 In this episode we'll be talking about why and how we need to go beyond the standard service design tools and methods. We'll talk about the different career paths that lead people to service design and where they go from there, and we'll talk about what it takes to successfully build and lead service design teams in a big corporate. Here's the guests for this episode, let the show begin. Hi, I'm Patrick and this is a service design show. Hi, I'm Mark and welcome to the service design show. This show is all about helping you do more work that you're proud of and care about by designing and delivering services that are good for people and business. My guest in this episode has a reputation of building and leading service design teams in large corporations and he's going to share that experience in this episode. His name is Patrick Bach. So like I said, the main theme of this episode will be the secret to successful service design teams that are actually able to make an impact, but we'll also talk about how people shape and mold their service design career and what that means for you. If you enjoy these episodes and really want to level up your service design skills, don't forget that we bring a new video at least once a week here on this channel. So if you haven't done so already, make sure to subscribe and click that bell icon to be notified when new videos are out. That's all for the introduction. Let's quickly jump into the interview with Patrick. Welcome to the show, Patrick. Hi, Mark, how are you? I'm awesome. It's really good to have you on from Canada where the global conference is happening this year and we're also part of the team, right? Yeah, helping to... So the team and I a few years ago founded the Canadian chapter of service design and we've been putting on a local Canada-wide conference for three years and this year we're excited to be helping Birgit and the whole team bring the conference to Toronto. For the people who are watching this in the future, this is 2019 we're talking about. Yeah, we are on June 5th. June 5th, we're a spoiler alert. Patrick, also for the people who don't know who you are, could you give a 30-second introduction? Yeah, my name is Patrick. I currently co-lead a service design practice across a large Canadian bank called CIBC. So this is a new practice. It's been probably a year and a half and Andrea and I, who's my partner in crime, have been hiring and scaling this over the last several months. Prior to that, I had a bit of a career in service design for the last maybe six years, generally within large organization. So I worked in a telecom, I worked in an insurance company and now I'm within a bank, which is really interesting. I mentioned already that I helped bring the service design Canada Conference of Life every year with a group of lovely people. And I think a fun little, maybe factoid about myself. I love games of all kinds. I love board games, video games. I love the notion of play and how we can, as service designers, bring that toolkit into how we create experiences, especially for workshops. Let's make this a playful episode. Let's see what happens. Let's see, yeah. Do you remember the very first time you heard about service design? I remember, yeah. Do you wanna hear the long version or the short version? The medium version. Okay, all right. So the first time I heard about service design was actually, first time I was introduced to design thinking, I think, was kind of where it started for me. Right when I was fairly new in my career, I was working as a junior product manager within a healthcare company. So I was helping their senior product managers. I was kind of wearing a lot of hats. I was helping them develop the go to market plan for some new products. I was helping them build out requirements and road maps. I was working with the dev team to build the development and I was also trying to help figure out some of the ideation and the concept development for new features and functionality. And I remember working, and I don't wanna name names, I don't wanna throw stones, but I remember working in an environment that didn't feel like we, something felt wrong. We would just get in a room together, a bunch of us, just talking, always just talking, talking, talking, meeting after meeting, discussing what we think we should do, what we think the product should be about, what we like, what we think is an interesting idea. And it was very, very inside out kind of thinking. And I remember being very young and thinking like, something doesn't make sense. Like it feels strange to me that this is how products are developed and products are built. And being very junior, you don't know. You think, well, I'm just not very good. I'm just not very, I don't understand when I get better. I'll clearly understand this a little bit better. And I remember feeling a little bit frustrated, especially because we were building, one of the products we were working on was a service for new moms. And no one on the team was even a woman. They were all dudes. Classic. Yeah, and it was like a few of the guys had kids, so they were always saying, well, my wife does this or my partner does that. And it's just like really like, is that how we're doing this? And I remember meeting with a friend of mine who worked at a consultancy in Toronto. He no longer works there, but he sat down with me and he said, have you ever heard of like user-centered design or design thinking? And I was like, no, I went to business school. I studied marketing. So I knew about research and about market research and all that kind of classic stuff. But this was something I had never heard of. And he sat down and he walked me through it and I was like, it's like a light bulb. It was like an, oh my God, this is exactly what we need. This is everything that we're