User Experience, Business Models, and Service Design in Concert: Towards a General Methodological Framework for Value Proposition Enhancement

Abstract

Companies in all businesses need efficient and user-friendly tools for experience design in a fast-paced digitalized world searching for sustainability. Although there are hundreds of methods and models in the interdisciplinary area of experience design, a general methodological framework for capturing the user experience as a personal outcome of the interaction with digitalized products and services into the value proposition of a business model is missing. In this paper, we develop a methodological framework for service design that guides the experience design process, aiming to enrich the value proposition with user experience in a business model. The framework is developed by integrating the fields of user experience design, service design, and business model design based on the notion of service-dominant logic and following design science principles. The framework is evaluated according to the design science methodology by applying multiple case studies in seven small and medium-sized companies in Croatia.

1. Introduction

User experience (UX), a personal outcome of the interaction with digitalized products and services, has a potential to increase the value for a customer [1]. To express that potential, UX should be implemented in strategic operations and plans [2] such as the business model (BM). The view on business models has broadened over the time, from a static product-centric to a dynamic system-wide, sustainability-oriented strategic concept for creating value on an economic, societal, and environmental basis [3], so it can be presumed that every BM should be developed as a sustainable business model. Digitalization is frequently an enabling factor for sustainable service solutions. For example, art museums and galleries have developed metaverse exhibitions to build sustainable ways of experiencing art [4]. In public transportation, automated shuttle buses are seen as the future of sustainable public transportation systems [5]. Therefore, UX as a design goal in the value proposition of a BM is an important element for sustainable innovations.

Although strategic, interaction, design, and other models and methods tackle UX as a part of the overall customer experience, there are at least two issues related to embedding this complex construct into a business’s blueprints, i.e., a conceptual representation of a company’s strategy implementation like the business model [6]. First, a vast number of methods and models are scattered in the literature and in practice, missing a framework for a purpose-led design process [7]. Second, existing methods and models are not focused on the UX as a meaningful value proposition for the customer.

A large portion of UX practice attempts to standardize UX outcomes (e.g., [8,9]), striving to come up with a list of desired categories like effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction as standardized outcomes for usability [10]. But this generalizing impact on the user is in collision with the deep nature of a peculiar experience. The generalization aspect comes from the technical design point of view, striving to provide smooth service in moments of a user’s interaction with IT artifacts such as a website, mobile application, etc. On the contrary, in this work, UX is considered as a phenomenological and holistic concept that emerges as a result of a person’s sense-making goals when using technology. This kind of UX concept is more complex and idiosyncratic, more difficult to model and operationalize in practice, and impossible to measure in a standardized manner. There is no common list of qualities each user experience must bring about, since each product or service aims at a different, preferably unique, experience [11]. Therefore, there is a need to investigate the ways in which to envelop this kind of higher-order UX as an important value ingredient into the customer value offering.

In order to improve the UX positioning in strategic operations, UX should be considered within the BM and the service system in which it is substantiated, a value co-creation configuration of people, technology, and value propositions [12]. However, since theoretical models of the UX concept, the BM concept, and the service system concept have been developed in separate disciplines [13], links between these models are missing in the literature and in practice. Theoretical framing of a link between the UX, BM, and service system concepts would provide a sound foundation for developing managerial tools that focus on digital services, values, and experiences. Firms need tools to help them manage digital innovations in which UX and value proposition act as the key areas [14]. Such tools, methods, and models are often developed in large, leading companies that have extant resources for research and development [15]. Therefore, the scientific approach for general conclusions in this area is scarce, and the knowledge remains unavailable to small and medium-sized businesses. In the literature, attempts to position UX strategically are appearing (e.g., [16,17,18,19,20]), but these still suffer from a lack of empirical validation, user-oriented models that can be operationalized in practice, and a focus on UX as a meaningful value for the customer. To address these deficiencies, we developed a Service Design methodological framework for user eXperience in a Business Model (SD-X-BM framework), a methodological framework that conceptually links UX, BM, and service design, providing a platform for applying managerial tools and methods in business design with a focus on the UX as an added value for the customer.

To develop this methodological framework as an artifact that will solve the defined problem, the following objectives for a solution were established.

Objective 1: The UX model must be defined with elements described for service design application.

Objective 2: Appropriate BM representation must be selected and adapted for targeted UX inclusion into the value proposition.

Objective 3: A set of service design methods must be selected and adapted for addressing each UX element.

Since the three main concepts of this research—UX, BM, and service design—are all multidimensional in nature and fragmented in the literature, their definitions are briefly introduced here to clarify the research stance. The first concept, UX, is regarded as a holistic and a phenomenological outcome of user interaction with an IT artifact, which surpasses the narrower pragmatic usability concept and emerges as an individual answer to higher motivational goals such as meanings and emotions. This well-being approach to technology has been introduced by Hassenzahl [21], Law et al. [22], McCarthy and Wright [23], and others and is distinct from the conventional UX that is best known in the user interface design in software development [24], which focuses on quality elements (utility, functionality, usability, persuasiveness, beauty) that are important for a product designer. Here, the second element, a BM, is a concept that provides a tool for a formalized representation of the configuration of the main business elements. This perspective is defined in Massa et al.’s [25] (pp. 84, 89) consolidation of BM conceptualizations as the third possible interpretation, according to which it is a “a scaled-down simplified formal conceptual representation” that can be “written down in pictorial, mathematical, or symbolic form”. And the third concept, service design, is an approach to service development that follows the design thinking principles and consists of methods and tools that are creative, participative, visual, holistic, and user-/customer-centered [26,27,28,29]. Service design results in the design of systems and processes that are needed to co-create any kind of service, from auto repair to IT consulting or communications.

Apart from these three main concepts, one more theoretical stance frames this research in whole. This is a service-dominant logic (SDL), which is a non-traditional marketing paradigm underlying service thinking, in which service is the core offering in every market exchange, and the value is always uniquely and phenomenologically determined by the customer [30]. This service perspective is a crucial basis for linking UX, BM, and service design in one methodological framework.

The development of the methodological framework follows design science research (DSR), an important paradigm in the field of information systems and in a broad range of IT-related fields for designing artifacts such as models and methods that solve practical organizational problems with scientific rigor and a significant knowledge contribution [31]. The research process was carried out according to the Peffers et al.’s [32] Design Science Research Methodology (DSRM) in six nominal steps, namely: (1) problem identification and motivation, (2) definition of objectives for a solution, (3) design and development, (4) demonstration, (5) evaluation, and (6) communication. These steps ensured the rigor and the relevance of the design process [33,34]. For the artifact evaluation, multiple case studies were conducted in seven SMEs from different business fields in Croatia, which included a demonstration of use of the developed methodological framework in a real context.

Since DSR has specific research phases compared to the traditional research process, this article is structured according to the publication schema for a DSR study [31], which outlines the following sections: an introduction, a literature review, methodology, artifact description, evaluation, a discussion, and conclusions.

Figure 1 depicts the structure of the article as related to the research steps in the DSRM process.

