Key attributes

Services can be described in terms of their main attributes.

• Intangibility – They cannot be seen, handled, smelled, etc. There is no need for storage. Because services are difficult to conceptualize, marketing them requires creative visualization to effectively evoke a concrete image in the customer’s mind. From the customer’s point of view, this attribute makes it difficult to evaluate or compare services prior to experiencing the service.
• Perishability – Unsold service time is “lost”, that is, it cannot be regained. It is a lost economic opportunity. For example a doctor that is booked for only two hours a day cannot later work those hours— she has lost her economic opportunity. Other service examples are airplane seats (once the plane departs, those empty seats cannot be sold), and theatre seats (sales end at a certain point).
• Lack of transportability – Services tend to be consumed at the point of “production” (although this doesn’t apply to outsourced business services).
• Lack of homogeneity – Services are typically modified for each client or each new situation (customised). Mass production of services is very difficult. This can be seen as a problem of inconsistent quality. Both inputs and outputs to the processes involved providing services are highly variable, as are the relationships between these processes, making it difficult to maintain consistent quality.baj
• Labour intensity – Services usually involve considerable human activity, rather than precisely determined process. Human resource management is important. The human factor is often the key success factor in service industries. It is difficult to achieve economies of scale or gain dominant market share.
• Demand fluctuations – It can be difficult to forecast demand (which is also true of many goods). Demand can vary by season, time of day, business cycle, etc.
• Buyer involvement – Most service provision requires a high degree of interaction between client and service provider.

We started out with a session on the business itself, what are the drivers and what are the challenges of the market(s). Then we looked into competitors and their approach to solve these issues. Surprisingly enough, it seems that all providers of the service (in a mature market, I have to add) are just trying to milk everything out of the cash cow they have and don’t invest into re-thinking their offer or even coming up with a disruptive approach to it.
Then we dug a little deeper into what we thought defines the market – we applied a model similar to a positioning model and defined two axis’s with the most relevant characteristics of the offer. This proved to be a rather tricky exercise, as it 1) requires quite some understanding of the market and 2) is difficult to agree on (without direct customer insight).
We then came up with approaches to new services or extensions to existing services within the playground and shaped them later on into a more concrete product offering.
The day concluded with some brainstorming on the naming for the new service. It got visible quite quickly that we had stretched our brain cells quite drastically and it wasn’t possible to squeeze anything more out of them.

It was a great experience to participate, however, I have some critical remarks or ‘lessons learned’: When developing a new disruptive service, the thought if the user is actually ‘ready’ for this or where the revenue will come from is counterproductive. In fact, I have to admit, that these constraints which were particularly driven by the (very strong-minded) CEO have been hindering the free flow of thought and therefore limiting the potential outcome. How would something be disruptive, if the user is basically waiting for it?

Eventually, we agreed on a rather soft redesign of the service as a first step, knowing that the original idea will need constant exploration, in order to take leadership in this segment.

Anyway – I hope, that I will be a future part of the developments and will be able to update you on what is going on. It would be great, if it was a success.

‘Design’ is about conversations and accordingly successful design is always embedded in the conversation (let it be directly/indirectly) with the customer/user context. Usability (Can I use it?), Usefulness (Would I use it?) and Emotion (Do I want to use it?) of a product or service are the ultimate benchmark criteria. On the other hand ‘Design thinking’ stimulates issues on Feasibility (Can we produce it?), Suitability (Should we produce it) and Acceptability (Do we want to produce it?)