 In this video you'll learn how you can unlock the full potential of service design by avoiding the pitfalls of a copy and paste approach to the practice. Here's the guest for this episode. Let the show begin. Hi, I'm JJ. This is service potential episode 174. Hi, my name is Mark Fontijn and welcome back to the service design show. On this show, we explore what's beneath the surface of service design, what are those hidden and invisible things that make all the difference between success and failure all to help you design great services that have a positive impact on people, business and our planet. Our guest in this episode is Jung Jolie, also known as JJ. JJ has a long and rich history in service design, going all the way back to her PhD in 2012 at the Altar University in Finland. Today, JJ is the deputy head at the National University of Singapore in the division of industrial design, exploring what's beneath the surface of service design. That's what the show is all about. And I've been saying that for a very long time. And in this conversation with JJ, we're going to live up to that saying more than ever. JJ is in a pretty unique position. She has seen firsthand how service design is taught and practiced in Europe. And now being in Singapore, she has an up close perspective on how service design is practiced in Asia. And she says that people in Asia are for lack of a better word, adopting the Western approach to service design. But as you might have guessed, this type of adoption doesn't come without any challenges. It's relatively easy to copy the surface layer of service design, the artifacts, the workshops, the story of the double diamond. But it's much harder to grasp the underlying dynamics, to understand and see and recognize the invisible value that's being created, to know when you should deviate from the standard process. And this surface layer approach to service design causes problems because despite all the work that you're doing and the outputs that you're creating, it's probably not making a lot of impact. So unsurprisingly, clients start to doubt if this service design thing works at all. Now, although our conversation focuses on the cultural differences between continents and countries, the same lessons just as easily apply on a much smaller scale. Every company has its own unique culture. So what does that mean for how you practice service design? So if you stick around for the entire conversation, you'll hear how you can adapt service design to better fit your culture, how you can encourage clients to look beyond the short-term deliverables and why you need to ditch the double diamond sooner than later. If you enjoy conversations like this that help you to grow as a service design professional, make sure you subscribe to the channel and don't miss any of the future conversations. That about wraps it up for the intro. So now it's time to jump into the conversation with JJ. Welcome to the show, JJ. Hi, happy to be here. Hi, Mark. Hi, everyone. Awesome to have you on the show. We've never met personally, but we've had some online encounters before. I'm always excited to have people from Asia because it's really hard for me to sort of explore the service design community there. And I think you're a great person to help us understand a little bit more as well. Us in Europe and America, what's happening around service design in Asia will dive into that in a second. But before we do that, could you maybe give a brief introduction into who you are and what you do these days? Because I think that's going to be very relevant. Yeah, sure. My name is JJ. Now I'm doing the research and teaching on service design here in National University of Singapore. And I'm also a director of service design at Singapore, which I established as a collaborative platform to work with various organizations from the public sector, private companies and also social sector. To promote service and capabilities and to help them to do the Schumer Center service development and innovation and also help them to embed decent capability within their organizations. So I've been working with various government agencies, the ministries in Singapore and there's the private companies. And so what I've been doing was I've learned all these notions and practices of service design and co-design. My service design work builds on the empathic design and co-design, which I learned from Finland. So I'm trying to bring those notions and practices in the context of Asia and doing the different experiments with different people. So yeah, so here I am now. I think you are somehow linked to episode 169. Oh, and the name, help me, help me with the name. Kim Sika Payakalio. Yes, exactly. Well, we talked about CX Governance and she definitely recommended that I reach out to you. And I think you collaborated in Finland together. Yes, Finland Helsinki, the art university is where we actually started the PhD study together. So since then, it was back in 2007. So for like five, six years, we've been doing many exciting projects on co-design, the service design with different people. So that's, I think, how I kind of got the very first training and the knowledge about service design together with Krissika. And we are really the partner in crime and best friend in the crew. Awesome, great to hear that. OK, JJ, as always, we have a lightning round with five questions that I haven't prepared you for. This is just to get to know you as a person next to the professional a little bit better. Just the first thing that comes to your mind, these aren't trick questions or anything complicated. So are you ready? Yes, let's do that. I'll try. What's your favorite food? Oh, that's the most difficult questions. OK, the thing