not doing. It made sense to me on a very deep level where I immediately tried to tell everyone about it in my team and say, guys, like we need to go out there. We need to talk to people. We need to build prototypes. And I remember not being very successful at that at the time, convincing anyone. But that was sort of my first introduction. This was a long time ago now. From what I'm hearing it immediately struck you and you were hooked from that moment. That was it. And this is career advice I give to a lot of people. And I recognize it comes from a certain amount of privilege to be able to say this, but I tried very hard to convince my boss, my leadership that this is a way we should work. And after spending over six months getting my head against the wall, I very quickly decided that I either have to choose to work in an environment that is clearly not open to changing or find a new place to work where that is. And I made the decision at that time to leave. And I joined another team where there was definitely much more interest in this kind of work. And that was the decision I made. And I get this question a lot, which is how do I convince my boss? How do I convince someone? And you can only do so much. You can only say so many things. You can only cheer so many times, show people videos, send them links, but people have to have a willingness and an openness to it as well. And sometimes you have to know when to move on. That's already good advice. Patrick, you gave me, you have a super interesting role right now. And I think you have a lot to share with the community. So we're going to do interview jazz. Are you ready to start? I'm ready, let's do it. All right, I'm going to surprise you. I'm going to do them in a different order you gave me. All right, topic number one is called new methods. Do you have a question starter? And can you show it to us? Yeah, I'm actually, I have a couple. One is enough in this case. Yeah. Okay, here's my, how can we, but I might say how might we. So maybe that question is, how might we integrate new methods into the service design toolkit to make us better service designers? Do we need new methods? Yeah, I think we always, there are always new ways of interpreting information, of exploring the world, of interacting with people. There's always new research and new science that's teaching us new ways that human beings interact with things, that human beings understand things. And I think that I think it would be very silly for us to somehow feel like we have nothing left to learn and nothing new to explore from a tools and methods perspective. And what kind of methods are you thinking about? What are these new methods that are on the horizon that you're curious about? Yeah, I mean, I think there's like a spectrum of like how near they are. I think there's stuff that's understood to be core to services design. I think there's stuff that's right around the periphery where people understand that this is a beneficial thing, but maybe not all services on teams are maybe hiring or investing in some of these skill sets. And then I think there's some that are another degree more out there where I think people are still experimenting with some other toolkits, other methodologies and figuring out how can these work together. And I think it's maybe more interesting to talk about those. There are two right now that I've recently in my career had the opportunity to explore. One is a bit of a tried and true age old methodology which is just Lean Six Sigma. And Lean Six Sigma is the Jack Welsh, GE, coin, black belt, belt system, process engineering, which was called Six Sigma. And then it got kind of combined with Lean and now it's Lean Six Sigma. So what's interesting about our team at CIBC is that we are actually our service line team who lives within the same team that owns Six Sigma. So Six Sigma typically approach projects from a very quantitative, the analyze the process, they look for inefficiencies, redundancies and they're really, really good at understanding the back of house. They're experts at that. They're better at that than I think most service designers are. And there's this really interesting juxtaposition of their strengths and then weaknesses which are where Lean is maybe not as strong is really understanding the emotional, the social, the contextual elements that live around these services. And that's obviously a strength of the type of research we do but in understanding how to drive process, how to drive efficiency, how to drive change within an organization. I think the people who understand that best are oftentimes the process engineers. They know how to get things done. They know how to change things, how to navigate the system. And we've had an interesting journey of partnering with these groups and working together jointly on projects where we know we lean in and we lean out depending on what's needed and what part of the process we're working on but we're kind of one team throughout. So I think that's one sort of, I wouldn't say it's a new method but definitely a method that I think service designers and a team within an organization that service designers can get closer to. Makes sense because we complain a lot about not being able to actually roll out the things we're designing, right? And like you're describing the people who own the processes, those might be, they might have the key to actually unlocking our concepts, our solutions. Yeah, and the way these teams are often situated in the organization is very enterprise wide. They're often very well tapped into the different silos and different organizations. Like I said, they know how to navigate that space. They know how to engage the leaders. They know how to make things happen. So what we found is that if we can, we can align with them on the service vision