 In this episode, you're going to learn how you can successfully make an impact as a service designer in an organization where product-centric thinking is currently the dominating force. Here's the guest for this episode. Let the show begin. Hello, this is Valeria. We are on the This Is Service Design Show and this is episode 135. Hi, I'm Marc Fontaine and welcome back to a new episode of the Service Design Show. In this show, we explore what's beneath the surface of service design, what are the hidden things that make a difference between success and failure, all to help you make a positive impact on people and business. Our guest in this episode is Valeria Adani, who's the head of service design at Frog. And the reason I'm so excited to have Valeria here on this show is that we're going to discuss a topic that I think a lot of service designers have been running into. Because even though most companies these days, if not all of them, are delivering services, internally they still use a product language and product thinking. Working inside this dynamic as a service designer can be challenging and sometimes even frustrating. So when you see an opportunity to do good, it may be hard to make your voice heard. Well, Valeria has a lot of experience working with these types of organizations and in this episode, she's going to share some tips that are going to help you be more successful. So if you stick around till the end of this episode, you'll learn how you can better collaborate with product managers and how you can help product teams to see the value of service design, eventually helping you to deliver better services that are more valuable for customers. If you find topics like this interesting and want to keep on growing as a service designer professional, make sure you subscribe to the channel and click that bell icon because we bring a new video like this every week or so. Now that's all for the intro and now let's quickly jump into the conversation with Valeria Adani. Welcome to the show Valeria. Hi, hi Mark, how are you? I'm doing really good excited to have this conversation. You are just on the verge of having a maternity leave, so I'm really on time, right? Yes, absolutely, literally three weeks from now, so not too far. These are the last moments for me to really focus on work and service design before I go into something else. Yeah, so I'm lucky to have you on this episode. Now for the people who don't know who you are, maybe you can give a short introduction to who Valeria is, so what you do these days. Absolutely, so my name is Valeria Adani, I'm head of service design at Frog London. We recently became Frog, I was at Idean before and just before we were live, sorry, Adaptive Lab and I was at Livework before. I've been in service design for more than 10 years now, that makes me feel very old. A veteran, a veteran, yeah, very good. A lot of experience. So Valeria, before we dive into the topic of today, let's do a rapid fire question around. I'm going to ask you five questions. Your job is to answer them as quickly as possible. So don't overthink them. Anything that comes to your mind is a valid answer. Let's start with question number one. And that question is what's always in your fridge? Oh, Parmesan cheese. Awesome. Which book or books are you reading at this moment? I'm reading a lot of pregnancy books, very boring stuff. Also relevant, depending on your context, which superpower would you like to have? Definitely flying. OK, we're going to change that question because everybody wants to fly. The next question was, what did you want to become when you were a kid? I wanted to be a patisserie chef. So I wanted to bake cakes. And are you doing that these days? As an amateur? No, really, no, really. I prefer to eat them. OK, yeah, same side here. Finally, now you just hinted that you are in service design for over a decade. But do you remember when you got first in touch with service design? Yes, I was doing my thesis for my bachelor in communication design and I started reading a book by Etsy Manzini back in the days. And suddenly I realized this is what I want to do. That was a life changing moment for me. I can remember the layout of the page of the book. What was it? What did you read that you thought, well, this is it? He was talking about how we need to involve users and how co-creation and making sure that everybody becomes a designer. It was in the context of public design. I was like, yeah, this is what I want to do. I don't want to do communication design. I don't want to do graphic design. This is what I want to do. And then we realized Polytechnic had a great service design master. So I didn't have to, you know, go crazy. I found it just at my doorstep. That was definitely one of the best life choices I've made. Awesome. Awesome. Now, we're going to talk about a topic today that I think a lot of service designers have bumped into, for sure, probably have struggled with also. The way I would summarize it is that we as service designers still have to operate in a lot of environments which are very product driven, product oriented, product language, the products are everywhere. While if we look at our GDP, it's actually services that we deliver. So there is a paradox, a friction, tension here. And in this episode, we're going to sort of try to see where that is coming from and maybe give some hints and pointers on how to overcome that. Did I sort of summarize that? Yes, absolutely. Around a year ago, we had a debate in our service design team in Frog London. Like if we usually run fun debates and we divided the team into people that were pro service design and people that were product management. So we