 In this episode, we'll be talking about the big gap between what clients want and what they actually need. We'll talk about the dangers of service design falling into simple recipes and checklists rather than continuing to be a holistic problem-solving approach. And we'll talk about why service designers like you need to focus much more on producing outcomes rather than deliverables. Here's the guest for this episode. Let the show begin. Hi, this is Greg like Luffy and this is a service design show. Hi, I'm Marc and welcome to the service design show. This show is all about helping you do more work that makes you proud by designing and delivering services that have a positive impact on people's lives and are good for business. My guest in this episode of the show is Greg like Luffy. Greg is one of the co-founders of service design Dallas and he's also in the board of directors of the AIGA in Dallas. The main theme of this episode is we will be talking about the dangers of service design falling into simple checklists, to-do lists, oversimplified methods and tools. While tools and methods are useful and can be really helpful, we need to constantly be aware that there's much more to service design than just these tools and methods and then we need to approach this field with a more holistic mindset. So we're going to look at how to do that and what we can do to prevent, like I said, service design from falling into these simple, oversimplified tools, methods, recipes and checklists. If you're a regular viewer of the show, you know that we post a new video on this channel at least once a week and if you're new to this channel, make sure to subscribe and click the bell icon so you'll be notified when new videos are out. And if you haven't done so already, make sure to check out our Instagram page while you find some cool content that's not included here on YouTube. So that's all for the introduction and now let's quickly jump into the interview with Greg. Welcome to the show, Greg. Thank you, Mark. Really looking forward to our discussion because I think it's going to cover some topics that a lot of service designers relate to but before we dive into those topics, could you give like a 30-second introduction who you are? Sure. So I am Greg LaCluvi. I am a principal consultant at Slalom Consulting in Dallas, Texas. And I am in somehow charge of expanding the service design capability through our company and through our clients and try to expand their horizon in terms of going from product to services to ecosystem and make sure that everything works according to plan. And you're also sort of cheering on and motivating the community in and around Dallas, right? The service design community. That's true. We have started a couple of years ago a meetup group which is kind of a semi-organized chapter to spread the knowledge of service design in Dallas. As you know, service design has been very well received and very accepted in Europe for quite some times. In the U.S., it's still very much work in progress. We're still very much trying to get people to think of service design as a capability and a discipline. There's a bit of confusion in terms of design thinking versus service design versus other kind of design sprints in the U.S. So our goal is to make sure that people who are stumbling upon service design understand what it is. Most of them are using it for quite some time. UI UX designers have been doing service design while really knowing about it. They want to know more about it. Some UI designers are interested in becoming a service designer if that is a thing. So we're just trying to meet once a month and kind of like, you know, explain to people what the tools are. We have one coming next week about stakeholder mapping to kind of like, you know, broad the range of the tool set that people have currently here in the U.S. at least. Cool. So if people are in the region of Dallas, make sure to reach out to Greg and he can guide you through the service design community there. Greg, do you remember? Because that's the question I always ask my guests, do you remember the very first time you got in touch with service design? You know, I'm going to say the very first time I realized I was doing service design was probably while I was working at Capital One, which is one of our main clients here, and I was working with a German Hagerman, who was the head of design for financial services at Capital One. This is when I started to realize that through adaptive path, which was acquired by Capital One, what I was doing, which was no user interviews, side-by-sides, blueprinting was basically service design. So I was like, hey, I've been doing this. So there's probably more for me to learn. And I started to dig into it and buy some books and like everybody else. And now I'm doing service design full time. Jamie, Jamie has been a guest on the show and I think everybody knows him. He's now moving to New York. So Greg, you gave me three really interesting topics. I gave you some almost famous service design show question starters. Are you ready to do some interview, Jazz? Sure, let's do it. OK. Topic number one I prepared for you here on these papers is one versus need. And do you have a question starter that goes along with this one? And can you show it to us? Hmm, let me see. I think I'm going to go with how can we? How can we? So I think that one, the. So we have a lot of clients