that comes to my mind is Korean barbecue. Not sure you have tried. I don't think so yet, but I'll add it to my list. What did you want to become when you were a kid? Oh, OK. Oh, yeah, I wanted to become a TV show producer to meet celebrities. Interesting. OK, what is your hidden talent? Maybe synthesis, kind of seeing the patterns and trying to kind of extract into synthesis. Yeah, since I said it is not hidden anymore. Well, that's that's that's purpose of this question. Moving on, question number four. If you could recommend one book for us to read, which book would you recommend? To have or to be by Eric Frum? I have a credit added to my reading list. And the fifth and final question, which is a tradition here on the show, do you remember the first time you heard about service design? OK, yeah, I think it actually touches on what I already kind of shared in the beginning. It was 2007, probably in February, in Art University. Back then, it was called University of Art in Design, Health, and Key. And it was a gathering where the new PhD students gathered together and kind of introduced to each other and introduced their kind of research topic. And I think you can guess who that person was. But one of our peer students said, OK, my PhD study is about service design. And I am collaborating with the companies like GONE, the Finland-based elevator manufacturing company, and Banks, and Finair. And when I heard that for the first time, I was like, wow, is there a such a thing like that? Because by that time, I came from, I had a background in human-computer interaction design. So around that time, I was a bit like sick and bored of making the graphic user interfaces for 3D mobile phones and doing all this information architecture. But the fact that design for services was really eye-opening to me. So that's, I think, how it all began. That also shook my PhD project a bit. 2007 was a great year to get into service design. I think that's also around the time that I sort of first started dipping my toes into the field. And look where we are today, 16 years later. That's right. So JJ, let's explore our topic of today. And you summarized it as service design beyond Western countries. And I think Western culture might be more appropriate even here. You had an even better annotation, which I really love, is celebrating the plurality of service design. Awesome word. First of all, I think this is super relevant. And we've tried to touch upon this a few times on the show, like the different flavors of service design, contextualizing it to the local cultures. Still a lot to learn and explore here. First of all, I'm really curious, how did you arrive at this topic? Because you studied service design in Finland. Now you're in Singapore. Can you take us through your journey on how your thinking and thoughts have evolved around this topic and why it is important to you? So a lot of questions. But yeah, just an introduction to set the stage, maybe. Yeah, sure. Yeah, happy to share that. Maybe let me start with the plurality of service design. I think we all know that service design itself has a very multiple plural connotations, right? And it itself was originated from operations, management, and marketing. And it was adopted by different disciplines, including interaction design, industry design, and so on and so on. And because of that, there was a kind of critical voice that service design is poorly understood, even in academia and education scene. And so for the past decade, I think many service design researchers and scholars were trying to define what service design is and what service design entails. So there are a lot of books and articles and the presentation around the definition of service design. What is service design? Anyway, what we talk about service design when we talk about service design. But for past recent years, I've been also seeing the more and more voice that, OK, plurality of service design is actually the characteristic of service design. Because it's very diverse contribution areas. It can be adopted across many different sectors. So why don't we just take it as one of the key characteristics of service design? So instead of trying to define service design into a single definition, why don't we just reveal in the share all those of plural faces of service design in different contexts? And the plurality of service design to me, I think my personal interest to look at it has to do with the culture context. Perhaps also it has to do with my personal journey, as you have mentioned. So I was actually, I feel very thankful and lucky to learn about service design and co-design in Finland. Because as far as I believe, Northern Europe. And also being in Finland, we are able to interact with the other neighboring countries like Netherlands, Sweden, and so on. So there, the understanding of service design was quite matured. And in our project that I have done with Osukirushika, we were always positioning service design in the context of system and complex collaborative network of stakeholders. So even the key deliverable of service design can be really the new collaborative network, not like any customer and touch point design. So in negotiation, a facilitation of collaborative itself was the key deliverable of service design. So I kind of got that understanding of service design and came to Singapore. But it came to Singapore. And in Helsinki, I was also lucky to have a chance to work with various government organizations like City of Helsinki, Helsinki Libraries. So I've done those projects. And I joined Singapore in 2014. And there was actually about a time that a few Singapore government organizations became interested in the new approaches like design thinking, service