did this service design versus product manager role. And it's something that we live in a service economy and yet we still talk about product teams and product management at all the time and has practitioners in service design. We live this battle every day. So I think it's a very relevant topic. I'm not saying at the end of this conversation, we're going to say who is the winner. But definitely like through my years of experience, I had to find a number of tricks or techniques to make sure that we spoke the same language. So maybe that's one of the first questions here is maybe, so what, so what that we as service designers have to deal with products and product people and product language? Well, the use and circulation of product cannot be separated from the use and circulation of services. But the product centric mindset seems to be the mainstream. And the reality is that product centric mindset very often creates a lot of isolated islands. So that's a good thing for us. It means that we still have a job. But on the other side, it's at the detriment of customer, citizens, patients and users' experience. So I guess my question is, how can we transition from product centric to service centric? Or is it a transition or is it more about coordination? Is it more about merging the two disciplines or a fruitful collaboration where we can speak the same language and work toward the same outcomes? Yeah. And language matters, right? Because language informs decisions, language informs beliefs. And I don't think we're saying that we should get rid of product language and product thinking. It's just that it's it's maybe not reflect reflecting reality in the way it currently is. And therefore it's limiting the good things we can do for organizations or for people. Yeah. One hundred percent. I think I've been going on on language since I started my career. I started my career not in a service design environment in strategy and branding. Then I moved into an IT company where I realized actually working with engineers, I needed to speak their language. And it's the same thing with product manager and product people, language and accessibility of the language. Very often we we just build walls and we create our own jargon in service design. So there is something about making our language more accessible to product people and the other way around understanding the language and finding that that common ground. But the reality of things is that products are tangible. Their services are not and products are sexy, beautiful screens, beautiful motions, beautiful KPIs that you can track and measure. And what we deal with the service designer is not tangible. And the management and shareholders love to see screens, love to ship products. They want to scale the thing. But what about when you're like selling, what you're selling is not a product, but is access to food, access to transport, access to services. And I think we need to get better as service designers to articulate our story and use a language that is more accessible to management and stakeholders. Yeah, so we're already diving into some examples. And I think you already gave some good examples. It's coming from a heritage. It's coming from a management way of working where it's easy to have things that are easily managed products, very concrete, tangible. Now, my question here would be, do you already have some examples where you as a practitioner, as a service design practitioner, encountered this friction and maybe you can share a story how you, yeah, I see you nodding like a hundred times. I know, but maybe some iconic ones that you think would be interesting to share and see how you managed to deal with that. Absolutely, absolutely. I think my best story in this context is when I actually transitioned from a pure service design agency that was live work and I moved into Adaptive Lab, Now Idea, Now Frog that is historically a product-focused company. So I joined this amazing team of product designers and product managers that were building a new robotic advice service for a financial sector client. I joined the project that was already ongoing and I suddenly realized coming from this service design kind of like rainbow and unicorn world where service design was the king. I realized, who in this context, I'm not the queen anymore. Service design is not the king. And I was actually managed like working with a team that was so focused on the digital journey that they almost completely lost sight of everything that was around it. So the before, before they onboarding digital journey and the after. And for me, it was quite fascinating, actually, to realize how much time, effort and money was spent on an onboarding journey. A beautiful digital product that in comparison with the rest of the service was just like a fraction of the value. So it was a bit of a shock, I have to say at the beginning, but I did find some ways to make sure that we were zooming out and making sure that the the overall service was actually taken in consideration. Do you want to hear more about it? Well, yeah, let me let me ask something to clarify this. And when we talk about products, even the people designing digital experiences, digital interfaces, digital touch points, they are, of course, designing services, but tangible artifacts are so prominent that we speak about products. And in this case, it was maybe an app or a website where somebody was taking through an onboarding process. But it was just focused on one channel, one medium and a very small part of the journey, right? That's what we are. And you came in as a service designer and you were thinking, well, there's more than this one single touch point or