tailored to the constraints of the pandemic.

Crucially, the framework underscores the value of past experiences as learning opportunities. By integrating insights gained during crises, organizations could strengthen their SD capabilities and adopt a more proactive stance towards future disruptions, ultimately enhancing their preparedness and resilience.

Through this framework, we aim to advance current knowledge of how SD can be used in times of crises by extending its role beyond crisis response to include proactive mitigation and resilience-building in business environments. This extended view aligns with the work of Chowdhury et al. (2025), who suggest designing resilient and sustainable service systems to overcome disruptions.

We propose a proactive approach to SD in crisis contexts consisting of two key elements: learning and preparing. A proactive approach is defined as “developing a service system’s resilience to mitigate the impact of potential disruption” (Chowdhury et al., 2025, p.26). Our framework suggests that organizations can build SD capabilities and resilience by integrating lessons from past crises and preparing for a range of future disruptions. In today’s volatile world, this forward-looking use of SD is increasingly essential.

Crises compel companies to quickly recognize and respond to changing customer behaviours. SD supports this process through its iterative nature, enabling continuous improvement based on user feedback (Stickdorn et al., 2018). This interdependence highlights how closely SD is tied to shifts in consumer behaviour at a societal level. While SD has been studied in relation to future thinking and service innovation (Ojasalo et al., 2015), its role in navigating crises remains underexamined. We argue that SD’s unique value lies in its ability to help firms prepare for volatility rather than merely responding to it.

SD can anticipate future consumer needs by asking exploratory questions (Harwood et al., 2020) and generating new service ideas grounded in a deep understanding of customer contexts (Ojasalo et al., 2015). Such “what if” scenarios (Harwood et al., 2020; Mahanta, 2023) include asking questions such as: What if there was a limit on energy consumption? What if the government capped waste generation?

Educators could incorporate such methods into the training of service designers to encourage their ability to imagine and explore alternative futures, as well as to challenge current assumptions. For this purpose, Thakral (2025) proposes a set of approaches under the umbrella of Speculative Design, which focuses on the future consequences and implications of the relationship between science, technology and humanity. These methods include scenario building, design fiction and storytelling, prototyping experiential simulations, discursive and critical design, cultural probes, role-play and co-design workshops. These approaches not only enhance creativity but also cultivate a mindset of critical foresight – essential for navigating complex and uncertain futures. They are particularly powerful tools when applied in the context of various crises.

During a crisis, SD facilitates iterative collaboration and co-creation by engaging stakeholders in repeated cycles of development and refinement. Tools such as customer journeys, service maps and personas are used to refine services based on user feedback (Stickdorn et al., 2018). As our empirical study shows, this enables companies to reflect on past and present activities holistically to better prepare for the future.

After a crisis, SD supports reflection and learning through storytelling and visualization techniques (Harwood et al., 2020), helping stakeholders, e.g. service designers and business leaders understand how various factors are interconnected and which changes had the greatest impact. Combining foresight tools – such as trend cards, future wheels and change paths – with SD methods can help organizations design more resilient, future-ready services (Ojasalo et al., 2015).

In summary, our viewpoint proposes a before–during–after approach to crisis planning, where SD plays a role in prediction, mitigation and learning. As Mahanta (2023) notes, service designers are trained to anticipate future needs and create adaptable, holistic solutions that address complex societal challenges. Nevertheless, the full potential of SD in proactively mitigating the impact of crises remains largely untapped.

Given the limited research on SD in crisis contexts, we call for further investigation. Our framework offers a starting point, and future studies could expand its application across different types of crises, organizations and countries. Comparative and longitudinal research, particularly on services developed during the pandemic, could reveal which innovations endure and why. In addition, exploring the links between SD and factors such as employee well-being, emotional engagement and stakeholder transformation would deepen our understanding of SD’s broader impact. More attention is also needed to SD’s role in addressing individual-level crises and vulnerabilities, such as disability, and in navigating sudden regulatory or market shifts.

Moreover, the crisis we explored was health-related and required isolation, while other crises may involve different types of changes. Such changes might be societal, technological, economic and environmental in nature – or combinations thereof – each with its own requirements for SD adaptations and for preparations for future uncertainty. Finally, it would be pivotal to explore how crises, ecosystem change and SD align, as crises are likely to affect entire ecosystems. This calls for a deeper understanding of SD and institutional arrangements to realize long-term change (see Vink et al., 2021) and foster resilience in ecosystems. SD for ecosystem sustainability may be one such promising area for future research.

1. Company background:

   • What is your company’s business sector and what are its key activities?

   • What is your position in the company?

   • Who are your customers (e.g. business clients and end users)?

   • What services does your company offer?

2. Changes in consumer behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic:

   • How was your company affected when your customers responded to the COVID-19 pandemic?

   • How was your company affected when your customers tried to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic?

   • How was your company affected when your customers adapted to the new normal?

3. Developing services and service design in the company:

   • How did your company respond to these changes in service development?

   • Did service design play a role in your response? If yes, in what ways was it useful? If not, why not?

4. Use of service design during the COVID-19 pandemic:

   • Did you use service design differently during the pandemic? If so, how?

   • How did you use service design to understand changes in customer behaviour? Which methods or tools were used?

   • How did you use service design to ideate service solutions in response to those changes? Which methods or tools were used?

   • How did you use service design to model solutions and plans? Which methods or tools were used?

   • How did you use service design to conceptualize and test solutions? Which methods or tools were used?

5. Additional questions

   • What are the pros and cons of using service design to address changes in customer behaviour during the pandemic?

   • Would you consider using service design in the future? If so, how?

   • Is there anything else you would like to share about service innovation during or after the pandemic?

Source(s): Authors’ own work