On May 20, a group of very interesting people got together for the fourth SF Service Design Drinks. Unlike the previous events, which were held in bars, this one was hosted at Adaptive Path, who graciously provided the venue plus beers and snacks for the attendees (it helps that I work there). The turnout was the best ever, and I was really happy to meet new people interested in service design, all of them with really good questions and really smart things to say. In attendance were folks from EA, Cooper, Hot Studio, RIM, and Apple to name a few.

Taking advantage of the space, I solicited feedback from attendees to find out what they called themselves (titles), why they were there, and what they wanted to see for future events. My biggest takeaway was that people still don’t know much about service design but are very curious about it. Many people called themselves UX designers, but weren’t sure if that was the right term for the work they did or wanted to do. “Could service design be it?” some wondered.

I also heard, not surprisingly, that people wanted more hands-on service design learning. While it seems it’s great for people to have the opportunity to get together to chat with others who are interested in service design and have some drinks, they want more than ad hoc conversation.

Which brings me to planning an SF Service Design Thinks event (example). I’m shooting for the end of July. More details to come, but it seemed like something folks would be in to.

If you have any thoughts on what the SF SD Thinks event should be or who you’d like to see speak, I’d love to hear them.

In the continuing debate about design thinking, there’s great article on Core77, Design Thinking: Everywhere and Nowhere, Reflections on the Big Re-Think, which covers thoughts coming from the Big Rethink conference held by The Economist in London. Nearly every point in the article made me stake stock of my own beliefs, practices, and pontifications on design.

One of the best points reflects my thoughts on the constant barrage of design chatter: we are talking too much and doing too little (of which I am guilty). The article refers to this as overstretch, “the gap between design thinkers’ claims, and their knowledge, capabilities and ability to deliver on those promises.” In other words, the business world is buying it – design can be integral – but designers are not actually prepared to deliver. We may believe that we can do all sorts of things as designers (I wholeheartedly think we can), but we are still largely designing in the same ways and designing the same products we always have.

“What’s notable about the design thinking debate is not so much how design practice has changed, but rather how the audience for design has changed and raised its expectations.”

Why is this? Well, it’s easier to talk about design than to do it. We can talk about changing the world, working with business, social and cultural change, but very, very few designers actually have any experience doing this. And while that’s humbling, the good news is demand has been created. All the evangelizing has created a new audience and new opportunities.

There are two more things I’d like to point out. First, I really appreciate the following point, which addresses any fears that designers will be trumped by a throng of managers sporting design thinking caps.

We should remember that designers learn by doing, not by learning and practising a theory, designing involves a lot more tacit knowledge than in other areas of business. It’s therefore hard to believe that senior managers can change their thinking habits of a lifetime after a workshop or two working with designers. And, to be frank, to suggest as much devalues what designers do.

Totally agree.

And finally, one of the best definitions I have seen for design thinking: “anything said on the subject of design that sounded smart.” Brilliant.

I’ve been thinking more about the design of cities recently. As such, the Guardian article The urban age: how cities became our greatest design challenge yet caught my eye. The author talks about cities as products, as commodities even. If you’re interested in cities as products (or services), you should read it. Here are some excerpts I found particularly interesting.

Yet here we are, in the position of having to manufacture new urban spaces, as though cities were just another type of product.

The same deregulation that relieved the banks of any compunction to behave responsibly has also been changing the visible face of the city. The free-market agenda is what makes public spaces in so many cities nothing more than places to shop at chain stores or drink at Costa Coffee, often under the supervision of private security guards.

The question is this: how do we create cities that are not just containers for tightly-packed populations, but pleasant and equitable places to live?

Now that city-making has become a priority, politicians need to have faith in designers.

Pleasant and equitable places to live? Definitely sounds like an opportunity for some human-centered design. I would love to see designers (and not just architects) playing a greater role in this arena.

I’m glad to see many similarities between this presentation and the one I presented at IxD10. Ideas that definitely overlap include: services are important, services are everywhere, they are designed by everyone, and they are mostly not designed very well.

I also appreciate another point that keeps surfacing in conversations I’ve had about service design and something I thought about a lot while preparing my service design presentation.

Service Design enables you to move up the value chain and have conversations about projects at an earlier stage – thus shaping the work more, and creating bigger projects.

In other words, designing a service from the whole to its parts allows designers to be more involved in what gets designed and why. Given our proclivity for empathy, this can only be a good thing.

What I’m not too keen on is the separation made between service design doing and service design thinking.

Service design thinking is about:

• Helping people think like a designer
• Helping people focus on the user
• Helping people use design methods
• Helping people visualize

There are two reasons for this. First, I generally do not support separating the thinking from the doing as activities that can be pursued independently if the plan is to actually design something.

Second, as described in the presentation, the activities that fall under service design thinking seem more like education. Education is definitely something that can and should take place during the design process, if possible and practical. Education can also happen without even trying as others observe what designers do during the process. Overtly empowering people by helping them develop their inherent capability to design is a great service. But I don’t understand why that has been given the label of service design thinking.

Despite the growth of service design firms in Europe, the success of the Service Design Network, and the globally self-organized service design drinks, including one in San Francisco, service design still really hasn’t made its move on the United States. And while many designers I talk to are very interested in service design, businesses are not demanding it.

Does this mean service design cannot take off in the United States? No. I think it’s got a shot if we can show businesses the value of such an approach.

During the Interaction10 conference, I had the opportunity to meet with Birgit Mager and Shelley Evenson, both founders of the Service Design Network, to talk about plans for a US conference to promote the value of service design to the business sector. One possible location we discussed is Boston, given Shelley’s current ties to Microsoft there. There have already been rumors that Microsoft will sponsor the event. Though these rumors, I have been told, are premature.

But if all goes as discussed, the one-day conference will take place in October around the same time as the Berlin conference. The plan is then for a full US service design conference in 2011, similar to the Berlin conference with content for practitioners, academics, and students. I hope to have a hand in both events, and am excited about bringing the conversation about service design back to the US after the dearth that resulted after the Emergence conference ceased.

While bringing conferences to the US will certainly help raise the profile of service design here, some designers I have talked to either dismiss service design or don’t think it will take hold. What do you think?