Amid global uncertainty and systemic challenges, service design is increasingly recognized for its potential to drive meaningful change across societal and organizational contexts. The purpose of this viewpoint is to identify emerging themes, roles and competencies shaping the evolving service design practice, while examining its current scope, key challenges and transformative dynamics. It further offers a foundation for future research agendas aimed at advancing service design in a rapidly changing context.
Drawing on insights from 40 service design practitioners, encompassing both in-house and design consultancy professionals operating in the Nordics, the authors examine the key themes that characterize contemporary service design practice.
The authors organize the emerging themes in service design practice around materiality in service design, organizational logics, technological transformations, sustainable and inclusive futures and service designer as a professional identity.
This work highlights the need for service organizations, managers and design practitioners to recognize and respond to the evolving challenges of contemporary service design, such as shifting roles, emerging competencies and changing organizational conditions, while offering actionable insights for practitioners, educators and organizations using service designers.
This viewpoint lays out a future research agenda, emphasizing the role of academia in advancing knowledge in the identified service design practice themes.
Introduction
Service design has been gaining relevance in service research throughout the past three decades. However, its multidisciplinary origins (Prestes Joly et al., 2019) have made it difficult to precisely define the scope and contributions of service design. Most definitions describe it as a human-centered, collaborative, iterative and creative approach to service innovation (Meroni and Sangiorgi, 2011; Karpen et al., 2017; Patrício et al., 2020). It is also understood as a process of shaping the “materials” of service (e.g. Blomkvist et al., 2016, 2023). Earlier discussions centered on service materials such as servicescapes (Bitner, 1992) and touchpoints (Clatworthy, 2011), emphasizing tangible service elements. More recent perspectives extend beyond the tangible, encompassing socio-material configurations (Kimbell, 2011; Vink and Koskela-Huotari, 2021; Vink et al., 2021) and organizational transformation (Kurtmollaiev et al., 2018) that capture the interplay of both tangible and intangible elements (Blomkvist et al., 2023).
Service design practice centers on the holistic design and enhancement of services to create cohesive, meaningful customer experiences (CXs) across various touchpoints, as well as digital and physical environments. It has become prominent in sectors such as hospitality, health care, finance and education, both in public and private contexts, where CX is a key differentiator and strategic priority. Historically, Northern Europe has played a significant role in advancing service design due to its strong design traditions and longstanding emphasis on human-centered approaches, particularly in Finland, the UK and across Scandinavia (e.g. Wetter-Edman et al., 2014). These regions have played a key role in shaping service design practice as a multidisciplinary approach to addressing complex service challenges and enhancing CXs across diverse contexts.
In this viewpoint, we turn our attention to the maturing service design practice in the Nordics, seeking to develop a nuanced understanding of the challenges, opportunities and identity crisis encountered by experienced service design practitioners. Our aim is twofold: to inspire a research agenda that advances the field of service design and to strengthen the connection between service design research and practice. As educators and researchers preparing future generations of service designers, we advocate for a partnership between academia and practice (Rossi et al., 2017; Nenonen et al., 2017). Such collaboration and knowledge co-production are essential for addressing complex societal challenges and propelling the field into new frontiers.
Our approach
This viewpoint builds on the insights gathered from a series of focus group interviews (Krueger and Casey, 2001) organized in 2023 and 2024 with both in-house (i.e. dedicated to a single organization) and consultancy-based (i.e. serving multiple client organizations) service design professionals. The focus group method was selected to facilitate not only the exchange of ideas but also dynamic interactions and lively discussions among the expert participants, fostering the evolution of collective insights and perspectives. The focus groups were hosted at the leading Nordic University and facilitated by faculty members responsible for service design education and curriculum development. The aim was to draw inspiration from design practitioners and align the university curriculum with contemporary industry trends, focusing on organizational challenges, external influences and opportunities for service design.
The first focus group (n = 21) in August 2023 gathered service design practitioners from leading local companies and agencies across industries such as retail, hospitality, engineering and finance. Participants were divided into four moderated discussion groups. The second (n = 11) and third (n = 8) focus group sessions were held in November 2024, featuring senior service design managers and design directors. In all sessions, topics included emerging trends in service design, project types and challenges faced by practitioners. Please refer to Appendix 1 for an overview of the participants and the format of the focus groups. The collected data were analyzed through thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006).
We present emerging insights through an organizing framework (see Figure 1), illustrating emerging thematic areas, namely:
Insights from service design practitioners in an organizing framework
Source: Authors’ own work
Insights from service design practitioners in an organizing framework
Source: Authors’ own work
materiality in service design;
organizational logics;
technological transformations;
sustainable and inclusive futures, impact; and
the professional identity of a service designer.
At the center, we highlight three core competencies that form the backbone of the service design profession. We further unpack these themes in Table 1, through a discussion of subthemes, drawing on key insights from the focus groups and illustrated with supporting quotes.