here to be a consultant. And I think it's very, it's very interesting the fact that. There are some very big differences between what the users need and what the business need versus what the business wants. So very often we get into a room and we talk to stakeholders, the C-suite, and they have a fairly clear understanding of what their needs could be. But it translates very quickly to where we want. We want more features, we want more buttons, we want more bells and whistles, and more shiny toys, which is fine. There's nothing wrong with that. But as we start digging into it and doing the due diligence of doing contextual interviews and user interviews, usually we start realizing that what they want may not be selling what they need. And this is kind of like this sort of service designer or the researcher needs to be working on their diplomatic skills, so to speak, when you actually go back to your client and push back. So like we've heard you, we understand that you want to add, you want to have a new app or you want to have a new feature or a new button or whatever it is. And going back to them and telling them like, well, we've looked into this and we think that maybe what you need is not that. We think what you need should be something else altogether. And you'd be surprised. Usually it's actually where we're going to receive because they've made some huge assumptions. Again, not doing the due diligence and research. And it's kind of like assumed or did some very basic internal research. And they just say, hey, no, company X is doing this. I think we should be doing the same thing. And sometimes it's just not true. Sometimes you should be spending your time and resources in a force somewhere else. So that's a very big key differentiator for service design to be able to go in and really start discussing what is it that you really need as a business or what do your users need versus what they want. Yeah, and I think this is something a lot of us recognize. Again, I recognize this at least in our, most of our projects in, we've even formalized this in our approach and in our process where we always say, we're going to reframe the challenge, whatever it is. So whatever the challenge is that comes onto our table, we're going to reframe it and look at it from a fresh perspective. But like you said, and I haven't expressed it in that way, but it does require some diplomatic skills to, and especially in organizations who are sort of driven by experts, expertise, like manufacturing companies, stuff like that. What have you found? How do you, have you found ways that make it easier to ease clients into this new perspective instead of them pushing back? Well, I think the easiest way is to show the data, right? So, you know, you go in and you spend two or three weeks with internal users or the external users in this case, if it's a customer facing application. And when you go back to your stakeholders, you've done your homework, you've actually have uncovered some truth or some insights at least and being able to expose them to those data, it's really hard to push back on something that's factual. So we have spent three weeks doing this, we have found out this, so we have a wall of research or we have some clusters and some insights and we have found out those 10 things. It just, and usually it's, it could be a pretty shocking truth to them. Sometimes they have no idea this is happening in their very own stores, in their very own systems. So, to me, that is the easiest thing to do. It's kind of like, if they push back, I can put back my documents just like, hey, you know, on that day, this interview, this user, I said so, we can just put a quote and it's just kind of hard to agree with that. Those are your own employees or your own customers. Yeah, and that's, I think you're hitting, what is it, the nail on the head there. I don't know, is that an English saying, I think so, it's at least a dusting, but when you present data and you show real users, real customers, real employees, then you take it away from being a discussion about me versus the client, but you make it like, this is what your customers are saying. It's not about what I think, this is what the reality is saying, right? Yeah, absolutely. And it's very interesting. So there's someone on my team who is basically highly qualified in this kind of like qualitative research. And as soon as you realize that everything can be qualified, everything can be qualified versus being a sentiment or versus being like, click or whatever it is, then it's so much easier. You can literally baseline everything and you can just measure everything from like, right now we have this problem and we're going to measure this through the next three weeks and we're going to end up with like a different number, different fact. That is very, very compelling for a customer or a client to kind of like, okay, this is working, it's not working, let's do something else. What have you found, because showing field research data, quotes, videos, interviews always works, but what have you found to be the biggest hurdle in sort of explaining to clients that what they think they need is not the thing they need? What is the biggest hurdle in there? Well, I think the biggest hurdle, or maybe I've been fortunate enough, to have to go through hurdles per se, they usually see the light pretty quickly. And again, I've been fortunate to work with