two touch points, there's more. And how do you explain it to people who only have the craft of working in a digital medium, her digital channel, who only know how to do that? Well, first of all, for me, it was about making it tangible and visible. So what was what did you make tangible? The fact that there was a before and after the digital journey. So just even like the good old mapping and saying, you know, even visually, even in terms of proportions, this is what you're dealing with. But we have this before and this like 100 meters more after the onboarding journey. So just showing visually how relevant that moment was for the customer in terms of time, in terms of emotions, etc. So showing it into context really helped them understand, oh, there's more than just the digital touch point. In this case, it was a website. So just showing it, even just the visual really helped understanding the relationship between that specific moment in the journey and the rest of the journey. And I guess what really helped again visually it was to show the end to end, including like handovers, exit points, potential flows, etc. So what happens when you show that? Because again, these people might if we talk about the things that they are measured or that their job description says, like they are only focused on a specific part and then you come in as a service designer, you zoom out and you show the entire process and holistic and then they are OK. But in the end, my manager just wants to see screen. So how do you navigate that conversation? There were a couple of little things for me. It was, again, language. They kept referring to the digital and the analogue journey. I'm like, no, we are not looking at the digital and analogue journey. We are looking at the journey. And then within I presented like a lifecycle framework. So basically showing that the digital and the non-digital journey, they were actually part of the same continuum. And we couldn't just define journeys based on the channel that was our view, a very silo's view. We had to look at the journey from the customer perspective. There was an onboarding journey that was actually encompassing a number of different channels. So just even changing the language from digital journey to analogue journey to there is no boarding journey. There is an assessment journey. There is an exit journey. Helped understanding that we had to look at the product and to end across different channels. The other thing that really helped is very practical, is actually starting working as a team. So we started having like common stand-ups, the same backlog, even if they were working on the product. I insisted to have to use and be in the same channels and rituals, et cetera, that the product team was using. So we were not looking at product versus service, but we were looking at the service as a team. I'm curious. Was there a moment in this project where you felt that they got it? Like, did they see or hear? Or when did the lights come on and that they started to care to actually take this into consideration? I wouldn't say there was a ha ha moment, like a light bulb moment. It was more, in my opinion, when I started hearing them using a different language that it made me realize that they got it. So it wasn't something that happened overnight. So there was a workshop where we were like, yay, but when the product designer started talking about the service journey rather than the digital and on digital journey, I think that was for me a big winning point. Or when, for example, we started incorporating in the testing. So they were testing every week new features or new new functionalities of the product. We started including some service testing as well. We were testing, for example, scripts for the calls, et cetera. So the fact that they were open to test different parts of the service journey for me was a great win. But I wouldn't say there was a moment where like, oh, yeah, we got it. And this is really important, actually, to pinpoint because sometimes it's really hard in service design to see if you're making progress. Like the change can be very gradual, very slow, very under the iceberg kind of thing. But when you see people adopting a service language, when you hear them say things that you mentioned like three weeks ago, you should take note of that and open the champagne on or beer on Friday because that's that's progress. And I think like it may seem quite insignificant, but that's actually how how progress is made within service design for a big part. Yeah, our our fashion is not a profession that gives us a lot of gratification, immediate gratification. I think we deal with complex, messy, non-sexy kind of challenges, including bringing teams on board, client teams, project teams, you name it. But yeah, we have to find satisfaction in those little moments where you're like, oh, yes, they're using the right language. And you have to open a, yeah, a bottle of champagne for those little things. Absolutely. So yeah, those are small things, but they are not insignificant. And I think it's really hard sometimes to to understand that that's what you should be paying attention to, that fact that language is changing and make note of that that's really important. Yeah. And then it's been an ongoing challenge, as I said, like coming from a service design agency where service design was like celebrated moving into a place where like product was really strong. For me, like one of those winning moments was when after, I think, 18 months, working with the principal product manager, we sat down, we had a client meeting. I remember we were taking the tube back to the office and it was like, Valeria, I have to