Emerging themes with empirical evidence
| Themes | Subthemes | Key discussions with quotes |
|---|---|---|
| 1) Materiality in Service Design – captures the evolving nature of what service design does, delivers and enables – its tangible and intangible “materials” and the shift in how designers frame, structure and scale their work within organizations | Inputs – “what service design shapes” vs Outputs – “what service design delivers” vs Outcomes – “results and benefits service design seeks to achieve” | This subtheme reflects the idea that service design is not just about outputs (e.g. blueprints, touchpoints, prototypes) but also about the inputs (skills, processes, mindsets) and the outcomes (transformation, learning, cultural shifts) it catalyzes Keeping the roots in design – the relevance of core design skills remains, such as visual language, knowledge creation, future foresight, nurturing collective imagination and the ability to concretize service concepts, use cases and processes “We make knowledge that supports co-creation and collaboration. That is what we design. This is a huge part of the job, to make the collaboration smooth”. (Design consultancy) Facilitate service designers’ and other collaborators’ “own” creativity. There is a need to find new angles to inspire and facilitate creativity (e.g. service designers need to “rewild themselves”) “Bringing radical creativity into culture and strategy”. (In-house design team) |
| From project-based (output or solution-oriented) to program-based or programmatic (outcome-oriented) service design | To scale service design: moving away from focused, time-bound project-based work to continuous and broader development, program-based work “How to scale design without hiring 1000 designers?” (Design consultancy) From project-based outputs to outcome-based roadmaps requires a mindset shift from service designers used to working on projects and having complete control over the design process. There is a need to build ownership, which emphasizes the importance of engaging others (i.e. other functions critical to the business goals) in the design process, fostering a sense of investment and creating a shared connection to the design’s success “Designers need to lose control and build ownership”. (Design consultancy) Strong interest from all participants in developing customer journey management or customer journey ops; embedding customer journey as a way of working around the customer “Customer journey ops are a hot topic!” (both B2C and B2B in-house design teams) | |
| Transformation and optimization vs innovation | Design should be seen as a “transformative change capability” in organizations Company culture as the object/material of design “[Changing] the company culture is the radical creativity” (In-house design team) In times of crisis or economic constraint, service design’s materiality may shift – from enabling innovation to focusing on optimization. Still, its transformative capacity remains central, requiring designers to flex and adapt their practice to different business needs “[The consultancy started] selling optimization instead of innovation as a way to make designers less vulnerable and redundant”. (Design consultancy) | |
| 2) Organizational logics – captures the skillset and mindset needed by designers to engage meaningfully with the internal rationalities of institutions – translating design values into organizational language, and vice versa, to enable sustainable and strategic transformation | Anthropological inquiry and organizational literacy | Achieving strategic levels of change involves anthropological inquiry and a deep understanding of organizational ontology “It is important for designers to understand what animal the organization is”. (Design consultancy) Designers must be able to navigate between macro (strategic), meso (team) and micro (individual) levels, combining insights from sociology, change management and organizational theory |
| Storytelling with numbers | The power of storytelling, but also demonstrating impact with facts and numbers, as skills to be practiced in achieving internal buy-in throughout the organization. Storytelling is something that people remember. You can stand out and create a greater impact “Facilitation and storytelling are top competencies for design. Change the narrative to inspire people”. (In-house design team) Integrating standardized business metrics as a common practice to effectively operate within the organizational logic. For example, working with the objectives and key results (OKRs) framework “OKRs should not be separated from design but rather integrated”. (In-house design team) “We are having data scientists teaching designers to use the quant language so they can mix the two”. (Design consultancy) | |
| Change management | Designers increasingly take on the roles of internal change agents. This includes not only shifting ways of working or designing services, but also advocating for cultural and mindset shifts, often requiring a deep understanding of how organizations resist or absorb change “Change management comprises changing “directions”, “mindsets”, “ways of working”, but also “change activism”. (In-house design team) “Customer maturity assessment is a great tool for management to get ideas on how to utilize design and activate the in-house team”. (In-house design team)\ | |
| 3) Technological transformation –explores how emerging technologies – especially artificial intelligence (AI) – are reshaping the scope, methods and material of service design | AI as a tool vs material of service design | While “AI does not replace design and designers”, it can serve as a valuable tool in new service development. For instance, AI can be leveraged at various stages of the design process, from deepening customer understanding and facilitating idea generation, to prototyping and testing “AI does not replace design and designers”. (Design consultancy) Automation and overall understanding of the system are lacking. The lack of attention to system-wide integration of AI reveals a need for deeper organizational and technical literacy among service designers “Automation is neglected in our design. We are not designing the system”. (In-house design team) AI is not merely a support tool; it is also becoming part of the service experience itself, a material that designers shape and integrate into customer interactions “Designing with AI as an actor participating and influencing the customer experience”. (In-house design team) |
| Humans–AI creativity and collaboration | Technological transformation calls for new forms of creativity, collaboration and criticality, ensuring that technology is integrated in ways that are ethical, purposeful and grounded in human values The emphasis is on the pivotal role of designers’ creativity in identifying innovative applications and business cases for AI in service contexts “The use cases are the role of design, not data scientists”. (Design consultancy) | |
| 4) Sustainable and inclusive futures – explores how service design can act as a catalyst for long-term ecological, social and systemic change, moving beyond short-term fixes toward more ethical, inclusive and regenerative service ecosystems | Systemic and regenerative initiatives | Designers are increasingly taking on roles as quiet activists or systemic changemakers, embedding sustainability and inclusion not just in final outputs, but throughout design processes and organizational practices. This activism may be subtle – working within structures – or emerge through more radical collectives and pioneering individual efforts Sustainability agendas should occur incrementally, guided by “gentle, empathetic, and systematic shifts”. Designers can integrate it into the design process “step by step”, e.g. embedded into the design process and deliverables. The emphasis is on embedding change at every stage, rather than treating it as an afterthought “It is the responsibility of the design community to push a preferred future; design for the future and make it tangible”. (In-house design team) |
| Compliance and regulations | The push toward sustainability is increasingly shaped by external forces such as the corporate sustainability reporting directive (CSRD) and digital accessibility regulations. Designers must be equipped to navigate these regulatory layers, understanding how compliance intersects with sustainability, privacy (e.g. GDPR), supply chains, and procurement practices. This calls for broader organizational and systemic literacy “We need to understand the different [regulatory] layers, e.g. accessibility, data GDPR, sustainability” (In-house design team) | |
| 5) Service Designer as a Professional Identity – surfaces critical reflections on what it means to be a service designer today, e.g. how identities are formed, negotiated and reshaped through practice, and how designers maintain relevance in complex, evolving organizational ecosystems | Fluid identity | Service designers operate across multiple levels of organizations, from hands-on implementation to high-level strategy, which adds fluidity and ambiguity to their professional identity. The term “service designer” itself can carry different meanings depending on the context and team composition “Everyone has a different understanding of what service design is. We all work on the same team in design and work with different business areas”. (In-house design team) |
| Integration and repositioning | Integration: the impact of an in-house service design unit depends on the organizational structures and managerial models shaping the conditions for integrating service design capabilities. Designers must often work across silos and negotiate their role within non-design-centric environments Repositioning of service design: Dropping the service design term was unanimously mentioned as a good practice to re-position service design within the broader organizational strategy “We have dropped service design completely. It is more strategic, dealing with the business organization. Working in cross-functional teams, yoúll not be doing design as such” (Design consultancy) | |
| New competencies | As service design moves up the ladder, it is increasingly expected to contribute to organizational transformation with new competencies (e.g. related to change management, business strategy, systemic literacy and data fluency). Likewise, consultancies are exploring new frames of service design that highlight interdisciplinarity, collaboration, autonomy, and adaptability "Process design is replacing service design. To avoid getting more designers fired, we started selling for optimization instead of innovation to make designers less vulnerable and redundant”. (Design consultancy) |
Findings
In this section, we outline five key themes that emerged through the integration of conceptual exploration and practitioner insights. In the following section, we then synthesize these themes and offer a broader reflection on how they collectively contribute to advancing contemporary service design practice.