clients who are familiar with design thinking and service design and so they're much more open to alternative solutions. But yeah, usually, I mean, what I like to show them very quickly is options. People are people. They like to be able to have an opinion on something. And if you go back to them with just some research, they'd be like, okay, it's research. But if we actually go the extra mile, sometimes, which is necessarily asked of us, and we can say, hey, those are three solutions we think may work for you, you know, it's ABC. This is a very creative, very out of the box ID. There is a very kind of like a mid-range solutions. And then there is like a very conservative solution which could be actually adding a button or whatever it is. There is one way, because immediately the mind frame is very different because now they actually see, okay, we can do this, we cannot do that. This is not gonna go because they live in a very different world. I have no visibility into what they go through, the budget, they're all those things. So if you go back to them and say, hey, you have a problem which they're aware of it. Here are three possible solutions we can implement for you over the next three weeks, three months, three years, then they have a better idea. It's something tangible. Like I said, okay, let me think about this. Let me go back to my boss or whoever it is and then we can talk about this. So maybe if I understand you correctly, the biggest hurdle might be for them not being able to make the things you're saying actionable, right? If they don't know how to act on it or... Yeah, well, I think the biggest problem is that most people have a difficult time envisioning the solution. They can understand it, what you're telling them, they're kind of actually just putting themselves in the future and see what this could be is a very big problem that a lot of people have, especially if you're dealing with people who are not in the ideation space or the creep space. Somebody who's a line of business who's just in charge of doing like, home loans, when you talk about ideation, they don't even know, they can't really wrap their heads around that. So for them being able to see some very tangible, okay, this is email one, email two, email three, which one do you think would work the most if your employer is, they will tell you immediately, oh, this is not gonna work. They will have an opinion, but you have to kind of like help them get there. Yeah, yeah, cool. Let's move on into topic number two. And we have service design thinking, we have service design doing, and now we also have service design understanding. Do you have a question starting? Can you show it to us? So that was a little bit of a stab to my friend Mark Sigdorn. So I met with him last summer, he was doing like a class in New York and I was fortunate to meet with him and we had some fun talks afterward. So this was mostly referring to a little bit of an issue that we're seeing currently in the space. Did you have a question starter, Greg? I'm not sure. How about one? You can go with one. So why? Why service design understanding? I have been discussing this offline with several people and there is kind of like a bit of an interesting shift in the service design discipline currently. We have a lot of people who spend a lot of time using tools and methodology they have learned through books or videos or podcasts. But that is all they do. So service design as a whole has some research and it has some ideations and prototyping and there is some building. So design is very holistic methodology that you can actually just tackle any possible problem. It's very wide and it's very deep. But you see a lot of people who have, as we just said, come into service design by chance or by accident and have been given a book. So for example, service design doing, service design thinking and they've read the book several times and they love it. And they are applying those rules of those guidelines very methodically, which is great. But they are just tools and they're just way for us to get to a place which is a solution space. Unfortunately, a lot of people are not understanding service design. So you do all your research, you do all your fact checking and you gather your stuff. And then you have to be able to create an insight out of this. What am I finding out? What am I solving? What is the problem I'm trying to resolve here? And I have been in places, I clients where there would be some research done, there would be some user lab done, there would be some very thorough methodology being done. And then they would be putting all the post-its on the wall and they would just mixing them up and then they would basically just take those post-its and they would, you know, t-shirt size them or kind of like order them a priority, okay? Those are quick wins. And they would literally take those post-its and they would go to designers and basically tell them, okay, fix this. You have two sprints to fix those six problems. Some of them are very small, make this font bigger, make this button from blue to green and off you go. So this is what we call designing through JIRA kind of approach where you basically have all those items and you look them up in the system and then sprint one, we can tackle this. So the problem we're having here is that service design thinking, again, to go back to Mark was a wonderful book and it's wonderful thinking