First, in this introductory section, a definition of the problem and the significance of the research are presented, and the goals of the research are established. Next, the second section offers a literature review of prior knowledge on the UX, BM, and service design concepts and frameworks needed for the design and development of the methodological framework. The third section explains the DSR methodology in more detail. The fourth section presents the main result of the research, the newly developed artifact—the SD-X-BM methodological framework—and its evaluation. The fifth and sixth sections provide a discussion and conclusions about the research contributions of the developed framework.

2. Literature Review

This literature review is a part of the design science and development phase, in which the theoretical grounds for developing a new methodological framework are established. Since the methodological framework aims to link three distinct fields of expertise, the results of the literature review are organized in three parts that will form the segments of the final designed framework—the user experience model, the business model, and service design methods.

The literature shows that the three respective fields naturally converge in theory and practice (Figure 2), but they need improved models for conceptual alignment. Looking at these three fields in pairs, connections between each of them can be found. The overlap between the service design and user experience fields is evident on both sides. Because information technology fulfills more and more services [35] and is the most influential factor in service experience changes [36], service design needs to address user experience design as a part of the overall service experience. The field of user experience research approaches service design by widening the focus from the user interface and the product to a holistic design for services [13]. Considering the business model and user experience concepts, the importance of incorporating the latter into the former has been recognized as an experience value in technology [1]. Therefore, authors have called for positioning the user experience goal as a part of the strategy [2] and placing it before the product [37]. In the last pairing of service design and the business model, integration is in its infancy [38], since service design usually misses the commercialization aspect, and an alignment of the values in the service system and the business model needs guidance [39]. Figure 2 depicts the triangle framework of these three fields, with a common central notion of value co-creation, which underlies the logic of all three design aspects based on the SDL premise of value co-creation.

2.1. User Experience Model

The first objective for designing the methodological framework was to define the UX model with elements described for service design application. There are various UX models in the literature and in practice, but they are either too functionally oriented (usability features, interface) for holistic design or too abstract (psychological theories and concepts) to apply in practice. The ISO 9241-11:2018 standard defines UX as a “person’s perceptions and responses resulting from the use and/or anticipated use of a product, system or service” [10]. It includes “emotions, beliefs, preferences, perceptions, physical and psychological responses, behaviors and accomplishments that occur before, during and after use” [10], creating a unique set of values that a user experiences. It is difficult to draw a line at which UX starts and ends. It is a transitional overlapping concept between usability and the overall customer experience.

Because of its fuzzy character, various UX models exist that try to describe different aspects of this multidimensional concept. Although the ISO standard defines UX as a design goal, this has not been and cannot be standardized, because there are no universally applicable qualities that every UX must obtain [34]. The main idea behind the notion of experience is to be specific and individually different, which is therefore tricky to capture in its wholeness without reducing it to a limited set of values. Because of this dilemma, there are two opposite streams in approaching UX design and measurement, namely, reductionist and holistic [40]. The reductionist approach belongs to the classic scientific positivist approach, aiming at breaking UX down into its components and explaining the relationships between physical characteristics of the artifact and psychological effects (e.g., [41]). On the other hand, the holistic approach follows Dewey’s pragmatic philosophy of experience being an inseparable totality of man’s actions, strivings, affections, beliefs, and other life contents [42]. This approach is very common in the design process, in which creativity and novelty are desired, but it is not very practical when it comes to business decisions and evaluations that rely on numbers. Either way, UX models lack a common approach that would guide the design in which UX plays an important role.

The main goal of this part of the literature review was to establish an appropriate UX model that meets the first objective of the methodological framework set out in the DSR process. This UX model must suit the service design requirements, adhering to the holistic and phenomenological approach. For this purpose, the prominent UX models [23,41,43,44,45,46,47,48], identified as the key UX conceptual frameworks [49], have been analyzed to verify the common UX elements that will serve as a guide in service design for UX.

First, seven frameworks were thoroughly studied in detail to gain a deep understanding of each conceptualization. Then, the four potential generic categories (user, artifact, interaction/experience, and context) that could serve as a common ground for all seven UX conceptualizations were identified. These were divided based upon Roto et al.’s [50] classification of UX factors into three categories, namely, the context, the user, and the system. Context includes a mix of social factors, physical conditions, surrounding tasks, technical and information possibilities, and other influential aspects from the environment. A change in context can change the experience for the same user and the same system. A user is a person whose specific characteristics, such as their motivation, mood, mental and physical capabilities, and expectations, determine his or her reactions and overall experiences. The system (in our classification, renamed as the artifact) is an IT solution (which can be seen in the form of a physical product/object, application, service, or all of these) that has a set of various characteristics that induce a user’s reactions. These three elements were extended by a fourth element called interaction/experience, which is necessary to place different aspects of a user’s reactions into the process of experiencing. Although this element could just be called experience, the compound name we introduce is used to create a distinction from the user experience construct.

After establishing the four generic UX elements, the elements were matched to each UX framework-specific concepts to inspect the coverage. Some frameworks comprise concepts that can be fully matched to the generic elements (e.g., situation and context in Hassenzahl’s framework), some have more complex constructs that span more elements (e.g., individual processes of making sense cover both user and context in McCarthy and Wright’s framework), and some explain UX from a specific angle so they use diverse conceptions (e.g., pleasures and interaction/experience in Jordan’s framework).

Table 1. UX elements.

UX Framework Reference	User	Artifact	Interaction/Experience	Context
Hassenzahl [41]	User perspective/apparent product character	Product attributes: pragmatic, hedonic	Consequences: appeal, pleasure, satisfaction	Situation
McCarthy and Wright [23]	Individual processes of making sense: anticipating, connecting, interpreting, reflecting, appropriating, recounting	(Included in Interaction/Experience)	Threads of experience: sensual, emotional, compositional, spatio-temporal	(Included in User)
Norman [43]	Levels of processing: visceral, behavioral, reflective	Product characteristics by levels (appearance; pleasure and effectiveness of use; self-image, personal satisfaction, memories)	(Included in User)	(Included in User)
Forlizzi and Battarbee [44]	Individual	Product	Types of interaction: fluent, cognitive, expressive	Contextual types of experience: experience, an experience, co-experience
Desmet and Hekkert [45]	User User’s concerns (culture, context)	Product	Components/levels of experience: aesthetic, meaning, emotional	(Included in User)
Thüring and Mahlke [46]	User characteristics	System properties	UX components: perception of instrumental qualities, emotional reactions, perception of non-instrumental qualities	Task/context
Karapanos et al. [47]	User Anticipation Expectation	Product	Phases: orientation, incorporation, identification Forces: familiarity, functional dependency, emotional attachment	(Included in Interaction/Experience)
Jordan [48]	People/person Hierarchy of needs: functionality, usability, pleasure	Product	Pleasures: physio-, socio-, psycho-, ideo-	(Included in Interaction/Experience) “The sort of emotional response that is desirable in any given situation may depend upon the context in which a product is used.” “Whether a particular sensual experience will be regarded as pleasurable may be dependent upon the context in which the experience occurs.”

presents a concise overview of the analysis, showing the original elements of the specific conceptualization, which relate to the presumed generic UX elements.