that we can design together and obviously with clients and with employees, they can really help us move it forward in a meaningful way. And I think they also understand the levers of feasibility and viability in a way that we, as designers, maybe don't always appreciate. There's a depth there and there's an expertise there that I think they really bring to the table as well. Interesting. And what's the other one? The other one's a little bit maybe more out there. Depending on who you talk to, I think some people will tell you this is a logical next step for service design. I've definitely had my fair share of people tell me that this is the complete opposite of what we believe in as designers or as service designers and that's behavioral economics. So I've over the last few years had many opportunities to not only work with behavioral scientists but also have them being part of my team, work on projects where behavioral science and service design are both leveraged together. And I have to admit my first time being exposed to concept and the first time someone suggested to me that I would work on a project with behavioral scientists, I was a bit nervous. I was actually a bit, let's say more than nervous, I was a bit hesitant. I thought, well, we work so hard as service designers as researchers to convince people and to communicate the value of qualitative approaches to research. And then here comes behavioral science which is almost entirely rooted in a very quantitative view of how to measure change and how to understand problems. And I was very worried that this oil and water combination would backfire and would be contradictory. It would, we would say left and they would say right and we would say up and they would say down and I approached it with a bit of hesitation but thankfully the people I was working with were lovely people who were very, very open. They were open to learning about what I was doing and my team was doing. And then we were also open to hearing what they had. And I think we found that actually there is a lot of complimentary things about these methodologies that when you use them together and I think together they're actually greater than the sum of their parts. And I would say I fully subscribed to that now. I think I'm fully convinced that I think behavioral economics is something of value for service design. Though I know the jury is not necessarily fully out on that yet. I'm all in with what you're saying. I think I made even a video where I talked about we should study behavioral economics much more as service designers. And it was a great episode with Luke Betty. I'll link to it somewhere over here. He also, it's like we can, yeah, some more, it's fruit. But it's, we can learn so much more about how people behave and why they do certain stuff and actually build upon that rather than just guessing, right? There's, and from what I'm hearing you say is, that is what I like about the show also is finding the fringes of service design and finding where service design overlaps with other fields. So it's much rather finding new connections and those new connections bringing new tools rather than inventing stuff. Where can we connect with, right? That's what I'm hearing you say at least. Yeah, I think there's a lot of, there's definitely a few people I follow or I'm connected with on LinkedIn who are very vocal about this. And I definitely say I would subscribe is that we as service designers should not try to be everything. We should not try to embody every possible role and skill set. And I think there's definitely, sometimes it feels like there's a bit of a movement towards this or a feeling that service designers need to somehow have all the answers and be able to not only design solutions but do research and do change management and understand implementation and be leaders and talk to the executive talk. And I think there's a certain amount of that that's true that you need to understand all those worlds and you need to understand the different roles and teams and incentive structures be able to navigate them. But there are people already out there who are very good at doing a lot of these things who are experts in doing a lot of these things. And I think it's, our role is to embrace them and our role is to collaborate with them rather than trying to somehow duplicate or replicate what they are already doing and somehow believing that we can do it better. And then I'm not trying to say that anyone thinks that way but I think that's a dangerous mindset to have. And I think that we should be more embracing of other teams and design is really just the backbone. Design, service design is just the through line that we can maybe use to orient and organize these different teams together but we should definitely rely on the outside expertise of teams where it's available. And I think this ties in really neatly with the second topic we can talk about, which is, you might have guessed it already, it's called career paths. Okay, let me do my thing. Sorry, I have it on my phone and it closed. Okay, so I know I showed you, sorry, my thing. I know I'm being a bad guess now, I have to reopen. We have a secured email app, so anytime I reopen it, I have to go through our three passwords. So let me do that. Three passwords. So how about this, who are the people who are choosing career paths in services design? Who are the brave, brave or smart or silly, foolish? Who are they? Who are they? And I think that's really, I think you made an interesting point at the beginning, which I don't know if this was officially part of the episode or not, but you said a lot of people don't even identify as service designers. At the first Canadian conference, we had a bit of a panel debating the merit. Like does it matter that people are labeling themselves, their