tell you, like, can you tell me what the heck is service design? I was like, come on, mate. We've been working together for 18 months. That's not OK. So I, you know, I articulated it to him and it turned out it came up with a better explanation and a better definition than any definition I ever made. And for me, that was a little win where a product person that had very zero, very little, not zero, very little understanding and I would say trust in service design was actually able to articulate it better than me. And then he became one of the biggest advocate. So it took me 80 months. But why do you think that at some point he became interested in this? This is a great question, because I think what we struggle very often as service designer is showing the what. Like, what is the business of service design? And we focus a lot on the how. And this is an ongoing conversation. I think there was an article from Sarah Drummond a couple of years ago about how suddenly service design is all becoming about process and tools and methods and not about the what that is the design of services. And I think very often we struggle to articulate that what we do is design services. It's not just, you know, delivering personas or blueprints, etc. There was an ongoing job in the office. And I think suddenly for him seeing first hand then the impact of the work that we could do or that we were doing just made him click and realize, oh, actually, there is value because it kind of was able to see beyond the blueprints, beyond the journeys, beyond, you know, those tools that everybody can use that we were actually adding value to the client. And is that maybe the thing that makes it that distracts a lot of people, the tools, the campuses, the workshops? Like, that's the those are the tangible things. But it it's so much attention to distract from OK, but what is it that you actually do? Yeah, yeah, for me, it's fundamental, you know, interrogate is there a need for this service? How this service needs to be designed, being strategic, thinking about how to connect a service to the business and the capabilities that the business has. So really connect business and strategy and design rather than just making the ideal user journey. That's not enough. So it's it's something that I think it's a common problem for service design and product management as well. Don't even let me start it. If we use a methodology in an academic dogmatic kind of like checklist kind of way. We we fail as professional because it's not about the method. It's not about the tool is about the impact and the strategic impact that you have on the organization and on the service that they're delivering. I couldn't agree more. The challenge with that is that that strategic impact is often quite intangible. So it's hard to communicate that up front. Like this is the common story when somebody has gone through the services our process, like they get it. But how do you get them to buy in from the start? Because there is a massive. Yeah. I think this is a bit of the work you're doing, right? Like raising the the awareness of the practice, how to sell it, how to position it. But also we need a level of maturity coming from other life from our clients and organization we work with that. Is almost like an enabling factor for us to have that kind of impact. Like we need organizations to be more mature when it comes to service thinking, design and product. But we can also help our clients to move and to become more and more aware. I think we are really lucky in the UK where we have a brilliant example under our eyes every day that is the government digital services. The ripple effect of GDS on private and public services has been immense because you're just showing in everyday little things including, I don't know, renewing your passport, etc. How you can really think about end-to-end services, cross-department services. I think that pushed our practice in a place that no one else did. Yeah, it's great to have those examples and to have something to point to and that gives a lot of credibility and aspiration to the field. Maybe you've been dealing with product people for a long time. What is the thing that you know now about that practice or that field that you wish you maybe knew five years ago and that you would like to share with the rest of the service design community? Yes, well, I already talked about language, you know, finding the common language, understand each other's languages. I already talked about helping the organization mature. So establishing the right product and design leaderships, I think those are really, really important. There is another point that I need to mention that is breaking the service design echo chamber. Sometimes we are self-referential, we use our own jargon, we are, we create our own silos within the silos. But I think for me, the most important thing that I learned in the past few years working with product is that at the end of the day, the design of services cannot exist without a strong focus on implementation because otherwise service design is always seen as a strategic thing. But the reality is that we also need to implement and we suck at it a bit or we don't have enough good examples while product managers are amazing. So for me, like what I wish I knew five years ago, it was finding a common language earlier on around implementation. So do you have some examples around the common language for implementation? Because I think I have an idea why we struggle with implementation or what implementation looks like in service design. But I'm curious, what is that common language between product and service people and implementation? I think we all want