Materiality in service design
As a multidisciplinary field of research and practice, service design has numerous definitions and characterizations. While it is broadly recognized as an approach to implementing value co-creation in service development (Yu and Sangiorgi, 2018), the material elements that it shapes and transforms into remain vague and broad (Blomkvist et al., 2016; Vink and Koskela-Huotari, 2021). This ambiguity raises important questions about the discussion on the relationship between these service design materials, their outputs and outcomes.
To explore this relationship, we approached materialities in service design from three key angles in our focus group discussions: i) inputs – what service design shapes; ii) outputs – what service design “leaves behind”; and iii) outcomes – the results and benefits it aims to achieve.
Participants emphasized the importance of organizational culture as a service design materiality, highlighting its role in fostering new interdisciplinary collaborations and shaping managerial practices. The value of service design outputs in making the invisible visible is highly discussed throughout the history of service design (e.g. Shostack, 1982; Edvardsson and Olsson, 1996; Secomandi and Snelders, 2011; Vink and Koskela-Huotari, 2021), for example, through customer journey maps, visual representations, tools and templates, diverse kinds of interventions and prototypes and actionable research (e.g. Čaić et al., 2019; Hyvärinen and Mattelmäki, 2024). Beyond the scope of service development, our discussions reinforced the relevance of these outputs in facilitating organizational change and shaping new practices within organizations. One participant described the role of “forming knowledge” through the design of tangible probes which enabled a new space for value co-creation: “We make knowledge that supports co-creation and collaboration. That is what we design. This is a huge part of the job, make the collaboration smooth” (Participant 2024-11, Principal designer, Consultancy). Our participants connected these established outputs of service design to the traditional design craft. Visualizing and envisioning, as well as the ability to concretize use case scenarios, were mentioned as core skills employers look for in service design roles.
Another important insight from the focus groups was the shift needed for service design to achieve transformative levels of change. All participants emphasized a critical transition – from an output-centric (project-based) approach to an outcomes-centric (program-based or programmatic) perspective. In organizational settings, a project-based approach focuses on instances with specific objectives, limited scope and timeframes, with project members assembled to achieve a specific project outcome (Turner, 2009). A program-based approach, in contrast, focuses on managing a group of related projects with a larger scope and undefined timeframes, directly addressing organizational strategic goals. Representatives of multiple projects running simultaneously from diverse units work to achieve the same organizational outcome (Patanakul and Milosevic, 2009).
Focus group participants reported being in the early stages of developing new management approaches, which they referred to as “program-based models”, signaling a paradigm shift that transitions service design from isolated, short-term experiments to sustained, integrated practices. According to our participants, a program-based approach envisions service design in alignment with broader organizational goals, operating within longer strategic timeframes and embedding it structurally and culturally within organizations in a systematic way. An example discussed by participants was the adoption of “Customer Journey Management” (CJM) or “Customer Journey Operations or Ops” (CJO). This approach involves transitioning from traditional customer journey mapping (project-based) – such as service blueprints mapping the organization’s core front-stage interactions and back-stage operations from the customer perspective – to customer journey management (program-based), which embed the journey as a core managerial framework. Participants described that this shift often entails forming cross-functional teams, organized around specific journey phases, to measure and monitor individual journeys.
The efforts described by our participants align with current literature exploring design integration in the long term and as a driving force for service systems and organizational transformations, for example, through institutional perspectives (e.g. Kurtmollaiev et al., 2018; Vargo and Lusch, 2016) or integrative systemic approaches (e.g. Koskela-Huotari, et al., 2021). Such developments also resonate with prior research that integrates CX management and measurement with the sequential, contextual and touchpoint-based perspective of the customer journey (e.g. Lemon and Verhoef, 2016).
Finally, we observe that a shift from project to programs, or from journey mapping to journey management, represents not only a pathway to achieving meaningful organizational change but also an adaptive response by the design industry to ensure its resilience amidst the current socioeconomic crisis. One of the participating consultancies noted that, due to reduced investments in innovation, they have recently started positioning process transformation as a key area for client engagement and sales. Traditionally anchored in innovation and new service development, our focus group participants confidently reflected on the value of service design in process transformation and optimization. The articulation and implications of service design in these emerging arenas open opportunities for research and practice.
