Logics in action

Previous sections have illustrated that there are three distinct logics present at Telenor; have explored the nature of their mutual relationships; and have analyzed the strategies adopted to recombine the three logics. By doing so, previous sections have started to shed some light on the organizational context within which service design is introduced, and the forces operating on the logic that service design represents.

The concept of a constellation of logics, adopted in this piece of research, offers an important new way to understand agency (Waldorff, et al., 2013; Martin, et al., 2017). As underlined in the theory section, studies in this field tend to constrain the

195

analysis to the field level—where the constellation of logics is a result of field level dynamics determining the options provided to different actors (Martin, et al., 2017).

Research has paid less attention to the concept that constellations may be constructed, as opposed to given, and which dimensions of agency drive their formation (Smets & Jarzabkowski, 2013; Martin, et al., 2017). This section will therefore explore the individual level actions that have shaped and contributed to the introduction of the customer logic in Telenor, and therefore to the construction of the constellation itself. The choice to look solely at the actions enacted under the customer logic, excluding telco and digital, is due to the focus of this study on service design. Not enough data have been collected on actions activated by carriers of the other two logics, which are out of scope for this research project.

Carriers of the customer logic are primarily service designers and leaders who have believed and invested in service design since its introduction in Telenor. Examples are the Head of Innovation #1 and Project Director Service Design in Telenor Group, and the Products and Systems Experience Design Manager, in Telenor Serbia. None of these actors have a design background but an engineering or business background. They discovered service design in the past 5–7 years and became believers in its approach and potential for Telenor. It is interesting to note that both designers and non-designers who are carriers of the customer logic enact it in practice through service design. It is service design that they advocate to be of paramount importance for Telenor to embrace in order to become more customer centric. Thus, although service design operates within a wider customer organizational logic, at the level of individual actions, service design is the tangible unit that actors describe, push, and try to establish. At this lower level of analysis, service design becomes the what that needs to be conveyed and established so as to serve the higher customer logic. Under this light, findings suggest four key actions enacted by organizational actors who are carriers of the customer logic: sensitizing to service design principles, embedding service design practices, securing human resources, and growing enabling structures.

Sensitizing to Service Design Principles

Findings suggest that service design is not understood by carriers of the telco and digital logics. For most of the organizational actors operating outside of the Service Design Lab in Telenor, service design is extremely new and unclear. The Senior Vice President #2 illustrates this point by sharing the following: “You come up with

196

something that is a bit new age-ish. It’s perceived not serious. It’s not run by engineers and people with a Master’s in Finance. So that’s the shift.” What this quote suggests is that service design is perceived as unreliable for tackling the business challenges Telenor is facing or to achieve the objectives set by the organizational strategy. Designers are considered not as serious and reliable as engineers or financial experts, who instead are trusted to suggest sound directions for the future of the business. Data show that service designers are perceived as able to visualize effectively; therefore, their presence is requested and understood only at the very end of the new product or service development. Thus, findings suggest that sensitizing organizational actors to the principles characterizing service design is paramount to contributing to the understanding and adoption of service design.

The principles that are diffused throughout the organization are human-centered, co-creative, holistic, experimental, and transformative. The action of sensitizing encompasses three stages: expose, simplify, and customize.

Expose. Findings suggest that for organizational actors to be sensitized to service design principles effectively, they first need to be exposed to them and their potential impact on the organization. The process of exposure in Telenor is occurring through the Family Project. By being exposed to the tangible results of the service design process, the discipline becomes less “fuzzy.” Tangible outcomes are better understood and positioned in relation to their contribution to the final organizational goal. The Head of Innovation #1 this without having experienced it.

The Family Project was an eye opener for quite many business people being a part of that project, working in the steering group of that project.” Similarly, the Senior Vice President #2 shares the following:

They have seen how powerful it can be to go from actually thinking you understand the opportunity and the problem you’re trying to solve to actually find out that you don’t necessarily understand it once you engage properly with customers, to iterate through solutions and finding out, well, what we thought was a good solution is not a

good solution. I mean, experiencing that this process leads to much better products and culture.

These two quotes imply the exposure of the organizational actors to many service design principles. The first referent refers to the importance of being part (even if only in a limited way) of the process, hence exposing actors to the co-creative nature of service design. The second referent refers to the importance to engage customers to understand problems and opportunities, hence referring to human-centricity. The

197

interviewee also refers to the importance of exposing actors to the iterations of different solutions, hence to service design’s experimental principle. Finally, the referent concludes that such exposure ultimately has the goal to showcase the transformative potential of service design both for the customer and organization to give birth to “much better products and culture.” To conclude, when describing her attempt to expose a specific new team to service design principles, through their involvement in a new project, one of the service designers shares the following:

“You [organizational actors involved in the project] have to feel this is about being holistic, this is about people’s feelings, this is about call to emotions. I think they’re slowly getting it.” What the designer refers to in this quote is that the involvement of the specific cross-disciplinary team in this project has the objective to expose them to the holistic and human-centric principles of service design. In her opinion, the fact that they are exposed to them and understand them is even more important than the final project outcome. The next two elements, simplify and customize, describe the approach employed by carriers of the customer logic to expose actors to service design principles.

Simplify. The simplification of the language used to introduce service design, its positioning, and its principles, is paramount for organizational actors to fully understand it. The Head of Innovation #1 explains how, in her journey, she tactically opted to stop mentioning service design (newer, fuzzier, difficult to grasp) in favor of the better-established design thinking. She decided to describe an innovation process apt to explore new opportunities based on design thinking. Design thinking is understood in the context of new product development, and therefore easier to grasp for the widespread product mindset. In her own words, the referent shares the following:

And now I'm pushing it very much in terms of innovation processes. How we should use this, I'm trying to document the power of using more design thinking in general, not necessarily service design. And it very fast comes to services. But I think it has been tactical to talk about this, because you can use design thinking in development of physical products, that are a part of a journey, a service journey. So that's easier for people to grasp. That's my thing now. For us, for people like you and me, we know that this is about services. But to sell it internally, I think you should introduce

it as a general approach for exploring new opportunities.