titles, their roles as service designers, or does it not matter? Like as long as we're folk, we have the same values and the same principles and we use roughly similar, maybe tools and frameworks. Does it matter at all? And there was a good healthy debate around that, whether it matters or not. And I don't know that I have a firm foot or firm standing in one camp or the other. I feel like there's probably benefits to both. But I think that the interesting thing that we, Andrea and I think about, Andrea is my partner at CIBC who leads the practice with me. We actually try to go out of our way to find very diverse backgrounds, very diverse people who come from all different kinds of walks of life. So when we're hiring, we're not just looking for people who've had or are service designers currently, but certainly people who are more aligned from a values perspective. I think that there is a lot of people who are doing service design or service design style work out there who may have never even heard of the term. So I think that it's, we're putting ourselves in a bit of a box when we start to I think only seek out that kind of candidate. So we're trying to be very intentional in just seeing who's doing interesting work that sort of subscribes to a similar set of values that we do. I think those values are obvious. Human centeredness, being willing to challenge and to ask the big questions, being iterative and not being precious about ideas. Like these are those values we have and what are some peripheral fields? And sometimes we look in spaces where you might not think you might find these people like engineering, marketing, these are fields where I think there are a lot of brilliant people who are making for tremendous service signers where maybe I don't know, we maybe classically wouldn't think to find them. So I think that's a really interesting thing. And I think some of the best and brightest service signers I know today, some of them, not all of course, were never went to design school, didn't, you know, could, you know, unfortunately couldn't use Adobe Illustrator to save their life, but understand what design, the value and the purpose of design and are some of the best design leaders and problem solvers that I know out there. So I think that's in the eye of the beholder potentially, but for me, this has always been a truth. Well, it's, I think like we're proving it right now. You have like, you told me you have a business degree, right, you went to business school and I was, I'm a trained software engineer and still we're here at talking on the service design show about service design. So that's, I think this proves your point totally. But if you go back to the question, like you told me you are seeking out people, but do you also see a pattern in people who consciously choose the path of becoming a service designer for whatever that may be? Yeah, I think like who are the people who choose the path of service design? I think there is a lot of qualities there. I think the one for me is, maybe this is starting to go to negative, I think it's a lot of time for people who are a bit, I know we often say we are optimistic as designers and that's one of our best qualities, but I think there's a sense of frustration with how the system works and the system can be wage inequality, it can be how you feel about sort of access to healthcare and be about rights, whatever kind of rights. I think there's this general sense of the world that this is not operating in a way or these systems are not operating in a way that is equitable and fair to the people who really rely on them. And I think oftentimes I think people's interest in service design comes from this desire and this burning desire to change. And I think the change is hard, it's slow, it's painful, so I think another quality that I think is really interesting in strong service designers is resiliency. I think you need to have thick skin, you need to be resilient, you need to be able to weather the storm. I think we were just talking about like fees implementation, that's just one, that's like to me, like in terms of levels of frustration, that's frustrating, but there's so many other bigger changes that we try to strive for that will happen I think eventually, but are just slow to happen and take time. So I love seeing service designers who are not called service designers, but these change agents who are really trying to attack and highlight the unmet needs and highlight these problems that are not being discussed and attacking sort of, it's very smartly and strategically though, trying to attack and change the system in a way to sort of create a better outcome for those people. So I think that's the person I, those are the types of people I think who I found gravitate towards service design. And that's why it doesn't matter what your background is, is anyone in the world could feel this way and could feel empowered and bold and then they can, once they find service design or that once they sort of become aware of it, like I became aware of design thinking, what it does, it gives you a bit of a framework or language to talk about how you might change the system because otherwise you don't know where to begin, you don't have the right tools, you don't have the right frameworks to even begin to think about it. Yeah, so service design gives us a shared vocabulary, shared toolkit, shared mindset that allows us to collaborate. Yeah, and then solve these wicked problems that we think we need to solve, absolutely. And this is also, I think, the debate that has been going on since the day service design started, like, is there a service designer or should we much rather be talking about service design teams that where people have certain roles, certain expertise and everybody, if you're part of a service design