The analysis confirms that, as a whole, the four generic elements have coherent coverage in each framework, although some individual elements do not have a perfect match and spill over into other categories. For example, artifact in McCarthy and Wright’s framework is not defined as a specific concept but is presumed to exist as an object of interaction. Generally, the elements of user, artifact, and context are more tangible and easier to identify and categorize, although they appear with different names and forms. For example, the element user is construed in other frameworks as user perspective, individual processes, levels of processing, individual, user and user’s concerns, and so on. Artifact is mainly called product in frameworks, but we chose the term artifact to encompass various forms of IT objects. Context is the rarest explicitly defined concept across frameworks, but it is present as a factor in all the cases, as shown in the citation from the last framework. Interaction/experience is the most fluid and heterogeneous element, having different conceptualizations depending on the aspect: as mental processes (Norman’s framework), as perceptions of and reactions to product characteristics (Hassenzahl’s framework, Thuring and Mahlke’s framework), as the totality of existence (McCarthy and Wright’s framework), as satisfying needs (Jordan’s framework), and as a typology of interaction (Forlizzi and Battarbee’s framework).

The classification is in line with other examples in the literature. Nicolas, Carlos, and Aurisicchio [51] presented a similar classification denoting four UX elements—user, interaction, artifact, and context—but their interaction element is narrower in scope, concerning only a user’s physical or non-physical act on an artifact, and it does not dive into the complex processes of experiencing. Berni and Borgianni [52] still find that the consensus on UX elements is lacking and semantically analyze various UX definitions to identify similar common grounds—the user, the system, interaction, and context—but they separate the experience as an extra phenomenon to be described. Although they claim their proposal to be a holistic one, they weave between wishes and reductionist dismantling. In our case, the holistic stance is kept through continuous use of all the elements as a whole.

To sum up, the main goal of this section was to define the elements of the UX concept for a service design methodological framework that will guide the design of IT artifacts and their services and is based on the existing UX conceptualizations. As each conceptualization has its own detailed elaboration, a comprehensive discussion on the content of all the analyzed frameworks is beyond the scope of this article and is available in the original references.

2.2. Business Model

The second objective for designing the methodological framework was to define an appropriate BM representation for targeted UX inclusion into the value proposition. Since the literature is already flooded with various BM conceptualizations, it was both theoretically and practically desirable to select an existing model and adapt it as a possible solution in order to build on existing theory and to be recognizable in practice. In the BM field, not only are there many definitions and conceptualizations, but there are also various understandings of the concept itself. According to Massa et al.’s [25] conceptual analysis of BM definitions, there are three interpretations of a BM: (1) attributes of real firms appearing as classifications or taxonomies; (2) implicit cognitive/linguistic schemas as images of real systems and narratives that tell a story; (3) explicit formal conceptual representations of business in pictorial, mathematical, or symbolic form. For example, as the first interpretation of BM, Zott and Amit [53] explain a business model as an activity system for value creation with four possible configurations: novelty, lock-in, complementarities, and efficiency. An example of the second interpretation of BM is Baden-Fuller and Morgan’s [54] elaboration of “business models as models”, in which they identify many kinds of mental images (descriptions, scientific schemas, recipes) for the ideation of a business model. As to the third interpretation, the most explicit in nature, Osterwalder and Pigneur’s [55] and Gassman et al.’s [56] models stand out. These define business model components as building blocks that provide a picture of the business model architecture.

In this paper, the BM concept refers to the third interpretation of a BM, i.e., a BM provides a visual representation of the service system elements (resources, activities) needed for value creation. Such a model is necessary for assembling an overarching framework that links the business system, service design, and user experience. This approach is complementary to service design methods that are also a part of the framework, and which abound with visual, intuitive, and easily understood techniques of presenting resources and activities. A convenient, formal representation of a conceptual BM enables the articulation, development, and transfer of ideas for a successful service improvement or innovation.

The business model canvas (BMC) [6,55] was chosen as the most convenient representation of a BM for adaptation in the overall methodological framework for several reasons: it corresponds to the third BM interpretation applied in this work (explicit formal conceptual representations of business); it is the most successful BM in theory and in practice, thus recognizable for use; it has an optimal level of abstraction for integration with UX and service design; it comprises important service system elements with the value proposition in the center, which supports service design principles in the methodological framework.

The BMC presents critical business model components in a clear and practical manner and is proven in theory and practice as one of the most successful conceptualizations of a BM [25,57,58,59]. Various formal representations of BMs differ according to the level of abstraction [25], leading to various model complexities. But to be useful, formal BM representation should not be overly complicated. Since models are generally imperfect compared to the reality they describe [60], a model’s usefulness lies in the ratio between completeness and accuracy. A model with a large number of variables that represent reality in a more complete way can be less useful than a model with fewer variables that represent reality well enough. The BMC, compared to other BM representations [56,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68], has achieved fascinating success [57,69] by optimizing the level of abstraction and the number of constituent elements, providing a robust structure and, at the same time, a space for creativity and design.

2.3. Service Design Methods

The third objective for designing the methodological framework was to select a set of service design methods for addressing each of the four previously identified UX elements. To do this, we investigated the service design field, first to collect, and then to analyze, existing methods. In this vein, around 200 methods were reviewed by the title, and 29 were analyzed in depth according to several criteria such as the purpose, design phase, concepts, format, type, and the main criteria of this analysis—elements of UX that the method is able to capture.

The service design field is flooded with a large number of methods of different types but with a similar aim. Common characteristics of service design that methods try to capture include: a user-centered and holistic approach for embracing all the touchpoints of the customer life, the service-dominant logic of customer value cocreation, practical tools, visual and tangible techniques for evidencing the service, stakeholders’ and various disciplines’ inclusion in the design process, and linking various organizational levels and goals [26,27,28,29,70]. To capture this multidimensional character of service design, numerous methods are scattered across the literature and in practice. Alves and Nunes [71] analyzed a set of 164 methods from ten respective sources and reported that 71% of the collected methods belong to only one source, and only 15% (25 methods) appear in at least three sources, showing a great variability. Li et al. [72] came to similar findings. They analyzed sources from the service design and human–computer interaction (HCI) fields to categorize only visualization methods. They collected 435 methods in all, which were reduced to 245 when the same methods with different names were grouped together, and only 57 methods came from at least two sources.

In this analysis, the basic list of methods was adapted from Stickdorn and Schneider [27], who presented a collection of methods as a consensus of about fifty experts from academia and practice, making it a representative set of the most used methods. This is also the most referenced source at ServDes, the largest service design conference in the world [73], which confirms its relevance. In addition to Stickdorn and Schneider [27], this investigation also considered other respective sources [71,72,74,75,76,77,78]. These sources confirmed the initial list and allowed us to supplement it with a few more items that were identified as important for the purpose of this research. For example, a system map, as one of the most frequently used visualization methods [76], was added to cover the system aspect in service design. Also, a supplement to the original list of methods was achieved with more complex methodological frameworks that cover multiple aspects, phases, and/or levels of design: multilevel service design [79], the integrated service innovation method [17], and Management and INteraction Design for Services (MINDS) [80].