Organizational logics
The impact design can have in service industries depends greatly on whether service organizations recognize the transformative potential of design in promoting customer-centricity, driving innovations and addressing complex challenges. The model commonly used to understand the openness of organizations to design thinking and design practice is the Design Ladder (The Danish Design Centre, 2018), which describes four levels of design maturity in organizations (Björklund et al., 2018; Ornamo, 2024). The model begins at Level 1, “No Design”, where design is neither consciously nor systematically used within the organization. It advances to Level 2, “Design as Form-Giving”, where design efforts primarily focus on form-giving, aesthetics and styling to enhance the visual and functional appeal of products and services. At Level 3, “Design as Process”, design becomes integrated into product and service development, leveraging human-centered methodologies to drive innovation. Finally, at Level 4, “Design as Strategy”, design is embedded within the organizational strategy, influencing the business model, fostering cultural and innovation strategies and shaping overarching organizational processes.
Our focus group participants represent organizations operating at higher levels of design maturity. Despite this, they emphasized the critical importance of establishing customer-centricity as an organization-wide guiding principle. They also highlighted the pivotal role of design advocates within organizational leadership for fostering and sustaining this customer-focused logic, as well as the importance of not siloing design within a design department but rather adopting design capabilities and understanding the value of design across the organization. In our discussion, participants advocated for the power of storytelling (see e.g. Kankainen et al., 2012; Boje, 2008) but also the power of demonstrating impact with facts and numbers, as skills to be practiced in achieving internal buy-in throughout the organization.
To achieve strategic levels of change, our participants underscored the necessity of understanding “what animal the organization is” (Participant 2024-16, Design director, Consultancy). This involves anthropological inquiry and a deep understanding of organizational ontology. They highlighted the importance of having the ability to zoom in and out across organizational layers, complemented by expertise in sociology, organizational studies and change management, as essential skills for driving transformative initiatives. They admitted that this requires time, which supports the trend of shifting from project-based to program-based working mode. Finally, integrating standardized business metrics, that measure business outcomes instead of service design outputs, was mentioned as a common practice to effectively operate within the organizational logic. For example, participants repeatedly reported working with the Objectives and Key Results framework, popularized by Intel and Google, which defines measurable goals and tracks their outcomes (see e.g. Doerr, 2018).
Technological transformations
Technological advancements, particularly in artificial intelligence (AI), augmented and virtual reality and automation, are profoundly transforming the field of service design by redefining how services are conceptualized, co-created and optimized. These innovations, alongside the growing availability of data, present unparalleled opportunities to elevate CXs and enhance internal operations. Existing service research has explored various aspects of AI’s role in services, including the value of AI tools (e.g. Dhiman et al., 2023) or the influence of AI communication styles across the customer journey (e.g. Grewal et al., 2022). In addition, it has emphasized the importance of phygital environments (e.g. Mele and Russo-Spena, 2022) in shaping CX, where digital and physical interactions converge. Service design, characterized by its human-centered, collaborative, systemic and transformative approach, creatively integrates emerging technologies into diverse service domains (see e.g. Patrício et al., 2020).
Insights from our focus group discussions underscore the pivotal role of designers’ creativity in identifying innovative applications and business cases for AI in service contexts. As one participant stated, “Tech people do not necessarily know the business case” (Participant 2024-8, Strategic designer, Consultancy), they know how to make tools, but they lack understanding of what customer problem they are solving. This is where service designers should step in. Participants unanimously emphasized that while “AI does not replace design and designers”, it can serve as a valuable tool in new service development. For instance, AI can be leveraged at various stages of the design process, from deepening customer understanding to facilitating idea generation.
Participants expressed enthusiasm but also skepticism about AI personas, AI segmentation avatars and other explorations of AI applications to enhance user research. However, they also expressed a shared consensus that AI-powered insights are not substitutes for comprehensive customer research. Instead, these tools demand greater critical thinking, ethical considerations and evaluative capabilities from service designers and managers to ensure meaningful and actionable outcomes.
In the design process, AI takes not only the role of a tool but also a material of design, as elements or affordances that can be consciously formed by designers. This implies that service designers can shape and form AI applications, from their “look and feel” (e.g. anthropomorphic characteristics), to “tone of voice” (e.g. communication styles), to the roles AI assumes along the customer journey. At the same time, AI applications raise concerns related to ethics (e.g. deception, stereotyping and privacy), the transparency of data sources and the potential for manipulation to influence decision-making. Practitioners highlighted their cautious approach to experimenting with AI, noting, for example, “we are very careful with the new AI tools at the corporate level” (Participant 2024-1, Head of strategic design, In-house) due to the lack of system understanding. As AI and automation increasingly contribute to service co-creation, our informants highlighted the critical importance of regulations and laws governing data security and safety. Moreover, they stress the need for strict adherence to digital accessibility standards, advocating for clearer guidance on designing AI-powered services that are inclusive. This includes addressing the needs of neurodivergent individuals, marginalized customer groups and customers with disabilities, ensuring equitable access and usability across diverse customer bases.
AI is increasingly pivotal in optimizing customer journeys by enabling real-time access to data, which facilitates data-driven service customization, dynamic adaptation and predictive analytics. A key insight from our focus groups highlighted the adoption of the “customer or employee journey as an operative model” – a framework where customer journey management serve as a basis for implementing new, customer-centric ways of working. Our informants emphasized the need for service designers to enhance their quantitative data capabilities while fostering interdisciplinary collaboration with data scientists and management consultants. This partnership is essential for transforming raw data into meaningful and actionable insights. By leveraging data science, service designers can augment their practices and create more informed, impactful service solutions (see e.g. Kunneman et al., 2022).