design. So they were kind of trying to try, willing to try those things. We got connected and I was lucky to really have a city of services and projects with the Ministry of Manpower, Ministry of Education, the taxation office here, and the government technology agencies here and so on. Then I've been talking about this work to different audiences. And I am originally from Korea. And I also kind of shared my work in Singapore and also in Helsinki to start Korea. And I got in touch with various service designers in Asian countries like in Japan, Thailand, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea and so on. Then I've actually observed and realized there are actually similar things happening in Asian countries like Korean governments were also trying to adopt service design for public service design. The same thing, a similar thing, was also happening in Thailand together with UNICEF. And Japan was also trying to adopt service design to afford their digital transformation to become an EE government. But those kind of things were hardly heard by global audience or hardly visible by global services and communities. Perhaps due to, I don't know, language or there are not really like service design academia people who are willing to write about it. There are a lot of the number of literature about service design in the context of public sector in journals and books. But most of those are from the Europe and the States and more recently in South America. But it's very hard to find the cases and the work from Asian countries. So with that question, I've been kind of looking around what is actually happening in those organizations who are willing to and who are adopting the service design and trying to make some change in the way they work in their organizations. So I've been kind of meeting people, service design professionals and government people and trying to kind of collect the stories and trying to publish those things together in a form of book which we are all working together. So that has made one of my current work. Awesome. So you've clearly seen a diverse perspective of how service design is being used, applied within. I'm going to generalize in the Asian context. And you see the success stories, you probably see the challenges. And that's the thing that's I guess interesting to explore because you've seen the Northern Europe perspective from service design and you see right now what's happening in Asia. Maybe we can try to explore what are the moments and areas where the quote unquote Northern Europe approach breaks down or where you see the limitations of adopting the widespread, the documented service design approach in a different culture. So again, a pretty broad question but I'm sure you have some examples where you see service design the way it's documented in the popular books and the popular literature. How is it and where is it breaking down in Asia? Maybe not breaking down but the way how it is adopted and understood in Asian countries. So, but disclaimer, I'm not aiming to generalize my observations from those cases and stories that are collected but I'm just kind of sharing the observations and phenomena that I observed. So I don't think the cases that I'm sharing will be any stereotypical case. It's anecdotal, right? And probably, well, often in these conversations we use the things that have more contrast to sort of paint the picture and I'm sure that there are definitely there are always more nuances but let's highlight maybe some of the more extreme examples just to paint the picture here. Okay, so the keywords are two things. The service design in Asian context, perhaps in Korea and Singapore that I have the closest interaction with. Service design is understood as a qualified process and a package of methods. And service design, the most, the biggest application area of service design is services, service offerings, you know? So yeah, the contrast is, so in South Korea and in Singapore how service design was adopted were, it was initiated by the big organizations and big companies like DBS in Singapore and also the large government organizations, the ministries in Singapore and the ministries and the Korea Institute of Design Promotion in Korea. And because it was adopted by the management, it was quite top-down. And what I kind of commonly observed in the way they adopted the services and was, so the top management, they have some resource in the beginning and they engage always this word, we know the services and consequences like engine, rework, ideal to bring them, invite them over and organize some training in the workshops and the project for knowledge transfer. So that's how they do. And because it was top-down kind of transfer of services and knowledge, it was the form of adopting services and was always with the process because they need this qualified process and standardize the process on the map because that's effective for the management penetrate that practice and the knowledge within the organizations. So yeah, that's a quite understandable, right? It's effective and it's from the organization. They need a really the tool framework to communicate this new approach. But the side effect is because it was communicated into a the set of processes and methods, people believe that's the all-about-services side. So in the projects, in Korea, maybe I will share this example. In Korea, there is the government initiative called on citizen participatory platform. It's under the government ideology called or paradigm called GOV 3.0, you know? So they wanted to invite the citizens to solve their own kind of social day-to-day problems. And they facilitated this project-based kind of problem-solving platform and service design was the key method