team, you're a service designer, but not necessarily with the exact skills that your teammate has. And I think that's exactly correct. Like I say, let me just provide a personal anecdote or not even an anecdote, I can just reflect on our team, how we're building this team here. I think what you just described is the philosophy we have is everyone on the team has a title of service designer because within an organization, It helps. People on the same team need to have a same title, otherwise it's just very confusing. But definitely the idea that service design is a combination of skill sets, it's a combination of, it's shared values, but then all these different kind of, this constellation of skill sets that are necessary, and you can bucket them in terms of like research and design and sense making and whatever, and all these different things and not everyone needs to be good at everything. Exactly. Everyone needs to have an expertise in one or two areas. I don't know, I'm sure your, the watchers of the show are familiar with the idea of T-shaped people. So we often look for T-shaped people and we look for deep expertise in one area or the other. But the expectation on our team at least is that even though you're not the expert at everything, everyone is expected to do everything. So no one's just doing research and no one's just building prototypes and no one's just presenting or managing stakeholders. Everyone is doing everything collectively, collaboratively. So there's the risk of knowledge transference and knowledge sharing and the cracks that can emerge when things have to get passed around or that we reduce that risk, but certainly where people can lean in with different skill sets. And I think different skill sets from different backgrounds, from different perspectives yields the single most important thing for any design team, which is tension. We have a lot of tension on our team, but we like to say it's very good, healthy tension and that we don't always agree on what we should do. We don't always agree on what the right thing is. We don't always agree on the right approach, but we are able to bring our different perspectives and have that healthy dialogue. And almost every time the output is generally better than what it had been without having that conversation. So we know we're onto something when the team is like, you know, when there's friction, there's tension, we know that this is good. We're talking about something important. Man, you're stringing the topics together really nicely and because we're into the topic of teams and let's talk about not how you actually, maybe who is in the team, but how do you lead them? So the third topic is leading services design teams. And you should have some interesting things to say. And you need to log in again. No, I got it. I'm trying to think like, what's an easy question or what's a, cause how can we is kind of boring? How about this? How far, how much or how far, maybe how much? How much do we actually need to lead our services design team? So maybe this notion of like kind of creating autonomous self-orienting, self-determining teams versus maybe a more heavy-handed approach to leadership. I don't talk about that. What are your experiences? I think like most questions, the answer ends up being a little bit boring. Is that it ends up being probably in the middle? I think a little bit of both. I think one of the things we try to do here is we want everyone on our team to feel like they are empowered and have the access to the information and the tools that they need to make decisions about projects, make decisions about designs and move forward. It's interesting when you see people coming from different backgrounds. There are certain people sometimes on my team who really look to authority or look to myself or Andrea. Like is this okay? Like, hey, I made this change here. Like, do you want to review with me? And like to me, this is a symptom of a problem because when someone's behaving that way is they clearly been in a system or a team where that was sort of clearly the baseline expectation. And I feel very strongly that that is like an oppressive environment that I don't want the team to be in. So certainly there are big decisions, milestones, strategic decisions that we want to make as a team. But I certainly really believe that everyone, like I said, we all do everything together. We've all done the research together. We've all synthesized it. We've all built these prototypes together. So no one person has, in my opinion, I guess more authority or a stronger voice in terms of what the thing should be. So I think that's something we're trying to instill in the team to feel that they can feel confident making the decision that they know to be the right one for the design, for the product, for the service. And then obviously, and then we test it. We test everything. So that's the beauty there. So I think that's an important thing that I think the team is trying to still figure out. I think there's still those classic hierarchical norms that are hard to completely, and to be fair, there are still some things that you need to approve and that you need to sign off on. So it's not completely autonomous, but I think we're trying to get closer to that. So my question would be like, I'm not so much interested in those formal sign off things, but how does the team like that, where does it get its direction from? Like what is setting, what is the compass? What is setting the northern star? So I think Andrea and I have, when we created this team, Andrea and I spent a lot of time talking about our vision and we talk about our vision more in terms of like, why are we doing this? Why are we building this team? Why are we bringing these people into these jobs? What are we trying to do and what do we believe