Sustainable and inclusive futures
The discussions on eco-social change and sustainability transitions (e.g. Ceschin and Gaziulusoy, 2016; Vervoort et al., 2024) have also shaped service design research and practice. Designers work with questions on societal change and social sustainability. These include strategies, cultures and means to enhance citizen participation (e.g. Hyysalo and Hyysalo, 2018) and advance inclusion (e.g. Svanda et al., 2021). The shift from focusing on organizational transformation to addressing societal and sustainability transformations seems to be a natural continuation, and service designers are engaged with facilitating the envisioning of more sustainable futures with diverse groups of customers, citizens and decision-makers (e.g. Vaajakallio et al., 2021).
In the focus groups, participants identified advancing sustainability as a significant and meaningful motivator for designers, with a growing emphasis on systemic and regenerative-oriented initiatives. However, they acknowledged that sustainability is not always the primary driver in business contexts. As one participant noted: “Sustainability is the goal, not what we are selling” (Participant 2024-11, Principal designer, Consultancy). Consequently, sustainability agendas must be strategically and thoughtfully integrated into organizational activities, projects and deliverables. Progress in these areas should occur incrementally, guided by gentle, empathetic and systematic shifts to ensure sustainable and effective advancements.
Participants also highlighted the increasing importance of evidence-based approaches when addressing sustainability challenges, emphasizing the need for designers to develop competencies in sustainability metrics and systems thinking. Alongside enhancing their own knowledge, practitioners stressed the importance of effective collaboration with sustainability experts. A foundational understanding of relevant expertise, such as regulatory frameworks, can significantly improve interdisciplinary collaboration and the integration of sustainability into design practices. Moreover, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive regulations push accessibility, especially in digital service design and mastering these requirements is increasingly needed.
Newer topics discussed under the sustainability umbrella were self-awareness, reflexivity and resilience. On the one hand, these developments underline the necessity of navigating turbulent times, adapting to change and uncertainty and nurturing renewal, reflexivity and collaborative and transformative social dynamics (see e.g. Vink and Koskela-Huotari, 2022; Hakio and Mattelmäki, 2023). On the other hand, these themes and practices relate to eco-social sustainability, re-inventing relationships with nature, holistic worldviews and the subtle shifts needed for transformational learning (see e.g. Vervoort et al., 2024). The emphasis on sustainability, alongside the gentle, empathetic and systemic change initiatives occurring with and within organizations, reflects an increasing interest in design activism. This activism manifests through pioneering individual profiles, emerging within novel collectives or being subtly yet systematically embedded into organizational practices and solutions.
Service designer as a professional identity
There has never been a consensus on one but many identities of service design. Sangiorgi et al. (2022), for example, study the formation of these professional identities through the individual trajectories, work roles and the collective in the community of practice. Although recognized as an approach for social and service innovation, service design is in a constant state of flux, far from being an established and clearly framed profession. In this section, we explore service design as a fluid professional identity that changes through the interplay of socioeconomic–ecological factors, organizational contexts and the multidisciplinary competencies that shape its professional profiles.
Literature and industry present a diverse and open interpretation of career identities in service design. This can be explained, for example, in a multi-level and systemic view of service design (e.g. Patrício et al., 2011) that stretches the field into multiple organizational levels spread across the strategic (upstream) and operational spectrum (downstream). In the downstream, we find a more traditional role in design, zooming into the design of the material objects. The tasks at this level align with the initial stages of the “design of services” era, with roles focused on the design of touchpoints and service experience offerings (e.g. Meroni and Sangiorgi, 2011). At this level, our focus groups described professional roles such as user experience (UX)/user interaction (UI), product design, CX design or content design. At the other end of the spectrum, further upstream, we see a less common but emerging design role – where service designers move into strategic and leadership positions (e.g. Sangiorgi et al., 2022) and organizational transformation (e.g. Sangiorgi, 2011; Kurtmollaiev et al., 2018). The tasks at this level are closer to more contemporary views that situate the value exchange within larger ecosystems (e.g. Vink et al., 2021). It is in the upstream where service designers increasingly intersect with leadership or change management roles, traditionally executed by professionals from nondesign backgrounds. At this level, our focus groups described the role of a change agent and job titles like strategists, business developers or product managers. Moreover, as the research expertise in service design practice matures, an increasing number of professionals identify themselves as translators between academic research and service design practice (e.g. Hyvärinen and Mattelmäki, 2024; Botero et al., 2020; Hyysalo and Hyysalo, 2018).
Working at different organizational levels and across different fields adds fluidity to the service designer’s identity, as the role and competencies adapt to the diverse contexts of work, expertise and team dynamics. In our first focus group, many participants described their service design career progressing from downstream roles (e.g. UX designer) to upstream ones (e.g. strategist). Others did not have a role attached to a specific level and enjoyed the flexibility of moving across them.
Is service design everything in that spectrum? The in-house teams and consultancies participating in our study described a conflict in selling the total promise of “service design” internally and externally and described a shift toward promoting ‘design’ instead. “Everyone has a different understanding of what service design is. We all work on the same team in design and work with different business areas.” (Participant 2024-17, Competence lead, In-house).