the same thing. We just deal with different materials. What I mean with that, there is a... We were talking about this with the team the other week. There is this... The material that a product manager has are, you know, backlogs, user stories, etc. The material that we deal with as a service designer are organizations, are people. Again, in material, a fashion designer would have textile and needle and thread. We have organization. And I think people, policies, all, you know, messy stuff. So we do struggle with implementation because it's messy, it's complex, it's unsexy. I said it like 300 times now. But I think we just need to find a way where the way product managers work in implementation, we can adopt it, but we just need to use a different material. So last year, for example, we spent a lot of time as a team trying to upskill or to understand more about operations. And what does it take to operationalize a service? Sometimes we are lucky and we can, you know, build a service from scratch. So we can really define the service like the best possible way. Or sometimes we have to deal with what the organization already has. The robotic advice I was talking about earlier, it was quite a good example. We were building a completely new digital product, a completely new tech stack. So it was like a new instance, not relying on legacy systems, etc. So the digital team actually had a very fun time just building something from scratch. And then when it came to the services bits of the service journey, we actually had to deal with legacy systems. So the legacy call centers, the legacy email system, the legacy CRM, and, you know, we had slightly different pace in terms of implementation because we had to find compromises between this is the ideal experience, but this is the tool that we have. So finding that common language for me was all about like similar rhythm, similar tools, backlogs, etc. But then the material we use is slightly different, but we need to be able to get our hands dirty as service designers and build the stuff that we design. So what did you learn about that operationalizing bit? What kind of language, what knowledge that is helping you today to actually get services implemented? This is a great question. I wish I had the answer, but we started looking at how we can be designing more human-centered organizations. How can we use the typical target operating model that consultants are really good at and give it a human-centered twist? What is the target operating model? So it's basically say like to deliver this service for this amount of people, you need dysfunctions, dysprocesses, etc. And that's a typical thing that lots of consultancies do. By the books, they have their own templates or best practices, and then they just go there and probably it's not that simple, like they do a little bit of research, etc. But I think there is a way that we can do it in a more human-centered way. We can test target operating models. There are very interesting people in the UK doing that, including Emily Bazalgette, for example, that she works in organizational design and service design and testing how you can use different operating models to deliver a service. At the end of the day, we need to take in consideration that services are very often delivered by humans and they are a variable that we can't just assume they're gonna work in a certain way. So for example, the last 18 months, I focused a lot on employee experience as well to try to understand, okay, this is the operating model, but what kind of experience do the employee have to deliver a certain service? So I think we just need to be more and more conscious that the backstage is as important if not more important than the front stage. The front stage is, I'm not saying the easy bit because it's not, but without a solid backstage you can't go very far. How do you, we have a lot of tools, methods in our arsenal, a lot of processes, books have been written, but apparently there are gaps that we're sort of struggling with right now and we have maybe, and this is a classic story in service design, we're focusing a lot on insights, on research, on ideation, and then everybody comes to the conclusion that the hard work really begins. And this is, I feel also where you're sort of hinting at that that's second or third phase of the service design process. We need to start tapping into other fields who have maybe already figured a lot of this out. Absolutely, absolutely. I think it's very, very cocky to think that we can sort it out ourselves. I think our role is orchestration, but the capabilities are already existing in some organizations. Sometimes they need just to figure it out, but we can't do this alone. And the reason why it's so difficult to deliver services, because most of the time there is complexity and there are these persistent issues that no one wanted to resolve. And somehow when we start projects that are looking at end-to-end services, we open the Pandora box. So there is a level of leadership that is required, a level of momentum that you need to create. And very often as a consultant, as an agency, we are not necessarily given the mandate to do that. So we need to make sure that we really empower our clients or even better that they can create their own internal team and push things forward. I remember a poster from again, GDS from good old Martin Jordan that said service design is never finished because that's the reality of things. And here comes again the similarity with product management. Product managers, they look at the whole life cycle, they keep the product alive, they iterate, they test, they measure constantly. Product managers, they just