A summary of this analysis of service design methods is presented in

Table 2. Systematization of service design methods.

User	IT Artifact	Interaction	Context
Persona Service safari The five whys Cultural probe Mobile ethnography Expectation map Design scenario Service staging Agile development Co-creation Storytelling Service roleplay Customer lifecycle map Business model canvas Integrated service innovation method	Service prototype Service staging Agile development Co-creation Business model canvas Multilevel service design Integrated service innovation method Management and INteraction Design for Services Wireframe	Service blueprint Customer journey map Storyboard Desktop walkthrough Service safari Shadowing Mobile ethnography Expectation map What if… Design scenario Service prototype Service staging Agile development Co-creation Storytelling Service roleplay Customer lifecycle map Multilevel service design Integrated service innovation method Management and INteraction Design for Services	Shadowing Contextual interview The five whys Cultural probe Mobile ethnography A day in the life Expectation map Co-creation

. Methods are grouped according to their potential to capture a specific UX element needed for a holistic UX/service design. Some methods capture several UX elements, so they appear in the table more than once. In each group, one method per UX element is selected for use in the final methodological framework. The selected method is underlined in Table 2. Criteria for the selection of these methods come from the objectives of the overall research. Therefore, the methods in the methodological framework are supposed to form a coherent whole; they should be complementary and nonredundant, homogeneous, harmonized, intuitive, and recognizable. To be complementary and nonredundant, selected methods comprehensively cover each UX element. To be homogeneous and harmonized, selected methods are used in a similar way, meaning their outputs have the same type of format (a map as opposed to, e.g., a narrative, a picture, etc.), and their use is facilitated by filling in given templates. To ensure good usability of the final framework, selected methods are intuitive in use and recognizable, i.e., known, popular, and proven in practice.

At the end of this literature review, which presents the theoretical investigation upon which the new artifact, the methodological framework, is built, we define the three constitutive parts of the final framework: (1) UX model/elements that guide the design for experience; (2) business model canvas as the BM representation that links with other methods and provides the ultimate structure in which the value proposition is enriched with the UX; (3) service design methods that capture each UX element for the design of a holistic experience.

3. Methodology

The SD-X-BM framework was developed following a design science methodology [33], a research orientation in which different research methods and activities are applied to solve socio-technological problems with scientific rigor. Because of the variability in the design science research process, this section presents several methodological choices in our study—the research approach, the research process framework, and the research method(s) for collecting and analyzing empirical data.

Figure 3 depicts the relationships between the chosen qualitative research approach, design science methodology, and the case study method.

The grey-colored overlapping area shows the positioning of this research design. The design science methodology was carried out in a qualitative research manner, following a specified design science research methodology framework, and the qualitative case study method was applied for data collection and analysis within the design science research process.

3.1. Qualitative Research Approach

The choice of research approach is guided by the nature of a research problem [81]. A qualitative research approach was chosen based on the research problem of integrating a holistic UX as an important value ingredient into the customer value offering. Qualitative research fits this problem, because it provides thick data that enable a researcher to gain a holistic insight into the overall context of the observed phenomenon, to get inside the actors’ perceptions, to review and further explain the data with respondents, and to reveal meanings and patterns [82].

Apart from the problem fit, it is also recommended that the research approach follows the accepted approaches in the research field. The literature review showed that in all three main areas of this research—service design [83], business models [84], and user experience [85]—the qualitative approach is well accepted and is applied in a majority of papers. The main characteristics of qualitative research and its application in this study are presented in

Table 3. Applied qualitative research characteristics.

Qualitative Research	Application in This Research
Describes phenomena in context [86]	Multiple case studies provide insights into various contexts of the developed framework’s application
Interprets meaning and processes holistically [86,87,88]	Users’ perceptions during the framework’s use are investigated
Uses theoretically based concepts [86]	The final framework was developed based on a comprehensive literature investigation into the three respective fields (user experience, business models, service design)
Seeks understanding [86,89]	Semi-structured interviews with users provide continuous insight into understanding the UX phenomenon
Inductive process [88,89]	Collecting empirical data through interviews, observations, and documents to build theory
Rich/thick descriptions [87,89]	Cases provide plenty of information for extensive descriptions of the phenomenon, context, users, and processes

.

3.2. DSRM Process and Multiple Case Study

Design science research (DSR) methodology has been chosen based on the main objective of this research—developing an artifact, the SD-X-BM framework. Unlike a behavioral paradigm, which seeks to explain and predict human and organizational behavior, a design science paradigm seeks to widen human and organizational capabilities by creating new artifacts needed to solve complex socio-technological problems [33]. It is a reliable combination of a design process and scientific research in which both new theoretical knowledge and practical solutions are created following principles of design, relevance, and rigor [33,34]. Design science is well accepted in the information systems field, because it supports finding creative solutions to complex organizational problems [33]. Recently, design science has also been recognized in the service field as a valuable methodology for advancing service science and technology-enabled service innovations [36]. The eminent examples of DSR in a context similar to this study include a method for management and interaction design [80], a business model service extension [90], and a famous business model ontology development [6].

The DSR process in this study was carried in six steps according to DSRM [32], a widely used design science research framework. The nominal steps have already been introduced at the beginning of this article (Figure 1), because they encompass all the phases of the research and help in better understanding the structure of the whole article. Next, the steps are methodologically elaborated.

• Step 1: Problem identification and motivation

As in every research project, at the beginning, the problem is clearly defined, and the potential value of the solution is estimated. In this paper, this is already elaborated in the introductory and literature review section as a result of the first step of the research. The literature showed that there are many methods for UX, BM, and service design, but there is a need to link these approaches through one methodological framework and find a way to capture the user experience as a personal outcome of interaction with digitalized products and services into the value proposition of a business model.

• Step 2: Objectives of the solution

Based on the defined problem and the existing knowledge from the literature, the objectives of the solution are specified. These objectives are already articulated in the introductory section as objectives of this study. To develop the final framework, three objectives are to be met: (1) define an appropriate UX model (which reflects the nature of phenomenological experience and provides elements for service design), (2) define an appropriate BM representation (which can be used for implementing UX into the value proposition for the customer), and (3) select a set of service design methods (which are able to address the UX elements).

• Step 3: Design and development

The design and development of the artifact must be grounded in sound theoretical knowledge to be scientifically rigorous. Therefore, for each established objective, a literature analysis of three fields was carried out. Procedures and outputs of analysis are presented in the literature review section, resulting in the three parts of the framework (UX model, BM model, and service design methods). To assemble the individual parts methodologically, two frameworks have been applied, one for the level dimension and one for the process dimension.

First, a multilevel service design [79] framework structures the levels of service design for customer experience: (1) designing the service concept, (2) designing the service system, and (3) designing the service encounter.