Far from claiming service design as an area of specialization, our participants described companies moving from “service design units” into bigger “design units” or distributing service designers into multiple functions. This shift is not only reflected in the organizational structure but also in the naming of the units. All participating organizations reported having stopped using the term service design to support the bigger design agenda. “We have dropped service design completely. It is more strategic, dealing with the business organization. Working in cross-functional teams, you′ll not be doing design as such” (Participant 2024-11, Principal designer, Consultancy). Likewise, in the current economic crisis, traditionally vulnerable for design teams, consultancies reported protecting service design by repositioning it outside innovation: “Process design is replacing service design. To avoid getting more designers fired we started selling for optimization instead of innovation to make designers less vulnerable and redundant” (Participant 2024-–9, Service design director, Consultancy).
The mission they described is not one that pushes service design as a specialized field of practice but rather one that legitimizes design as a transformative change capability in strategic decision-making, organizational culture and leadership. Despite the organizational structure and renaming changes, our participants described continuing to deliver on the service design roles across the spectrum. For example, one company described that the service design ethos is present in three units, each covering one horizon: the Design unit, working with the core business, the Innovation unit, working with mid-term business models, and the Foresight unit, working with the longest horizon. The consolidation of service design into other units better aligns with a bottom-up change approach, which seeks to integrate and engage cross-functional teams instead of positioning service design as a sole agent of change. Integration into other units was also expected to support the bigger mission by spreading the service design mindset. “We want to avoid silos, we have 60 designers. The more we are integrated the easier the impact” (Participant 2024-13, Head of Service and digital design, In-house).
On the other hand, in the current eco-socioeconomic context, as in many other fields, service design is challenged with a growing scale of issues and uncertainty, in a rapidly changing landscape. Design education literature proposes to view design as a “transdisciplinary catalyst” of social change (see e.g. Lehtonen et al., 2023; Valtonen and Nikkinen, 2022). Literature and industry coincide on the change agent role and highlight the importance of learning across disciplinary borders, interdisciplinarity collaboration, autonomy and adaptability. These characteristics portray a breadth of professional profiles, with stretching arms to other disciplines, able to adapt to a fast-changing world. This aligns well with past pedagogical views from the Bauhaus movement that call for “design as an attitude”, rather than a specialist function. In this regard, the fluidity and flexibility of the service design profession we describe nurture and match these qualities excellently. Working in a fluid profession that works with change may not only support advancing the transformative aims of service design but also equip professionals and job seekers with adaptable skills . The lack of specialization, however, opens the question of which context-specific competencies are needed for the development of future services.
Reflection
Together, the five themes identify an evolution toward a more systemic, strategic and transformative service design practice. First, by reframing materiality not just as tangible outputs but as organizational and cultural levers, service design extends its role from supporting service development to acting as a catalyst for broader organizational transformation.
Second, the attention to organizational logics highlights the necessity for service designers to navigate and influence the “inner worlds” of organizations, including their structures, cultures and strategic frameworks. To effect lasting change, it will imply reorienting the service design contribution beyond design methods and building fluency in organizational dynamics with competencies, particularly in business strategy, and change management.
Third, the theme of technological transformations underscores a future in which service designers must actively engage with emerging technologies such as AI, not merely as tools, but as design materials with profound ethical, social and experiential implications. Designers are called to harness technology critically and creatively, partnering with technical experts to shape customer and employee experiences and systemic outcomes responsibly.
Fourth, the emphasis on sustainable and inclusive futures implies broadening the service design scope, from advancing organizational goals to contributing to eco-social transitions. Service designers are increasingly tasked with, or motivated to engage with, fostering resilience, systemic thinking and regenerative practices, while embedding sustainability incrementally and strategically into everyday organizational practices.
Fifth, the evolving professional identity of service designers points towards a future of higher education with an emphasis on interdisciplinarity. The profession’s adaptive, boundary-crossing nature shows potential to position service designers uniquely in the role of change agents suited for addressing the complexity of contemporary societal challenges.
The framework presented in Figure 1 introduces a novel perspective on the service design profession, constructed from five key themes that respond to change dynamics across multiple scales: from internal organizational drivers (micro), professional dynamics (meso), to the broader socio-technical and economic transformations (macro). We propose that the core building blocks, at the center of the framework (see Figure 1), are viewed as the spine of service design and the structural foundation that unifies these emerging themes. We recommend using this framework, not only for deepening understanding of the profession but also, as an integrated, cross-cutting approach for conducting future research that yields immediate and practical implications for advancing the field.
In Table 2, we present a future research agenda that synthesizes insights gathered from our focus group discussions across five key themes: i) service design materiality; ii) organizational logics; iii) technological transformation; iv) sustainable and inclusive futures; and v) service designer as a professional identity.