they kind of populated as a shared method to solve social problems. So they partnered service designers and the citizens and the government officers and they gave all this handbook of service design. So here is the process that you need to follow. And here is the set of methods you need to take and do. So they have done, you know, series of projects. I think it's a really great, inspiring example. And it actually, the whole project actually awarded IF Service Design Golden Award because it was a great initiative, you know? The agenda was great. But again, the side effect was so people started believe, okay, if we follow this double-dialogue process and if we conducted customer journey mapping, if we developed personnel, it's a service design project. We did a service design, it's a service design. So they didn't really care to really delve into the actual mindsets, the actual services and capabilities or the system level contribution that service design can make were not really looked. So that's one kind of way of adopting service design in Asian context from the top down. Mm-hmm, okay. So what I'm hearing and I see this happening, I think in a broader context as well, but it's sort of the recipe approach to service design, the cookbook approach to service design. Here are your ingredients, your tools and methods, your journey maps and personas. Here is the process. If you follow this, then you'll have a delicious meal, right? That's sort of the analogy that I'm hearing you share. Is that correct? Yeah, yeah, you're correct. It's, yeah, so I don't think it's necessarily bad, bad, bad. It's effective, you know, it's effective for penetrating, like, make people known, but if the real capabilities and the real contribution areas are left behind, they haven't really utilized the full potential of a service design. That's kind of the sad part. I have some ideas, but I'm curious to hear from you. Like what did you see was missing or like what, how did there are challenges and projects? Again, I don't know if this is the right word, but suffer, like something apparently wasn't, there weren't you using the full potential of service design. Why wasn't like? Okay, so for example, okay, if we, I don't have a really concrete example in my mind at the moment, but I said in the project that I was working on Finland, the more than rare times the key deliverable itself is the creation of the stakeholder network, the creation or a clarification of the new collaborative network. So those like stakeholder mapping and also the kind of our annotation or the findings on their mindset change or the way they perceive each stakeholder, that is, that was quite an outcome. But in the context of Singapore and the Korea, again, I think I'm generalizing a bit, but I'm, they value applied project. So as a service design project, there should be always the end, like the design, the things that need to be taken and applied instead of the sort of fundamental value corporation network, you know? So I am sure indoor service design project, those people might have, those people, for example, in that citizen participate platform, those people have met different stakeholders and kind of, they really try to organize, there must be really significant situated work that they did try to build rapport and try to get their buy-in and try to build trust. But those are all kind of, you know, the trust building among stakeholders and all the new relationships among different stakeholders were kind of not really articulated and left behind. But here are our ideas. This is customer journey map. So this is how it can be implemented. But all of those are beautiful, significant work, it's really the work for trust building or network building having kind of really left behind. I think that's really the contribution or the role the service design can play that UX design and interaction design cannot do. And this is, again, I'm really curious if you feel that this is unique to Asia, but it feels like the by-products of service design which aren't the by-products, they are actually the main deliverable and these are the trust, credibility, relationships, new networks rather than the actual deliverables, as we know. Does this have to do with a lack of design maturity, a lack of understanding of design in general? Does this have to do with culture? What is your take on this? Yeah, definitely design maturity and design maturity has to do with the organizational culture and perhaps the social national culture. So the Asian countries, like those some of the countries that are mentioned, I think the understanding of service, understanding of design is still creating things, creating physical or visitor things. So there should be something, you know? So it's the where to prioritize as the main deliverable and by-product, you know? So in Asian context, those designed things, the visitor, these things or the new customer journeys are always the, it's under the spotlight, you know? Whereas those collaborative network and new relationships that enable those new designed things are kind of in the background. You know, it's not really perceived as a, the legitimate outcomes of design project, whereas in Europe, they have this maturity to understand, okay, this is actually very hard to achieve, you know, the collaborative network, negotiation, facilitation of the collaboration, that's really hard to achieve. And that's what design can actually make happen. So the maturity makes a difference. Do you feel that this is unique to Asia or that Asia is more prone to this than, I don't know, what you've experienced in Europe? Yeah, I think it's not really unique to Asia. Well, within Asia, there are many countries and within countries, there are