Second, a framework for service innovation based on service design and foresight [58,91] defines four phases of the service design process—(1) map and understand, (2) forecast and ideate, (3) model and evaluate, (4) conceptualize and evaluate—whereas service design methods, including the business model canvas, are explicitly proposed as a part of the design process.

Figure 4 depicts a scheme for the two-dimensional assembly of the designed framework. Framework segments correspond to the levels of service design, and the flow of the framework design process is guided by the service design processes.

• Step 4: Demonstration (Multiple case studies)

The use of the developed artifact in solving the set problem was demonstrated in multiple case studies, including seven cases. The case study method also included the evaluation phase, which is presented in step 5.

The case study method was chosen for the artifact demonstration and evaluation, as recommended by Hevner et al. [37]. The selection of an evaluation method depends on the type of artifact under consideration, which can be an algorithm, a construct, a framework, an instantiation, a method, or a model [92]. It is evident in the literature that for an artifact containing novel methodologies, a case study can be used as a method for demonstration and evaluation [92]. The case study method has an explorative form that enables intensive interaction with respondents, which is necessary for deep investigation of the unit of analysis. The case study design followed methodological principles by Yin [93].

The case study design was determined by the research question: How will the application of the methodological framework work in the process of designing/improving a business model while focusing on user experience as an added value in the customer value proposition? The assumption of the case study was that companies lack appropriate methods for developing a business model enriched with the user experience concept, and that the use of this framework will help them improve the value proposition for the customer. Each case included data collected from workshops, interviews, and documents. Workshops belong to the demonstration step, and interviews belong to the evaluation step. Companies’ documents were used for holistic descriptions of each case.

The cases were chosen following the qualitative methodology principles, applying theoretical and purposeful sampling. Cases were selected to reflect the context in which the framework is supposed to be used—small and medium-sized companies that do not have methods and/or expertise for focusing on user experience as a value proposition in a business model. The provision of the company contacts was facilitated by Croatian economic associations and institutions (The Institute of Economics, Zagreb and Zagreb Innovation Center). Furthermore, the number of cases was determined according to methodological recommendations—four to ten cases when expanding a theory [93] and reaching theoretical saturation in collected data [89]. The companies’ different kinds of businesses provided various contexts for the observed phenomena, which contributes to the creation of new knowledge [94]. The full list of cases with their characteristics is provided in Appendix A.

A demonstration of the artifact was held in separate workshops for case companies. Each workshop lasted around three hours in each company. The workshop was guided by a researcher, who presented the methodological framework and introduced the users to the methods but avoided influencing the participants’ ideas. A user manual for the whole framework was also provided in paper form. Users were employees and/or owners who are competent to participate in service design in their company (have knowledge about products, services, and customers). In smaller companies, these were owners; in medium companies, middle management was consulted, such as project managers, development managers, etc. Participants used written instructions and templates for evidencing the outputs of the whole process (see Appendix B for one application case).

• Step 5: Evaluation (Multiple case studies)

The main goal of the evaluation in design science is to compare the objectives of the solution to the observed results from the demonstration. Furthermore, the rigor in all the research procedures has to be evaluated. Therefore, the evaluation in this research consisted of three main parts: (1) evaluation of the development process, which was based on the seven guidelines from Hevner et al. [33]; (2) evaluation of a novel method based on the criteria from the interaction design field [95,96]; and (3) evaluation of outputs from the artifact demonstration compared to the objectives of the solution and questioning the artifact’s utility, quality, and efficacy [32,33], which was carried out through semi-structured interviews, workshop observations, and document analysis in case studies.

First, the evaluation of the development process was carried out following [33] Hevner et al.’s guidelines for design science in information systems research: (1) design as an artifact, (2) problem relevance, (3) design evaluation, (4) research contributions, (5) research rigor, (6) design as a search process, and (7) communication of research.

Second, the evaluation of a new method was verified against criteria for developing a new method in interaction design by Forlizzi et al. [95]: (1) process, (2) invention, (3) relevance, and (4) extensibility.

Third, for the empirical part of the evaluation, an evaluation of the demonstration outputs was carried out through multiple case studies, which is a well-accepted method for demonstration and evaluation in design science [31,92]. One aspect of the multiple case studies belongs to and has been presented in the previous step (Step 4: Demonstration). The other aspect of the case studies relates to evaluation, which consists of a semi-structured interview with users from the workshops, the researcher’s observations from the workshops, and documented outputs from the workshops (design documents filled in by users). All the cases have been carried out following a case study protocol so that the data can be compared and cross-analyzed.

The evaluation provided data about the validity, utility, quality, and efficacy of the framework, which showed that the developed methodological framework met the research objectives. The empirical results will be presented in the results section of this paper.

Step 6: Communication

Communicating the problem, its relevance, the solution, the development process, and its rigor to the scientific and professional community must be continuously carried out and is still occurring. Partial segments of the overall research have been discussed in scientific conferences and magazines [97,98,99]. Professional audiences were introduced to the framework through workshops and written materials for users.

4. Results

The main result of this study is the newly developed artifact, the SD-X-BM framework. As recommended by DSR literature [31], in the results section, a description of the artifact and its evaluation should be presented. Therefore, this section is structured in two parts. First, the final SD-X-BM framework is described, and second, the results of the empirical evaluation are presented.

4.1. SD-X-BM Framework

The main output of this research is a new artifact named the Service Design methodological framework for user eXperience in a Business Model (SD-X-BM framework). The purpose of this section is to describe the newly developed artifact, which makes up the main contribution to the knowledge base [31].

The SD-X-BM framework can be defined as an interconnected set of selected models and methods enriched by the UX concept with the purpose of upgrading the value proposition for a customer in a business model. The framework complements and integrates existing business model and service design methods, as these lack an adequate structure for UX implementation. The framework integrates three design approaches into a coherent, holistic, and meaningful treatment of IT experiences in services and products. The practical purpose of the SD-X-BM framework is to help companies develop a business model enriched with the user experience as an added value in the value proposition for a customer. The framework can be used in new service design, for service improvement or innovation, in strategic planning, in service system development or improvement, etc.

The SD-X-BM framework is comprised of three segments that were developed based on the three objectives set at the beginning of this research, which the solution had to fulfill:

• The UX segment is at the heart of the entire framework and connects all parts of the design process. In the framework, UX appears in two roles: first, in the form of an autonomous object set as a targeted experience, and second, as a structural frame of UX elements that is used for arranging service design methods to address different aspects of a holistic, multidimensional UX.
• The business model segment represents the strategic level of service design and ensures that the specific design choices throughout the entire service system are in line with the strategic goals. The creation of a defined UX as the goal in a business model provides a lead to be followed throughout the whole service system.
• The service design segment comprises a specific combination of service design methods, extended with the explicitly articulated, targeted meaning of experience and structured to capture the multidimensionality of the UX concept through its four elements—the user, the IT artifact, experience/interaction, and context. This segment provides a solution for meaningful service design in a digitalized environment.