Future research agenda and its implications
| Themes | Research questions building on the focus group discussions | Theoretical implications | Practical implications |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Materiality in service design | • How do different understandings of “service design materials” influence expectations and perceptions of impact within service organizations? • What factors enable or hinder the transition from project-based outputs to programmatic, outcome-oriented service design approaches? • In what ways can the Customer Journey Management (CJM) model support the sustained integration of customer-centric culture within service organizations? • How do customer experience management and measurement practices support or hinder the development of customer journeys as a managerial and operational approach? • What role does service design play in driving optimization and process transformation within service organizations? | • This research builds on ongoing discussions in service and design research concerning value co-creation across organizational actors and the role of materiality in shaping service experiences. It contributes a more holistic and sustainability oriented perspective on service design as a systemic and embedded practice • By framing service design as an organizational capability rather than a project-bound intervention, this research advances theoretical discourse in transformation design and strategic design. • It bridges service research and change management literature and contributes to the service ecosystem perspective, particularly regarding institutional arrangements and service ecosystem design • This work contributes to the emerging discourse on service design materialities by introducing frameworks such as the Customer Journey Management (CJM) model. It establishes theoretical linkages between service design and organizational change cultures, enriching the dialogue within customer experience (CX) and CX management research | • Clarifying what is being designed (e.g. outcomes vs outputs) helps service designers align expectations with other organizational actors, supporting more strategic outcome-oriented collaboration • Provides actionable strategies for embedding service design into ongoing organizational programs (e.g. through customer journey ops, capability-building) • Introduces practical tools (e.g. the Customer Journey Operations model) and managerial frameworks that integrate customer-led and design-driven approaches. These support service and experience teams in embedding customer journeys into operational systems such as KPIs, OKRs and cross-functional workflows • Offers actionable insights on how service design can navigate cost-cutting or restructuring periods while safeguarding the values and experiences of key service actors, such as customers and employees |
| 2) Organizational logics | • How can organizational leadership support design competencies throughout the organization? • How does organizational design maturity relate to the development and integration of customer-centric logics in service organizations? • How can service design gain legitimacy and build strategic influence in organizations governed by non-design-centric logics? • What constitutes ‘organizational literacy’ for service designers, and how does it impact their ability to influence strategic decision-making and value co-creation? • What is the role of storytelling (both qualitative and quantitative) in promoting the value of design within service organizations? • What are the advantages and limitations of integrating OKRs as performance metrics in programmatic, outcome-oriented service design initiatives? | • Informing service ecosystem perspectives by understanding how leadership acts as an enabler of design capabilities, influencing the conditions for value co-creation and innovation within service organizations • Advances research on service design integration by framing its strategic influence through the lens of organizational logics, highlighting how design practices interface with dominant institutional orientations such as efficiency, control and compliance • Establishes conceptual bridges between customer-dominant logic (CDL), service-dominant logic (SDL) and design maturity frameworks by examining how organizational logics influence the embedding of design. It introduces “organizational literacy”’ as a meta-competency for service designers, enabling navigation across institutional arrangements and supporting systemic change within organizations • Contributes to transformative service research (TSR) by positioning storytelling as a mechanism of sensemaking and cultural embedding within service ecosystems | • Support leadership to sustain a customer-centric view encompassing long-term strategies rather than isolated projects Develop strategic metrics to measure design impact that aligns with broader organizational goals, improving the visibility of design’s value and impact • Offer methods for using qualitative narratives and quantitative evidence to communicate the value of design to organizational actors, enabling stronger internal buy-in and alignment with strategic priorities |
| 3) Technological transformations | • What is the role of human creativity in identifying and shaping novel applications of AI within service ecosystems? • How can AI technologies be integrated across different stages of the service design process (e.g. user research, ideation, prototyping) and what ethical, social and environmental considerations must be addressed in doing so? • In what ways do AI-generated insights, such as AI personas and segmentation avatars, shape service development and co-creation processes, and what are the risks of bias, manipulation or over-reliance on such insights in decision-making? • How does the use of AI as a design material influence the creation of future-facing service interfaces, particularly within hybrid “phygital” environments? • What is the role of AI and automation in optimizing customer journeys? | • Advancing existing theories on innovation and creativity to account for human–AI creativity • AI as a service design material – proposing new conceptual models on how AI is shaped as a material of service and how it shapes human experience. This advances the understanding of non-traditional, dynamic materials in service ecosystems • Developing new conceptual frameworks for AI-enhanced customer journey management (CJM) , enriching service research with models that integrate AI capabilities (e.g. real-time data, predictive analytics, automation) into customer-centric value creation and adaptive service orchestration | • Understanding the unique role of human creativity in the conceptualization and implementation of AI applications enables service designers to effectively balance generative AI capabilities with human intuition, empathy, and contextual sensitivity during innovation processes While AI can streamline workflows and enhance customer journey optimization, service designers must proactively address ethical concerns such as algorithmic bias, opacity, and manipulation, embedding transparency, fairness and user agency into AI-enabled services • AI in service is both a constituent part of service and a tool leveraged in service design. When shaping AI-powered service, designers need to carefully consider how AI influences service personalization, customer experience, optimization and efficiency, while addressing ethical considerations |
| 4) Sustainable and inclusive futures | • How do “gentle, empathetic, and systematic” design interventions contribute to broader organizational transformation towards eco-social responsibility? • What strategies can support service designers’ resilience and reflexivity in navigating increasingly complex and volatile work environments? • What are the key enablers and barriers for scaling sustainability from pioneering service design initiatives to fully integrated organizational practices? • How do differing interpretations of “preferred futures” among designers and other organizational actors shape the co-design of inclusive and regenerative services? | • Contributes to frameworks such as Service-Dominant Logic (SDL) by exploring the designer's role in value co-creation with sustainability as a central concern Advances theorization around the institutionalization of design practices and design as capability-building for service sustainability • Bridges anticipatory design, futures literacy, and service design by highlighting how designers navigate and shape multiple, contested future imaginaries in service contexts. Contributes to emerging service research discourses on value pluralism, ethical design practice and the politics of future-making in service ecosystems | • Provides actionable strategies for embedding sustainability into everyday design practices through empathetic, incremental influence • Supports the development of training modules, mentorship structures and peer-support systems for resilient and reflexive design practice • Provides roadmaps and frameworks for sustainable service, relevant for public-, private- and third-sector actors Encourages more reflective and culturally sensitive service co-creation and co-design practices. Informs service design education and professional development to equip designers with tools for negotiating multiple futures in designing for sustainability and inclusivity |
| 5) Service designer as a professional identity | • How do service designers construct and negotiate their professional identity within service ecosystems shaped by multiple institutional logics (e.g. efficiency, customer-centricity, innovation)? • How can the concept of change agent promote the adoption of new working practices that nurture a customer-centered organization culture? • What are the discipline-based competencies contributing to the effective customer-centered transformation in service organizations? • What are the context-based and specialized competencies needed to advance the development of future services? • What are the implications of positioning service design as a strategic enabler rather than a project-based intervention for long-term service innovation? | • A transdisciplinary view on organizational change competencies in service research integrating business, organizational management and design research. By examining the strategic positioning of service design, this research adds to the conversation about design capabilities as long-term enablers of innovation, not just tools for short-term projects • This research advances service design theory by identifying and conceptualizing the organizational variables, such as working practices, cultural norms and structural enablers, that support the sustained adoption of customer-centricity. • It extends current understanding of service design from isolated service development efforts to its role as a long-term organizational capability embedded across service ecosystems | • Offers guidance to managers and leaders on how to better integrate and support service designers in strategic roles, especially in organizations navigating conflicting logics • Providing a foundation for recognizing and defining a change agent role, competencies, and the conditions needed to promote design as a transformative agent in the workplace • Reframing and positioning of service design roles as direct contributions to organizational transformation, leadership and strategy • Supports educational institutions in designing curricula that prepare service professionals for complex, multi-stakeholder ecosystems |
The table outlines illustrative research questions that reflect the emerging concerns and directions voiced by practitioners, alongside theoretical implications that connect to ongoing discussions in service research, such as value co-creation, CX, transformative service research, service ecosystems and institutional logics. In addition, the table offers practical implications suggesting how the gathered new insights could be translated into actionable strategies for organizations, educators and service designers, supporting the evolution of service design practice within increasingly complex and systemic contexts.