and then there's a doing part of it, but what we need to focus on right now is understanding part of it. So those are all tools. You know, we've talked about this offline in the past where I think your metaphor was about a chef. You know, a chef doesn't give knives and forks and cutting boards and blenders. He produces a mill. So I think there is a danger of being too caught up and too enamored with the tools like a blueprint, for example. It's a wonderful artifact that people love and gather. It's a wonderful artifact to create internally, but it is just a way to get to the solution. You know, now we actually have a map that is not, it's just an artifact, it's just a tool for us to get it somewhere. Yeah, and this is, I think we are seeing this, I would call this the fact that service design is being productized, it's being put into boxes, which is easily trainable, which is easily sold by consultancies like just follow these recipes and then you'll be okay, right? And I've had this discussion also with people and I think the upside of this is it makes it more accessible for people coming in and trying to understand the field. But on the other hand, if you just stop there and don't understand why you're following this recipe and why you need these certain ingredients, you'll sort of never be able to improvise and make it contextualize basically the methodology. Like, I really like your analogy of a chef it's like, maybe he's following a recipe but he knows why he's adding certain ingredients, why he's using certain tools, right? And that's I think what you're also saying, you need to understand when to use what and why. Yeah, and it is difficult because when you go and you insert an RFP and you go to your client, they wanna know, what am I getting? What am I gonna get? How much can I cost? How much is it gonna take? How many people are gonna be involved? They wanna know those things and it's very easy for us to go back to them and say, okay, we're gonna come in and we're gonna be doing those five things and then we're gonna move on, we're gonna be doing those six things and we're gonna move on to seven things. And it's just very easy, you know, and it's quite frankly the only way we've been able to do this so far because the client wants to know, I'm not gonna give you $100,000 and just have you guys for six weeks, what am I getting out of it? So they have to be understanding from both sides of the fence that so real design is a very different approach to solving a problem. And they usually use the iron triangle that Mark actually has in his book, where for the past 3000 years, every single design architecture landmark project has always been like this shape where you basically start with an ID, we're gonna be doing, we're gonna be building a bridge. How long is it gonna take? How much people is gonna take and how much money is gonna take? And then you end up with the triangle going wider at the base. When you go out of budget, you have to take it twice as long, all those things. But that's fairly easy. You go back to the owners that, hey, no, we need more money. Okay, we need more money. We need more people. Okay, whether you're building a bridge or pyramid or product, it's been like this for 3000 years. Service design is very different because we've actually flipped the triangle. Now we're basically starting at the very top, where we basically says, we have no idea what we're looking for. We have no idea what our problem is. We have basically an idea that you're not selling enough toys, but we don't really know what our problem is. So we have to start very, very, very wide. And people are kind of like, not used to that. What do you mean you don't know what you're gonna find out? Well, we don't know what we don't know. So we have to go in and find that out. And as we go down the project, we are actually going to go down to the solution which is going to be unique and clearly defined. But at the very top, we just have no clue. We can be here for six weeks and knock it out or we can be here for six years. So it's a very different mindset, especially when it should go to be where you're going to pay for it. Because they don't wanna hear that. They don't wanna hear it's gonna take 10 years. They wanna hear how it was gonna take and how much I'm supposed to give you for to pay for it. So it's where the understanding comes in and being able to talk to your client and make them understand that this may be super easy and we're gonna fix the problem very quickly or this may be taking 10 years and you have to rethink your entire business and how it's being approached, which just recently estimated upon a research from USA which is a very big insurance company here in the US. And 10 years ago, they've actually implemented service design and it's taking them 10 years to get your place where they had to literally reinvent the entire business, how they function internally, how the process are going through, they stop selling products and kind of like rearrange the whole company through life events. And it's working great. I think the NPS scores are consistently, it's not perfect, but it's consistently in the 70s which is world-class rating. So it was a major investment for them 10 years ago and it's paying off in a big time right now. Yeah, what I always try to, the story I always try to tell, what's the alternative you don't do the investment? Where would you be in 10 