deliver a project and go away, they keep the product alive. So there is so much that we can learn from them on that side. The challenge here is that there is a product manager and there is a product, but often there isn't anybody who's responsible for a service, right? Somebody is responsible for the website, for the app, for the, I don't know, for the social media strategy channel, but rarely you'll find somebody who's actually responsible for the service. Yeah, rarely you have like a portfolio manager that perhaps is looking at a number of products. Sometimes you have a head of CX, maybe he's looking at end-to-end. It's a tricky business and it goes back to how things are measured, I think as well. This is something that Andy Budd from Clear Left because I'll just say here based in the UK, speaks a lot about the fact that product language is usually more used because product organizations are organized around products because then people are measured against certain product KPIs, et cetera. So it's almost like a chicken and egg situation where lots of organizations are organized around product because it's easier to measure and faster and easier and more accessible. But on the other side, they are creating islands and silos because that's the way you're organized. So I think it's like there are so many head of design reporting into products, into head of product. That's so wrong if you think about it. It should be equal. The ROI of design is more difficult to measure, right? So, especially service design. Yeah, well, we can make a separate episode on that. We have a few around that. Now, let's use a few minutes to see if we can help people who are in a similar position as you've been. Like, okay, you enter a new company, there's a strong product heritage, strong product focus. They hire you as the first or second service designer and you come in and you're like, where do I even start? Like, how would you approach this situation with the knowledge you have today? Like, what are some of the first steps you would take? And maybe pitfalls you would avoid? I'm quoting again someone else and then building on their experience of Iban Benzal, who is now at WISE and used to be at Babylon. He was the first service designer hired by Babylon Health. And I remember him talking about how at the beginning he was trying to meet everyone and trying to be available for workshops, co-creation. So, almost like becoming a reference point for everything that is design or collaboration or co-creation. And of course, that's not your goal, but that's a way for you to start building bridges and to start building connections. At the end of the day, we are people, we need to create a relationship. So, creating those connections, being available, giving and helping hands, get your nose stuck in every single situation, I think it really helps to make yourself more credible and to create those connections. The second thing is also showing the value. So, showing examples, raising awareness, showing case studies, et cetera. What kind of examples would you show? What have you found that works quite effectively? For me, it's all about showing the impact of the work we've done, not the tools and the methods. As I said before, like it's not about showing- The impact is hard to measure, so what do you show? Yeah, absolutely. But you can show how, for example, you increased, I don't know, customer satisfaction. There are ways to measure, and there are ways to show a compelling story. You can test if a service and pilot and measure if a service is improved or not. It's a tricky business, I'm not saying, but showing, even examples that are not from you, showing great case study, SDN has plenty, right? So, showing other examples where you see this is how a service design lens has been applied, and this is how it was used. This is the impact. Why don't we try it? What do you think this could be? And for me, it's also showing gaps at the moment. So, it's really showing, again, bringing the user to the table, I think that always helps. So, in that robot-wise project, what really helped me was to show pitfalls when clients were just leaving the service. Because the transition between channels was awful, no one thought about it. So, those were the moments where we went from 70% engagement to 30. And guess why no one thought about this transition? So, almost like making the obvious visible, I think that helps a lot. And there is another point that is a little bit more challenging that is showing the risk of oversimplification. Very often, the product approach is like, we have this assumption, we build it fast, we break it fast and we just ship. Some problems cannot be resolved in a fast way. Some problems are complex, systemic, and they need time. So, showing the pitfalls of like too fast to be true. So, what are these pitfalls? Yeah, in my opinion, I was yesterday before preparing for this conversation with you, Mark. I spoke with a colleague of mine that has been working in a government project recently. And he really struggled to, he was working in a product team and he was really struggling to trying to solve a very complex problems. In this case was helping people retrain when they cannot find a job anymore on the market. So, a very complex, wicked, sticky problem and trying to solve it with a product agile sprint kind of way. So, going live as soon as possible is not good per se. And assumption-based approach can be too simplistic when it comes to a systemic, sticky problem. So, in this case, he was really struggling with like, at the beginning, we just decided three potential opportunity areas and then we deep dive into that. But they were like, we could have explored 