Figure 5 depicts the SD-X-BM framework, showing the three constituent segments (user experience, business model, and service design), the structure of the elements, and the order of the recommended steps in the design process (0, X, 1, 2, 3, 4 in angle brackets).

The segments and the elements of the framework have a particular order, but a design process is rarely linear, nor is the framework. Therefore, there is more than one way to go through the framework. From the empirical evidence of this research, one convenient way is to start with defining or writing down the existing business model (step <0>), which should be enriched with a desired user experience.

4.1.1. Business Model Segment

The business model is represented with the business model canvas [6,55], a proven representation of a business model in theory and practice. The business model canvas provides a practical, intuitive template for describing a business logic with nine elements called business blocks, which creates a balanced level of granularity for capturing and aligning the strategic and operational levels. The main business block of the business model canvas, for the purpose of the SD-X-BM framework, is the Value Proposition (VP) block, which represents benefits that a customer can gain from the product and/or service that is offered. This is the place where, in the SD-X-BM framework, the value from UX should be defined and articulated.

The other business blocks in the business model canvas are, from left to right: Key Partners (KP)—suppliers and other partners with whom a company collaborates; Key Activities (KA)—business activities that are most important for value creation; Key Resources (KR)—assets that are most important for value creation; Customer Relationships (CR)—type(s) of specific relationships with customer segments that are crucial for getting, keeping, and growing customers; Channels (CH)—specific channels for distribution, communication, and sale; Customer Segments (CS)—defined types of customers; Cost Structure (CSt)—a list of main costs generated from key activities, partnerships, and resources; Revenue Streams (RS)—types of revenues generated from selling the product/service.

4.1.2. User Experience Segment

After the initial definition of the business model (existing or future), which sets the scene for the strategic orientation, a focus is placed on the targeted UX, which should enrich the value proposition. The UX segment (step <X>) in the design process of the SD-X-BM framework is multidimensional and is carried out through two UX concepts. First, UX is seen as the targeted feeling or meaning that a person gains from an IT service or an IT artifact (based on [100]), which is an inseparable whole. Second, UX is approached from the four angles, called UX elements, which determine the phenomenological creation of a multidimensional experience.

The first UX form, targeted UX (TUX), is formulated based on possibility-driven design [101], as opposed to the classic problem-driven design, whose goal is to open new spaces for the creation of technologies that make people happy. Sometimes, it is not possible to define such UX at the beginning, so in that case, one can return to this point afterwards. Based on the literature analysis, we identified a set of possible inspiration sources for TUX formulation [11,19]: (a) brand—the type of experience is in line with the brand image; (b) empathy—discovering the desired experience by engaging in a customer’s world; (c) technology—the experience of innovative technological features; (d) vision—the experience of entirely new approaches of doing something; (e) theory/basic psychological needs—experience based on theoretical categories of human feelings. The theoretical approach, which is the most problematic issue but is very important, has been further elaborated because of the abstract psychological concepts that are difficult to operationalize in design practice. A positive practice canvas (PPC) [19] is a tool that addresses a similar problem, so it was adapted to be used for formulating a TUX in the case of basic psychological needs. The PPC provided a questionnaire for identifying activities, feelings, and meanings that relate to the product/service and mapping these with the basic psychological needs (competency, security, popularity, stimulation, autonomy, physical thriving, relatedness) of customers that can be set as the ultimate TUX.

4.1.3. Service Design Segment

The service design segment (steps <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>) is structured according to the four UX elements (user, context, IT artifact, interaction). For each UX element, the most appropriate service design method was selected and adapted for UX design by extending it with the targeted UX.

First, the user element, which includes an individual who, while consuming the offered service, uses certain IT contents and gains UX, comprises a series of dynamic factors such as motivation, mood, expectations, mental and physical capabilities, personal values, character, etc. This aspect is best captured with the persona method [102,103], which is used for defining a customer profile in a lively manner (step <1>).

Second, the context element, which refers to the specific conditions in the environment in which service consumption occurs, comprises a mix of social factors, physical conditions, surrounding tasks, technical and information context, a temporal dimension, etc. This aspect is approached via the day-in-the-life method, widely accepted in the human–computer interaction field [72] and service design [27], which is used for describing a series of a user’s personal activities throughout a day, thereby revealing those needs of a person that are not necessarily directly related to the service but reveal some personal drivers in context (<step 2>).

Third, the interaction element, which represents the way in which the user and the IT artifact mutually act upon each other, comprises any user’s action on the IT artifact that results in a change in the user. This aspect is efficiently captured with the customer journey method, which stems from marketing efforts to encompass the whole customer experience, going through several phases, from the beginning to the end of all service encounters called touchpoints [104]. This method provides a structured display of the flow of events related to the service, revealing customer emotions and thoughts, performance indicators, centers of responsibilities, opportunities for improvement, and others (step <3>).

The fourth element, the IT artifact, designed IT content with which a user interacts during the consumed service, comprises functional features, aesthetics, interactive behavior, user added features, brand image, and others. This aspect is designed with the wireframe method, a UX and HCI method [24,72,105,106], which is used to sketch elements of a user interface in a simple manner, focusing on the structure of elements and information that is most important (step <4>).

It is beyond the scope of this paper to go much deeper into the execution of each method, but the application case in Appendix B further demonstrates the use of methods and their extension with the UX concept.

4.1.4. SD-X-BM Framework Flow

As already stated, the framework is multidimensional and layered, so it cannot be defined in just a linear manner. The presented flow of steps (0-X-1-2-3-4) is the most usual one and has an ideal sequence as follows: first, setting the ground with the business model; then, defining the targeted UX; then, diving into the customer world with the persona and day-in-the-life methods; then, orchestrating the service system and the customer in a customer journey, finishing with concrete specifications of the created artifact. But other process options are also possible (X-0-1-2-3-4; 0-1-2-3-4-X; 1-2-3-4-X-0), as are iterations that return to certain steps for refinement or an update with new insights. Also, when more than one persona exists, the steps of the process are multiplied. The most important general design principle in this framework is to have the same TUX present in all the methods, regardless of their sequence, to focus on the ultimate user experience value for the customer from all the angles of the design process.

4.2. SD-X-BM Framework Evaluation

The goal of evaluation in design science is to verify that the developed artifact provides a solution to the problem [32]. This involves comparing the results of the demonstration with the set objectives. The main objective of this study was to create a service design methodological framework for developing a business model enriched with the user experience concept, and particular objectives were set for the methods and models used in the framework (see Introduction and Methodology for the details). Therefore, the main part of the evaluation includes evaluating the results after demonstrating the use of the framework in seven cases. A summary of the structured results is presented in the form of matrices, as recommended for qualitative data cross-case analysis [82,107].

Table 4. Cross-case analysis of the design process by cases and by methods.