years? Now, would you still exist as a company? So was it a big investment? Well, if you compare the alternative scenarios, I don't know. One last question about this topic and this is like, okay, so we know we have those service design books, we know we have those recipes, we know we have those two-day training workshops. Let's say that those are fine, that they also have a place and are needed. What can we do to balance that? Sort of to bring more service design understanding, how can we make that more, bring it more in line? Well, again, I hate to say this, but it starts with us. This is people talking to people, people who have problems, people who have challenges, people who have issues. And I think it starts with us, service designers not to be too in love with our tours. It's just kind of like, what are we trying to do here? We did more of a curious mind. We just happened to have a large set of tours, which probably will double by next year. I'm sure as we go, because every problem we have, I've consistently invent new tours with my team because the two we used last week for this client is not working for this one. So we have to somehow reinvent ourselves all the time. And this is not something very comfortable for a lot of people. So one of the things we do for our team here is, I can do the last four or five people who've actually hired here for our team, is that we really don't spend a lot of time looking at the hard skills and the tours, so to speak. We spend more time hiring the people and the staff skills. And this goes back to, you know, like Eric Whitmore from Expedition Mondial in Sweden. They have done like a study about basic patterns of service designers, those people, who they are, what they do. And it's a very interesting finding that they found out. There is definitely a pattern of people who are actually really good service designer. They're very curious. They're always eager to learn. They want to know more about people. They have a high level of listening. They have a very large empathy. And in that list, nowhere it says they're really good at sketch or Photoshop. Those are just tools again. If you move away from the tools, you cannot look at the people themselves. We need to hire people who are really good at solving problems, at listening, at questioning themselves, at solving the problems. So I think it starts with us being better at understanding the problem versus trying to solution it immediately through the tools and the methodology. Yeah, yeah, I fully agree. Topic number three. And we already touched upon this one. So let's see if we can add something to the discussion we've had so far. Outcomes, outcomes, outcomes, outcomes. The topic of outcomes. I guess I'm not sure. When will outcomes? What did you want to talk about outcomes? I forget now. Well, the outcomes was I think also the discussion between us seeing ourselves as a community that produces customer journey maps, persona, service, blueprints, stakeholder maps, versus a community that produces impact, business value, better healthcare, right? I think that's what we touched upon. Yeah, I think we'll just start to discuss that and we can talk about it more, but yeah, I feel like we have to really be focused on the outcome. What are we trying to solve here? And I think sometimes you just start by asking the right question. We discussed this with somebody in my office yesterday. We're talking about the Disney World Magic Bands, for example. As a user, now you look at them and you just don't really, you see the value of it obviously, but we try to actually dig into it and collect the services and approach to it. It started beginning by asking the right question. And the right question was actually not how are we going to solve a key problem? How are we going to get people to not have a critic over them? That wasn't the right question. The right question was, how are we going to root at friction? That was literally the actual question that they were like, there is a lot of friction in the park at different levels and how are we going to solve for that? So their answer after many iterations share and some very, very, you know, a lot of testing and validation, they can read the magic bell that allows you to open your key and to buy a whole bunch of stuff. Anything is connected, you know, it's a wonderful tool. But that's the outcome. That wasn't what they actually were explaining to find at the beginning. I'm sure they were probably trying to look at how can I get the line shorter, you know, something very simple. I could have been interested very easily, but the outcome is much broader. And see where service design has a very holistic view, which is very valuable is that we don't look at one particular problem. We don't tackle this, hey, people lose their keys. Let's spend five days design sprint and solve how we're going to be able to make people not lose their key, which is very valid. But service design goes very broad and very deep in terms of like, you know, we're going across channels, across silos and customer journey. And then we go deep in terms of like how we're going to solve for those internally or externally and how we're going to have the right vendors, the right methodology, the right process, the right supports. And this is where it gives the outcome. Now, now I hear the service design community sort of telling me in my ear, well, Greg, this is great and all, but