in? And I think that's kind of the very baseline that Andrea and I sort of initially established. And when you're hiring someone, you're selling them on that vision, you're promising them that this is what they're buying into and this is the role in the job and then we need to deliver on that. So I think we set the tone with that baseline. I think the people we are hiring obviously are buying in and are subscribing to that on some level, but we don't want to be so daft as to believe that this doesn't evolve or that as you actually, like any design, as you start to put it in the world and you start to really experience it, you may feel differently about it, you may want to change it. So I think Andrea and I set the initial tone. We've hired people in who have a shared value and understanding, but what we do and what we believe is the best next step for the team is a conversation we have as a team. There is a shared benefit for the team to succeed for everyone involved, not just for Andrea and I. Everyone succeeds if the team succeeds. Everyone succeeds if our projects aren't successful. So we're very much, we open that up on a weekly basis to have those dialogues. And we're actually, interestingly, we're planning a session in three weeks on June 28th, where we're gonna have a bit of a reflection. We're inviting an outside facilitator to spend the whole day with us to reflect on the vision of the team, the purpose of the team. We feel like we're achieving it. Are we working on the right projects? Are we working in the right ways? One needs to change and allowing the team to be very, very critical of the team. And I think that's healthy. I think we need to do this on a regular basis. Otherwise we just become, you know, we're just buying into our own, yeah. What have you found to be the most challenging thing in regards to, well, let's still call it leading or building or crafting, shaping a service design team. I think one of the challenging things, there's so many challenging things. I think leading the team, I think, I'm trying to think, there's so many of these challenges. Maybe one that might be interesting to talk about is, there's a couple on my mind in trying to pick which one might be more appropriate, but I think service designers, in my experience, are less career-oriented in the more traditional sense, that they don't look at the org structure and look at it and say, you know, what I want to do next is be at the next level and then after the next level, I'm going to work hard and be at the next level. Whereas, you know, traditionally, I work in private, large corporate and most 99% of people, I don't want to say enough, sorry, I'm going to take that back. I don't want to generalize, but I think a lot of people have that very kind of, I want to progress, I want the next thing. I don't think service designers look at progress as the next level. I think they want to enrich themselves in a way that is broader rather than deeper. Whereas, you know, typically, so I think, and the challenge in organization is that, okay, if you're a marketing person and your goal is to move up the corporate ladder, there are some things you're going to do. You're going to become better at marketing, but then you're going to have to go and work in product, you're going to go work in customer experience, and you're going to do that breadth within the organization. And typically, most large organizations promote people based on this generalist, like people who are good, who have demonstrated aptitude in many different businesses. The challenge for a service designer, I think, is that the opportunities to learn, the types of things you would want to learn are not presented as frequently within a large organization. One of the, a lot of people on teams that I've been on that I've led have often left the organization because they don't know where else to go. Right, right. I'm on the service line team. There is one. Right, right. I want to become better at these other things. I want to expand my horizon, but I don't know where else to go within the organization. You know, you can go work in digital, which is good. There's obviously a lot of design work within digital, but if you, you know, some people go there, but other people feel like, well, digital is, you know, very constrained to one channel. I want to kind of work in the bigger picture. So some people go to market research teams, but some people don't want to just do that style of research. So what people tend to do, and what I've observed, and I think a lot of my friends were also leading other service line teams, is you tend to see this like two to three year shelf life. People join an organization. They get two, three years out of it. They learn it. They, and then they're ready to move on and they want what they want us to change context. They want to go from, I want to work in a retail, a grocery store, and now I want to work in a bank, different problem spaces. And by changing problem spaces, you go out of your comfort zone, you learn, you interact with different leaders and you grow that way, rather than growing in the more traditional kind of the corporate ladder. And that's a challenge when you're building and sustaining a team. Of course. You have this heavy turnover. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. And I guess we haven't, from what I remember, we haven't really talked about on the show about service design career paths. So what is a typical service design? Is there a typical service design career path? That would be a really interesting topic for another episode. And I guess this is also the reason we get a lot of applications at our studio from people who specifically want to work at an agency because they get the opportunity to move from project to project, right? That's where the challenge is. And maybe that's also with internal teams, but it's so fascinating. Like we mostly hire from agency because the pain point of agency is I don't actually get to see the impact of my work. I push the deck over, the client doesn't do anything or they go in the opposite direction. So the benefit of in-house is that, and I believe that the future of sustainable service design needs in-house teams. I think we need the agency and we need the outside perspective. We need this expertise, but we need in-house teams to follow through. So I think the future of service design is a combination of in-house teams working with agency and not one or the other entirely. But you're right. And I think people go to agency when they're sick and tired of the system beating them down and realizing that, oh, it's so hard to drive real change. I'm maybe what I really wanna do is just hone my skills at these other things and explore these media problems in an environment that feels maybe less oppressive. I think one of the other challenges is that a lot of service designers that I know tend to not always wanna work within these very heavy capitalistic systems and organizations like banks and telecom where it's very profit-driven, it's very quarter by quarter. And I think that that in and of itself is almost antithetical to what service design is trying to do and the change in the world that we wanna see. So I think that creates attention for a lot of designers who work in-house. I think you can either see it as I need to be part of the system to change the system or I'm fed up of the system, I'd rather just not engage with it. I'd rather just go work in an agency or in a not-for-profit or in another space where I don't have to deal with this cognitive dissonance. Patrick, super interesting topics, much more we could talk about but I wanna give you the opportunity to ask the viewers and the listeners of the show a question, is there something that you'd like to, for us to think about? Yeah, I think what we need to think about is the resiliency of service design teams. I think what we need to think about is the resiliency of service design. Not to say that I don't believe that service design has a future and service design is something that I believe in but I think we haven't, I'm a true believer, I'm bought in 100% but I'm very critical of the fact that I don't truly believe that we've clearly still communicated the value of this approach. I don't think we've made it clear enough or obvious enough why this is something worth pursuing and I think we still very much rely on a small number of champions and people who need to really kind of bring us in and champion us even internally and certainly as agencies I think that that's a reality. I think that the why we need to do service design and why this is important is something that is a message that we haven't fully articulated in the way that it needs to be and I think that that's something that we need to reflect on is like why are people, every time someone says they're not interested in doing service design why not? What is it about that and how can we learn from that experience and get better at and are we making assumptions about what we think we're offering and the value that we think we bring to people where maybe we're making assumptions about what our users need. So I think we need to be very critical about this. So maybe the question is like maybe engaging in some reflection around the next time someone challenges you on service, the value of design or service design and thinking through like how do we answer that? Why do we become so defensive? What assumptions might we be making? And I think if we can be self aware that way I think that's gonna show us the path forward. Maybe you're, yeah, let's leave it at that. Great question. I think a lot, gives a lot of room to think about. Very loaded, heavy question, sorry. No, yeah, you know, I think you're absolutely right and we're so in love with what we do that we sometimes get blinded by. I think we absolutely do. I think we need to be very self critical of what we do and the value we think we bring and to whom we bring it and yeah. A practice that I've been trying to actually do is after a project as my clients what value did I actually bring? What is the biggest challenge that I've solved for you? And the answers you'll get from that they will literally blow you away. They will tell you completely different things that you then you imagine what you're actually offering. So that's a way to actually do this. I love Project Retros. I think to your point they're a great source of insight. But I think those are interesting. I think it'd be interesting to have those similar conversations as well with people who decide not to work with us. And I think we don't, we usually walk away and we say okay, but I think it's just as meaningful. Like why not? What are you trying to do? What do you think we're trying to do? I think that's something worth thinking about too. Patrick, thanks so much for sharing what you're doing, sharing what's on your mind, a lot of topics. I think there are sort of projecting the future discussions of our field. So thanks again for making the time. Thank you and I just want to be clear that I don't have the answers to these questions. I'm hoping that maybe some of you guys do. These are just some of the things that are on my mind right now. Thanks for your time. So what is your take on Patrick's question? Why aren't people buying service design? What are the biggest objections and how do you counter them? Leave a comment down below. If you enjoyed this episode, make sure you check out the next one because it's full of knowledge bombs as well. And if you haven't done so already, click that subscribe button. Thanks for watching and I'll see you in the next video.