	Method	BMC	TUX	Persona	Day in the Life	Customer Journey	Wireframe	SD-X-BM Success
Case
Case A		●	●	●	●	●	◐	+
Case B		●	○	●	◐	●	○	−
Case C		●	●	●	●	●	○	+
Case D		●	●	●	○	●	○	+
Case E		●	●	●	◐	●	○	+
Case F		●	●	○	○	●	○	+
Case G		●	●	●	○	●	○	+
# of cases *		7/7	6/7	6/7	4/7	7/7	1/7

Legend: ○—not executed. ◐—partially executed. ●—fully executed. * Total number of cases in which a method has been executed (partially or fully).

presents the execution of the particular methods and the overall success of the framework in seven applications (cases). The data can be analyzed in two dimensions: by case (rows) and by method (columns). Concerning the feasibility of methods, BMC and customer journey show the highest usability (7/7), and wireframe shows the lowest (1/7). Other methods have mixed results, but they are overall positive (>50%). Despite the questionable feasibility of certain methods, the SD-X-BM framework was successful on the whole in most of the cases (6/7). The explanation for this lies in the non-linearity of the design process, as it can vary in different situations. This is explained further with the matrix in

Table 5. Cross-case analysis of capturing UX elements by cases and by methods.

	Method	TUX	Persona	Day in the Life	Customer Journey	Wireframe
Element Case
User
Case A			+
Case B			+/−
Case C			+
Case D			+
Case E			+
Case F		+	0		+
Case G		+	+/−
Contex
Case A				+
Case B				+/−
Case C				+
Case D			+	0
Case E			+/−	+/−
Case F				0
Case G		+/−	+/−	0
Interaction
Case A					+
Case B					+/−
Case C					+
Case D					+
Case E					+
Case F					+
Case G					+
IT artifact
Case A					+/−	+/−
Case B						0
Case C					+/−	0
Case D					+/−	0
Case E					+/−	0
Case F					+/−	0
Case G					+/−	0

Legend: + fully captured. +/− partially captured. − not captured (method executed). 0 not captured (method not executed).

, which shows a cross-case analysis of the efficacy of methods to capture UX (Table 5).

The most efficient method in capturing the assigned UX element is the customer journey, with positive results in all cases. The second most efficient method is persona, which captures the user element in most cases, and in cases in which it fails to capture the user element, another method is substituted for it. Third in terms of efficacy is the day-in-the-life method, which has three zero results. However, it is significant that in these cases, this method was not executed at all because of specific difficulties in some cases, such as an unfamiliar customer at the moment of the design process. Again, other methods replaced this method in capturing the context element, so the overall framework proved its flexibility. The fourth element–method relationship showed the worst results—wireframe captured the IT artifact partially only in one case, but it was also executed in only one case, because this method is more demanding when it comes to necessary knowledge and time to design a concrete solution. Here, this failing was substituted with customer journey, and the framework was successful on the whole. The analysis shows that the objectives of defining UX elements for service design and selecting a set of service design methods for addressing UX elements have been fulfilled, although not always in the same manner, but the overall framework is flexible and stable in supporting the design process.

For the second objective, an appropriate BM representation for targeted UX inclusion,

Table 6. Main design outputs by case.

Case	Value Proposition (As Is)	Targeted UX	Design Ideas *
Case A	housing solution trust expertise long-term relationship ”value for money” personalization/customization	Security Autonomy Life success	Improvement: website improvements (photos, navigation)
Case B	financial services retail banking ”second chance“ (risky/blocked) premium/custom-made	(Speed)	-
Case C	better life vacation for adults all-inclusive	Stimulation Relatedness	Novelty: mobile app with educational, informative, and entertaining contents
Case D	tailor-made education acquiring knowledge and skills acquiring acquaintances and partnerships feeling at home (relaxed)	Competency Stimulation Autonomy	Improvement: website improvements (photos, catching phrases in text) Novelty: digital contents (plans, proposals, progress reports) available via e-mail or online platform
Case E	business process automatization business process transparency reduced time for administration cost reduction	Sense of process efficiency Feeling control Work satisfaction	Improvement: website improvement for presenting IT solutions Novelty: digital contents for more effective communication (document of processes, achieved improvements, collecting feedback)
Case F	contemporary and reliable website development, tailor-made client participation in the design process excellent ”web“	Feeling of success Feeling of technological progress Feeling of importance Feeling of excellence	Improvement: website improvement Novelty: digital contents for project flow visualization
Case G	pieces of furniture that fit perfectly into the user’s living space and lifestyle experience of buying custom-made furniture from the comfort of one’s own home	Simple personalization Feeling special (“just for me”) Feeling of getting more value Giving support to small manufacturers and a meaningful product	Improvement: website improvements (photos, messages in text)

* Note: The resulting design ideas are divided into two categories: (a) improvement of existing service IT contents and (b) novelty, i.e., new IT contents.

presents the generated contents of value propositions, targeted UXs, and resulting design ideas for improvements or novelties based on targeted UX by case.

In all the cases, the existing value propositions were formulated, and in all cases except B, an additional targeted UX was identified, and design ideas were generated. Case B, which also expressed negative results in previous matrices, was problematic throughout the design process because of the special characteristics of the service, which participants describe as formal and regulated, so they find themselves without space and resources for creativity.

“The bank is a strictly regulated system. There’s no creativity.” (participant citation)

“Legal restrictions are the same for all banks, but budgets are very different. We have nothing left for large investments in IT.” (participant citation)

The results confirm the efficiency of the methods that were used and of the BMC as a suitable platform to implement the UX concept into the business model. These examples show complementarity of the designed concepts: targeted UX complements existing value proposition, and design ideas are generalizable from the targeted UX. There is no redundancy, nor difficulties with operationalizing the abstractions.

The next, and final, part of the evaluation offers a user perspective and an assessment of the methodological framework. The data were collected through semi-structured interviews with the participants, held after the workshop in which the framework was applied. The interviews followed the questionnaire (Appendix C), which was developed based on the evaluation criteria, conceptual framework, case study assumptions, methodological literature for conducting interviews [108], and similar relevant studies [6,109]. Participants evaluated each method on three criteria through eight items in total: (1) feasibility: executability, availability of information, timing; (2) usability: clarity, ease of use, appropriateness for capturing UX; (3) utility: relevance for UX, usefulness. The proposed answers were yes/no/partially, but free commentary was always encouraged to gain rich qualitative data and descriptions. For each method, participants were also asked to state any problems, advantages, and disadvantages they encountered. Since the overall qualitative analysis of the results is beyond the scope of this paper, a summary of the results is presented in

Table 7. Summary of positive answers from evaluation interviews.

Method Case	BMC	TUX	Persona	Day in the Life	Customer Journey	Wireframe	SD-X-BM Framework
Case A	8	8	8	8 *	8	1	+
Case B	7	0	7	0	8	0	+
Case C	8	8	8	8	8	0	+
Case D	8	7 *	8	8 *	8	0	+
Case E	8	8 *	8	8	8	0	+
Case F	8 *	8 *	1 *	0	8	0	+
Case G	8	8	6 *	0	8	0	+
Total # of positive answers	55/56 (98%)	47/56 (84%)	46/56 (82%)	32/56 (57%)	56/56 (100%)	1/56 (2%)	7/7 (100%)

* The sum of positive answers includes full and partial positive answers.