many organizations and the cities, the same for Europe, you know? So I don't want to really, you know, make this dichotomy between Asia, Europe or Western and Eastern, but those things are really observed like based on my experiences and I sometimes get to feel jealous when I kind of encounter those very system level services and projects from UK, like all this healthcare service network project or in the sweet and no way, like why this kind of similar project cannot be really happening in Singapore and the Korea, we don't have enough maturity, we don't have enough resource or patience to make that happen or we don't have expertise to make that happen. I think it's good to also recognize that the successful projects or the systemic projects, the examples of service design still in Europe and even in America are a handful and we are getting better, but I get the opportunity to speak to a lot of practitioners both here on the show and outside of the show and it's not a struggle, I think, for many of us to actually get to that higher level of design maturity so maybe, I don't know, it's not all that great. There are a handful of leaders and icons and companies that we can sort of get inspiration from but a lot of us are still trying to catch up. Yeah, yeah, do you feel that way? Yeah. I know for a fact that that's the case. Again, all the practitioners, yeah. Yeah, actually, we have some conversations between the services and professionals and researchers. Okay, then what would be the future of service design and kind of trends of service design research nowadays is really the system level. Those that the service design research and traditional things is really promoting systemic level service design or institutional level service design or organization assimilation through service design. So there are, we have a lot of theories, frameworks and so on, but if we want to find the actual empirical cases around the world, empirical successful cases, it's actually not easy to find, not just in Asia. So how can you make that theory happen? So it was a big question. I think a lot of practitioners are still trying to get their organizations from maturity level one to maturity level two. And everybody is in the same journey. I'm curious from your perspective. So we know that some companies are adopting initially service design as a recipe. I think everybody starts out that way. What does this mean for us as professionals? Do we need to change our language? Do we need to change our tools? Do we need to change anything? Is it like, it's just the way it is. It's a process and it just takes time. How do you think about this? Yes, yeah, that's a great, great questions. And I'm still exploding. So I don't really have the clear answer to that. But we've been discussing with also like the other service designers who share similar thoughts. Maybe we should not talk about service design through the double-diamond process or the methods. But even now there's really methodologies combined with the double-diamond process. But we just let employees who are in that kind of training program or let service designers just talk about like story tell what they did and what are their really the actions and what are their findings and what are their kind of really steady work and effort. So we need to really make that sort of a venues for them to really talk about those, the stories and narratives. Yeah, that's one thing. And also another kind of the attempt that I kind of was doing was because of all this process and the method-oriented service design training or interchangeably design-based training in the context of service organizations like government or healthcare. So those people who come to those training actually have different maturity, but individually also they have different maturity and different perceptions and different understanding of the design, the role of design, the role of user involvement and the ability for framing and so on and so on. So with one of the ministries that I would collaborate with several years ago, what we tried was to calibrate the sort of different understandings or to calibrate their employees misalignment in understandings of design contributions and design roles. We developed a design capability mapping tool in the context of government officers. We kind of categorized the items into four categories, like how they understand users, how they understand design practices, how they understand implementation, how they experience organization and our structure and resources. So we kind of listed questions and kind of gave a kind of multiple choice options and let those, the government officers to map their understanding how they perceive the role of users and how they perceive the contribution areas or the capability of design in that tool before they participate in any design thinking or subdesigning training programs so that they know what they know and they don't know what they know. So that sort of built a kind of learning objectives and they also kind of share and recognize their different understandings about the design roles before joining the sort of process-based service design training programs. Yeah, and I can imagine, I'm curious if the tool is available somewhere, but I can imagine that it helps the design professional to understand with what kind of audience they're dealing and sort of what expectations they have and if you need to realign and adjust some of these expectations. Is this tool available somewhere or is it an internal tool? It will be available. We were publishing it and we are also like preparing it to be a creative common open source thing. Nice. Yeah. We just didn't put it out there yet. The other thing that I couldn't agree more with you