unless you're talking with a CEO, you're not going to get such an assignment. When you're talking to middle managers who are often our clients, they have much smaller challenges, much more practical challenges. They are the ones who say, we need a customer journey map. What do we do? Because I don't think we all have the opportunity to take such a holistic view all the time. Well, I mean, the holistic view can be applied to anything that really matters how small you want to move the problem. It doesn't have to be a massive project like this in the world per se, but it could be a very simple internal problem that somebody doesn't know how to fix. And you have to start somewhere, right? So for example, I personally, every time I go to a project, I always immediately start doing a blueprint because it's a very valuable artifact you would just kind of see, be able to actually go through stakeholders and you'd be surprised. I mean, I'm actually always shocked when I actually do a very, and I start very, very high. I don't even do any research first, I just go in and I do what I call a hypothetical blueprint. So based on huge assumptions of what I've been doing from discussion, I just put it in and it's just kind of like, you know, very big blocks. And then you see people start gathering around it, kind of like looking and say, oh, I had no idea this was happening over here. And oh, I had no idea. They're just so, so restrained into their silo that they literally have no idea what's happening before their group comes into play. And they sometimes have no idea what's happening after they're done playing with that. Whether it be accounting or invoicing or whatever it is. So you kind of like lay it out for them. You can say, okay, this is what the journey is. And then you start refining it and get to a place kind of like, what tool are you using? What process are you using? And then they are very excited about it because all of a sudden it's kind of like, this makes sense. I had no idea this was a problem. And you have very quickly uncover some small challenges who are sometimes a grain of sand in a machine and the whole machine can be just totally stuck within several weeks because somebody has just forgotten something or somebody has just kind of like was misguided or somebody just left, somebody quit or somebody where maternity leave. And then the entire department just doesn't have any idea how to function with this one person. So that's what the policy comes in. So that's an interesting approach. Like sort of when you are in a situation where you have to deal and I think that's quite common where you have to deal with people who require tangible results on a short term, create those tangible results but use them to sort of open up the discussion about the real challenges. So first satisfy the need for tangible results like a service blueprint that is hypothetical but use that to open up the discussion about what is the challenge that we're actually trying to solve. Yeah, absolutely. I personally say service design as being a tool or discipline for collaboration. I mean, I'm just a facilitator. No one on my team has this, I come from the addition space from the creative agencies where you have ideas and you sell those ideas to clients and either hate them or they love them and they buy them. Here we really have this aha moment where it's like, oh, we're going to solve this problem. It's highly collaborative. We just go in and we ask a bunch of questions and they have a bunch of possible solutions themselves and then we kind of like combine it together, we gather it, we curate them and kind of like, we have some, again, method that allows us to do that pretty systematically but at the end of the day, this is all about collaboration and people are taking to people and kind of like finding out that there is somebody hurting over there and they're hurting because this other person he's absolutely clueless that their system is just not talking to their system. So sometimes it's just painfully simple solve. I don't think I want, I don't know if I can bring that up but there was Mark Stigdon was telling us a story about this travel agency, I think it was in Germany or Austria and they had this problem where some people were just like hanging up the phone, they said the customer service were hanging up the phone within three seconds and they had no idea why, they said, what's happening? So it came down to people were calling English speaking, we're talking to like a German speaking agents and they would hang up the phone immediately and they were just understanding what's happening over and over and over. Well, it turns out that within three seconds or whatever that means seconds, the call isn't logged in. So if they hang up very quickly, they didn't go against their personal account. So they'd be like, oh, English, I'm hanging up. So I didn't go against my tally or my quote or my incentive. So it was a very simple fix. And they basically just say like, oh, this is gonna be very easy. If somebody calls to you speaking English, you transfer them to extension 3565 because Bob is speaking English and he will take those calls because he speaks English. So again, this is a very simple solution that was nearly made of like post-its. It's a piece of paper that was put in there by this cubicle and they were able to handle this very simple problem, but they had no idea. They had