Conclusion
Service design practice is currently evolving within a dynamic and uncertain landscape shaped by technological advancements, organizational complexity and pressing eco-social challenges. This viewpoint article explores how practitioners are adapting by reconfiguring service design’s materiality – from project-based outputs to program-based outcomes, and from static artefacts to embedded capabilities and operational models like customer journey ops. We underscore the need for deeper organizational literacy to navigate competing logics and legitimize design within strategic decision-making. As AI becomes more integrated into service ecosystems, designers are increasingly shaping these technologies, prompting new questions around ethics, creativity and agency. The pursuit of sustainable and inclusive futures also demands new skills in value co-creation, foresight and regenerative thinking. These shifts are redefining the professional identity of service designers, highlighting the importance of resilience, reflexivity and cross-disciplinary collaboration, as well as the growing importance of competencies in business, strategy and change management. By articulating these emerging tensions and opportunities and offering a future research agenda across five key themes, this viewpoint article contributes to advancing service design as a transformative practice, both within organizations and in society at large.
We acknowledge the limitations of this viewpoint article. The perspectives presented reflect the views of the authors, supported by qualitative insights from service design practitioners within the Nordic context. While these insights provide valuable input, they are specific to the perspectives of practitioners in this particular region and may not fully represent global or diverse viewpoints within the broader field of service design.
Overview of participants
| Participant (2023) | Position | In-house/ Consultancy | Participant (2024) | Position | In-house/ Consultancy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participant 2023–1 | Senior strategist | In-house | Participant 2024–1 | Head of strategic design | In-house |
| Participant 2023–2 | Lead service designer | In-house | Participant 2024–2 | Design lead | In-house |
| Participant 2023–3 | Service and UX designer | In-house | Participant 2024–3 | Head of strategic foresight | In-house |
| Participant 2023–4 | Service designer | In-house | Participant 2024–4 | Lead strategist | Consultancy |
| Participant 2023–5 | Lead service designer | In-house | Participant 2024–5 | Design lead | In-house |
| Participant 2023–6 | Senior designer | Consultancy | Participant 2024–6 | Design director | In-house |
| Participant 2023–7 | Design specialist | In-house | Participant 2024–7 | Head of design | In-house |
| Participant 2023–8 | Senior service designer | In-house | Participant 2024–8 | Strategic designer | Consultancy |
| Participant 2023–9 | Lead designer | Consultancy | Participant 2024–9 | Service design director | Consultancy |
| Participant 2023–10 | Service designer | In-house | Participant 2024–10 | Design researcher | In-house |
| Participant 2023–11 | Lead designer | In-house | Participant 2024–11 | Principal designer | Consultancy |
| Participant 2023–12 | Service design researcher | In-house | Participant 2024–12 | Principal designer | Consultancy |
| Participant 2023–13 | Head of customer experience | In-house | Participant 2024–13 | Head of service and digital design | In-house |
| Participant 2023–14 | Senior service designer | Consultancy | Participant 2024–14 | Service and strategic design competence lead | In-house |
| Participant 2023–15 | Service designer | Consultancy | Participant 2024–15 | Designer and strategist | In-house |
| Participant 2023–16 | Design team lead | In-house | Participant 2024–16 | Design director | Consultancy |
| Participant 2023–17 | Service designer | In-house | Participant 2024–17 | Competence lead | In-house |
| Participant 2023–18 | Head of design | In-house | Participant 2024–18 | Head of customer experience | In-house |
| Participant 2023–19 | Senior advisor | In-house | Participant 2024–19 | Service design manager | In-house |
| Participant 2023–20 | Service designer | In-house | |||
| Participant 2023–21 | Senior service designer | Consultancy |
Publisher’s note: The publisher of the Journal of Services Marketing would like to inform readers that this article was withdrawn as an error in the production process, meaning the published article was compiled into an issue incorrectly. The publisher of the journal offer their sincere apologies.
The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to all the participants in the focus groups, Aalto University alumni and research assistants Annukka Svanda, Eva Mega Astria and Denis Talár, as well as the City of Espoo, for their invaluable contributions and strategic partnership in the Designing for Services course over the years. Their insights, expertise and collaboration have been instrumental in shaping this viewpoint article.