and I think I recorded a video about this over four years ago that the DOML diamond has served its purpose and it's really time to move on for us. What the DOML diamond does is it sets the expectation of a very process and a linear oriented way of working. It's very efficiency oriented and it's very, it gives the notion that you can sort of manage this process. And I don't think, and we know as a community that that's not the case. I think the language we need, we need to move into a language around that's more derived from theater. We have many other more useful metaphors that can serve as a way better way of setting expectations around what service design is. One thing it's not, it's not a linear process that the DOML diamond has sort of been misused to show it's much better. Like in, again, playing a sports game together, creating a theater piece together. That's much more of the dynamic and I think we are not adopting and sharing that kind of language around service design enough. We need to let's stop the DOML diamond. There are use cases for it but if you're thinking about using the DOML diamond, you can probably use something that's much better to explain your story. How do you feel about this? I love that idea, which is all theatrical metaphors and theatrical terms. And like, cause I also teach subsidence to the students, instead of showing, okay, this is like basically the process that you are going to follow over the semester, but how can maybe we can introduce that sort of improvisation and kind of really like the reciprocal kind of, kind of, you know, give and take kind of relationship. That is an awesome idea. Yeah, again, I think we have much better stories and there have been some episodes here on the show which help you to set a much better expectation around what this actually is. And again, it's not a linear process. There is linearity. There's definitely progression in design but it's not the progression that we tend to advocate with the double diamond. And yeah, we do everybody a big favor if we move away from that language and adopt other examples. I'm curious, what do you feel needs to happen next? So we know that this is the case. We know that there are better ways of explaining sharing service design. What are you working on right now and what do you feel that needs to happen as to evolve our practice, to evolve our community from where we are today? So as an immediate thing that I'm working on is really make those non-Western stories visible and create a service design research and a professional network in the context of Asia. Because the services have been really growing for the past decade a lot and there are really networks in the communities but they are all kind of Western based. So can we maybe form equivalent communities and networks so that those communities from different parts of the world can learn from each other? So that really making establishing the channels and platforms for those Asian countries to be heard. So that's the immediate thing that I'm trying to work on by collaborating with the different actors here. And if somebody is listening to our conversation right now and they are from Asia, is there already something that they can join that they can participate in? How far are you with setting up these channels and these networks? Yeah, not really. Yeah, I still see the long way to go. The first thing is, so like as a kind of small starting point I've been organizing kind of symposium with the some professors and professionals and researchers from Asian countries. We actually had one in February and we will be publishing those discussions in different formats. And that's one. And I think that in Taiwan, actually they are actually doing very interesting things as well. And I think they are also trying to build a service design professional network in the context of Asia. So I think that's kind of cooking, something cooking there. And they are also doing the podcasts by inviting service design designers and service design professionals and researchers in Asian countries to talk about their work. But those kind of movements are observed, but it's still kind of scattered. So maybe I just kind of followed the thought flow, but we need funding. We need a resource. One of the success factors for European networks to be successful and to grow is they have this big EU and the funding that can support like five year long project that allow researchers to really delve into the fundamentals about this service design as a knowledge, service design as a discipline. And they have this really the then that it kind of builds a platform for services and researchers to really look at the system, look at the future scenario and so on. But due to this economic context of Asian countries, the funding mechanism, I think they are not really ready to support such a project, you know? So yeah, those kind of funding, I hope we can have so that. And I guess what we quote unquote in Europe already have is like an established educational and literature base for service design. You can actually point to research, point to articles, like it's established, it's scientifically researched and that helps to leverage its credibility to sort of demonstrate it to organizations and what I'm hearing you say that's not yet the case for Asia. People are doing service design, but there isn't much literature you can point to and say, here are the examples we have in our region that show that service design is being practiced, how it's being practiced, what the outcomes are and you still sort of need to borrow all the examples that aren't maybe relevant or applicable to your region. Yes, yes, yeah, very right to say so. Yeah, and especially in Europe, the network is very