to get designers on the ground to kind of like look around and say, hey, why did you hang up the phone there? Oh, don't worry about it, it's an English speaking person. Okay, let me write that down. So those are very simple problems that needs to be addressed and people actually are doing this every day. They're just not aware of that. They're just so used to it. For them, it's just natural. You just hang up the phone because I wanna get the bonus at the end of the month. You know, it's a very simple people problem. I think that's also true what you're saying that what we often bring to the table isn't per se, most often isn't the bright ideas. It's just a fresh perspective and bring some common sense into organizations. That's, and that's already really valuable. Yeah, absolutely. It's just not fair for us to go in and ask, currently I'm working with some software engineers, very, very, very smart people who are talking a different language. I'm not gonna lie to you. I don't understand half the words that they say, but we actually start to ask some very simple questions like how are you doing this? They can't possibly answer the question to you just plain English. They immediately go into what they know, which is this very complicated sophisticated language because this is what they know and we're trying to kind of simplify this but tell me more about this but what do you mean by that? And eventually you get to the truth, you get to the point kind of like, we can do our job because XYZ and they have a really hard time verbalizing that because this is what they've been doing for 15 years. To them it's just the way it's been done and I'm just gonna check it out. Greg, I'm sort of headache towards the end of the episode but as always, I would like to give you the opportunity to ask us a question in the community. Is there something that you would like us to think about? I think that we had discussed this before and I don't really have, I mean the biggest question I have is that how do we get people to understand service design in terms of clients? And I know you have a show about how do you sell service design because it is very difficult because it is so broad, it is so vague, it is so undefined. I mean, as we know, if you have 10 service designers, definition of service design, you're gonna get 11 answers because it's just impossible to define. I mean, even here, internally, we struggle because and you know, we joke around here because now we see a hammer always sees a nail, right? So now every time I go to the store and I go on vacation, I see service design problems everywhere because we live in a society now that is going through a pretty massive transformation. We're trying to bring digital into physical and a lot of money is being spent on digital products and how do we get to this next stage? And we end up with some very fractured and fragmented experiences that you and I have this wonderful time online and we have an app, I think it's great and then you actually go physically to the store and it's a whole different experience. It's completely broken down. You're trying to pick up the food you've ordered, great experience online and then you show up to the store to pick up your food and it's not ready or it's cold or it's missing, whatever. So that's our biggest challenge here is to make sure that our clients understand that we can help them through this and that it's not always a question of resources of money. It's not just a question of understanding and being able to kind of like talk to each other and kind of like, okay, are you sure you won't have a new app? Are you sure you want to have a new product? Are you sure those questions are kind of like common sense to you and I because we do this all the time before clients have been doing this to work in our travel agency or an airline, they may not be very used to or ready to have those questions asked to them but what if we just don't do it this way? They get very close to that very quickly because they just don't want to hear that. So I'm not really quite sure how you are doing this in your particular consultancy or the other people out there like how do you get people to stop thinking of boxes and features and products and kind of like opening their mind into, okay, we can do so much more than just creating new boxes. I think that's one of the most valuable and important discussions we can have as a community. How do we do that? So I'm really looking forward to the comments people leave and it's a tough question. It's a tough question, but this is what the show is for sort of asking the hard questions and getting the smart people in the community to get it to think about it. So thanks Greg for asking this and also thanks for sharing your thoughts and ideas about the other topics because I think every single one is like a really important thing that we can't ignore. We need to address here and great for bringing that up. So thanks. You're very welcome, my pleasure. What is your biggest takeaway from this episode with Greg? Leave a comment down below and let us know. If you enjoyed this episode and know somebody who might enjoy it as well, make sure to grab the link and share that with them. And if you'd like to learn how to explain service design in plain English, check out the free course that I've got for you over here. Thanks so much for watching and I look forward to seeing you in the next episode.