50 different problems. But we didn't take the time to actually understand which of these problems was actually more challenging or worth solving. So, sometimes oversimplifying has massive counter-effects because once you are in this delivery mood, you realize, oh, maybe we should have done that, but we are in now and it's really hard. So, people are complex, persistent problem are complex. Sometimes it's too simplistic to just go in with like, let's build a prototype and see how it goes. Yes, sometimes it works. I had a project where we didn't have the chance to do initial research. We just went in with some ideas, testing like a little bit more agile than the typical service design project. But when it comes to big societal project, no. Yeah, I think the trade-off here is how much is at stake? Like, if people's lives are literally at stake, like you might want to invest a bit more than just a few sprints and have a more humble and a more thorough approach versus like, if you're a startup and you're okay to break things. The reality is that lots of companies nowadays, they postpone resolving those problems, private and public, right? They postpone, they postpone, and the messy problems with time, they become messier. They become more complex. And suddenly they're like, oh, we need to resolve it. We have six weeks. Can we do three sprints and resolve it? And you're like, certain problems. And there is an amazing talk by Abby Covert from the American Information Architecture Institute about how certain persistent problems, they cannot be fixed with fast thinking. They need a slow response. I do think that the answer stays in the balance, right? Sometimes as a service designer, as we said multiple times, we struggle to show value. We are slow. We just move fast enough. And on the other side, we have product teams that are like super fast delivering in two weeks. So the solution perhaps is in the middle, but we can't, certain, even in private sector, like mortgages, insurance, it's so complex that it needs more time than just a couple of sprints. We're heading towards the end of our conversation. We started with the friction between service language, product language, the gap between service designers and product managers, how to overcome that. And that product is often in the lead. And if we want to implement and deliver impact, then we need to bridge that gap. How would you summarize this conversation so far? I'm looking at my notes and I'm like, oh, there's so much. I think, as I said, finding the right compromise and the middle ground, not being dogmatic, and being able to adapt the best tool approach mindset to the context. As you said, if people's life is at stake, and maybe we need to approach things in a different way. So for me, it's really about framing the problems in the right way and finding together the right compromise, share the language, share a common language. We all want the best for the user and the employees and the company. And last but not least, finding how we can complement each other and how we can really work together in certain parts or hand over to each other at the right moment and learn from each other as well. So regarding that last thing, how we can complement each other, one final question about that is, what have you heard from product people and I'm going to generalize here that they see as added value of people from the service design field? What do they see as the added value from your experience? I don't know if I can generalize. I think it's very much based on people, but looking at the holistic end to end and looking at the implication of a service of the impact on the ecosystem, that's something that we can really help product managers to look at. I mean, sometimes I'm going to close with something controversial, but product managers just look at the money and conversion rate while we look at also what is the impact on the wider ecosystem. And ecosystem is the company, the society, the environment, et cetera. Product managers do as well at the end of the day, they have their KPIs, they need to eat. So yeah, as I said, a bit controversial, but we really, within the commercial boundaries of companies, they need to make money, of course, but we can help them see a little bit beyond what is the product that they're managing. I think mature product managers, they can do that by themselves, but we can definitely help the majority of product managers to do that end to end, to look at the end to end picture. And on that note, I think that's a really good wrap up and final advice. I think there's a lot of opportunities still as long as we're eager to learn open and not being dogmatic. Like you said, being humble, I think product people are doing also great stuff. So let's learn from that field as well. Yeah, let's find ourselves somewhere in the middle. Exactly, Lea, I'm going to wish you very good, mature and to leave. Hopefully everybody will be happy and healthy in a few weeks time. Thank you for coming on the show and sharing this with the community here. Thank you so much, Mark, and I'm sure, yeah, I'll be somewhere else with my mind in the next few months. But I would be really curious to hear comments and any discussion on product management services and that this conversation between you and you might spark. Everybody is invited to comment on this, so thanks. Awesome that you made it all the way till the end of this conversation. I really hope you enjoyed it. And if you did, make sure to click that subscribe button if you haven't so done already so you don't miss any future episodes. If you're looking for more, check out the next video that I've got lined up for you. See you over there.