strong, the cross-country network because of the EU perhaps, you know? But we don't have such a, we have this Asia Pacific kind of, you know, but it's not really like this as the European EU research network. So how can you promote that cross-country network? But that's, I think, the Asian service design scholars and researchers and professionals really need to maybe work on. What do you wish, now that you've gone through this whole journey and you're still in the middle of it, what do you wish you maybe had known five years ago about this process? Not maybe not known, but maybe not the kind of knowledge, but maybe attitude. I think I was kind of receptive to the way the government organization, like my counterparts, my clients, my collaborators from the government, I kind of try to adapt my deliverables in the way they desired. I wanted to make them happy. But I've been thinking, I've been reflecting, maybe I should have really pushed. Because if I really wanted to promote the system level contribution of the service design, as an educator, as a service design scholar, maybe I should be the one who really needed to introduce these possible cases and you can actually do something different than what you have asked for me. I should have more like courageous and pushing. So if I do the project again with those government organizations, I will be more challenging, courageous. Yeah, good that you sort of address this because that's sort of so hard when you weren't starting out before if somebody's listening in there just starting out, like setting the bar and sort of being demanding from your clients to live up to a certain standard because you know that eventually they will benefit from it, but you have to challenge them. Like if you're not entirely certain about your own skills and expertise, then it's really hard to do because you first need those five years to sort of do the projects fail and then realize, okay, I really know what I'm doing and what I'm saying and now I can challenge the clients. Like that's the ultimate secret. Don't wait five years. Like already trust what you know and don't compromise on quality. Live up to the standards and yeah, you don't have to wait five years. Already be, I don't know if demanding is the right word but yeah, courageous and challenge your clients rather than catering to their short term needs. That's right, yeah, that's right. What do you hope is the one thing somebody will take away from our conversation? If they think back about our conversation one year from now, what is the one thing you hope that they will at least remember? Can I say two things? Sure, of course. Okay, so as we have discussed, so we haven't really utilized full potential of a service design, which can actually transform the collaborative network, transform the business structure. So we need to really try to build more and more cases that can really showcase the full potential of a service design. That way service design can actually make bigger contribution and can have more longevity instead of just sitting behind or becoming like a fad at one point of history. So that's one thing. I actually forgot the second thing. Ah, okay. So Asian audience, the services and researchers, service and professionals, let's collaborate, you know? Let's build network. Let's share our cases and the failure cases and success cases. I know, I don't mean that I am leading this. I know that there are a lot of people out there like under our service design chapter, service design network chapters in different Asian countries, but I think we can also really, you know, gel our efforts together and make into something big. Yeah. Let's collaborate. I think that's a great call to action. Just, again, if somebody is already listening from Asia to this, I host a network for service design professionals who are in-house. We have a community which is focused on sort of the Asia Pacific time zone. There are already many professionals in there we meet on a regular basis. So now mostly people from Australia and Europe they're right now, but I would love it if we get some people from Singapore, some people from, again, all the regions. So that network is already here. If you're in-house service design professional and you'd like to have conversations with other in-house service design professionals, join the circle. I'll make sure that the link is there, but I would also encourage everybody to reach out to you and see what other options there are to and become part of a bigger community, I guess. That sounds fantastic. Yes, we need to promote it more and more. Yes. Awesome. JJ, thank you so much for coming on, sharing your perspective a bit and sharing sort of the stories, the challenges and the ambitions that lie ahead. I really hope to have more guests from Asia on the show in the coming weeks, months and years ahead. So I'll definitely do my best to create a stage to share those stories as well. Once again, thank you for coming on and sharing your story. Thank you for having me today. Thank you so much. I hope that this conversation got your mind going about where, how and why we all need to be working hard to make service design better fit the culture around us, whether that's the culture of your country or that of your company. I want to give a huge thanks to JJ for coming on the show and sharing her perspective with us. If you enjoyed this episode, please consider clicking that like button. It lets me know whether or not we're on the right track by addressing topics like this. My name is Mark Fontijn and I want to thank you for spending a small part of your day with me. It was an absolute pleasure and honor. Please keep making a positive impact and I'll catch you very soon in the next video.