.

The data in Table 7 show the total number of positively evaluated items per case per method. For example, in case B, for the BMC method, participants gave positive answers for executability, availability of information, timing, clarity, ease of use, and appropriateness for capturing UX, usefulness and a negative answer for relevance for UX, which makes seven positive answers in total. When positive answers from all cases for the BMC method are added up, this makes a total of 55 positive answers out of 56 possible answers (98%). The results from user evaluations are in line with the previously presented results from observations—very positive in cases in which the method was well executed (BMC, PPC, persona, customer journey) and missing when the method was not present (day in the life, wireframe).

It is important to simultaneously look at the last column, which shows the positive assessments of the overall framework in all the cases. This again proves that despite the failure of some of the methods, their goal was fulfilled in some other way (through other methods), and the overall framework was stable and successful. Some methods showed certain problems in their use, but in all cases, they were complemented with other methods to fulfill their goals. For example, although the wireframe method produced some design ideas in only one case, in other cases, design ideas mainly came from the customer journey method. Therefore, design ideas were obtained, but they lacked a visual solution because of the lack of time or lack of designer knowledge for sketching user interfaces.

The overall framework was assessed by users through four open-ended questions directed towards its utility. The participants were very positive towards the whole design process they went through using the SD-X-BM framework. It was a positive and useful experience that acts as a stimulus and inspiration for new perspectives, gives results in the design of service improvements, and works as a coherent whole.

“Very good methodological framework. I definitely see room for use. I think we will implement a lot of what we concluded here. […] We came up with some new ideas, we came up with new knowledge that could increase our competitiveness, our value […]” (a citation from case F)

“Very useful. It all makes sense. Each separately cannot be of much use. The best example is the business model canvas method, which by itself does not tell us much about the user, but when combined with others, it tells a lot.” (a citation from case G)

“The methodological framework contributed to the improvement of the service (in the future).” (a citation from case D)

“I would recommend it to everyone, regardless of the size, type of business.” (a citation from case E)

The participants evaluated the SD-X-BM framework positively, finding that the framework contributed to service improvement based on the UX, that they would like to use the framework in the future, and that they would recommend it for use to anyone who serves any kind of customer.

5. Discussion

This research addresses the issues of considering, conceptualizing, and strategically positioning UX in service design as an important aspect of contemporary services flooded with IT contents. It aims to help companies and other organizational subjects in designing a business model enriched with a target UX that increases the value for a customer. To this end, the SD-X-BM methodological framework, which integrates the UX concept with service design and a business model, is developed as the main knowledge contribution.

Apart from the main research output, the SD-X-BM framework as a whole, this research offers contributions in each studied field individually and in their integration. First, in the business model field, the value proposition concept has been enriched with the target UX, bringing the technology-enabled service contents closer to strategic decisions and linking them to customer values. This holistic approach to customer value creation opens up new spaces for a meaningful technological infusion into services. The existing representations of a business model lack an explicit formulation of such goals in terms of customer value. The BMC [55], used in our framework, specifies a list of value proposition elements (newness, performance, customization, “getting the job done”, design, brand/status, price, cost reduction, risk reduction, accessibility, and convenience/usability) but misses an ultimate experience goal. Therefore, the BM representation has been improved with a solution for targeted UX specification in the SD-X-BM framework.

Second, in the UX field, two streams prevail—reductionist and holistic. The latter suffers from theoretical models that are too abstract to apply in practice. However, when the experience is approached as a meaningful goal, the holistic aspect is necessary. This research offers a way to capture a holistic and phenomenological UX in a practical design process through two conceptual aspects of the UX notion: targeted UX and UX elements for service design. The emphasis in this conceptualization is on the activities of the design process, through which a genuine UX target emerges, rather than the decomposition of the UX concept into its constituent parts. These findings provide both routine and general design principles for a holistic UX formulation and design as a knowledge contribution.

Third, a contribution is made to the service design field in several ways. An extensive analysis of the numerous service design methods (around 200 methods) resulted in the systematization of methods for capturing the four UX elements that create the flexibility and generalizability of the SD-X-BM framework. The infusion of the UX concept into the service design method brings the two separate fields closer, which is also a necessary contribution to existing theory and practice [13].

Finally, the integration of the three respective fields in the form of a general framework is presented in Figure 6.

This general framework has been abstracted from the SD-X-BM framework’s seven empirical applications as a general design principle for UX infusion into the value proposition of a business model. It provides a schema of the main concepts at work in a design process, no matter the specific methods and models used. The service-dominant logic [30] provides a ubiquitous underlying perspective on value creation that determines the contemporary service understanding of the value proposition.

The general methodological framework provides a platform that can be applied in various contexts. It offers a valuable approach in determining the role of UX in advancing green technologies and sustainable consumption, which has been an unanswered question in the literature and in practice [110].

6. Conclusions

In this study, the SD-X-BM framework has been developed to provide a platform for conceptual and operative linking tools and methods in business design, with a specific focus on the design for the UX outcome as an added value for the customer. The framework has been developed by combining and adapting multiple methods and models from the literature and empirically validated through seven case studies. In most cases—six out of seven—the application of the framework showed positive results in the service and UX design, proving the usefulness and usability of the artifact. The new methodological framework contributes to the knowledge base as an alignment of different design perspectives (UX design, BM design, and service design) that are converging in practice but exist as separate approaches in theory.

The proposed framework, as well as the overall research, have their limitations, which should be addressed in future research. The main methodological limitation belongs to the general qualitative research critiques of being subjective and ungeneralizable. This issue has been addressed with special care following the principles for qualitative research—credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability [87,111]—and applying appropriate strategies, such as data and method triangulation, thick descriptions, keeping field notes and transcripts, and thorough preparations for conducting interviews and observations. The paper format limits the space for presenting all the collected data in a narrative manner, which hinders the transferability of the cases. The researchers aim to publish individual cases reports with detailed research materials, to be used as valuable resources for professional audiences transferring the present knowledge to their situations.

Another research design limitation comes from the time limitation and feasibility of the study. The study did not include an implementation of the results of the design process carried out in the workshops, as is the case in other similar studies [6,90]. Although the successful implementation of the new design ideas is very important, it takes a lot of time, company resources, and other intervening factors that are not included in this study. This opens questions for future research, which should conduct a prolonged case study in which solutions for the targeted UX would be created, and their effect on the customer observed.

Further, there are still difficulties in executing some of the methods within the SD-X-BM framework that have not been explored here. The wireframe method had the most problems, as already explained, but a replacement for it has not been found. With more time and more participants included, the wireframe method might have had more success; however, another kind of method should also be considered, for example, a nongraphical one. In some cases, other methods also encountered difficulties, and a set of success factors was generated (e.g., the type of business considered, customer relationships, company image, orientation towards IT services, motivation), but an exhaustive presentation of this information is beyond the scope of this paper. Future research could systematically address the factors generated and find general rules and correlations for applying a combination of methods within the general framework.

Finally, this research opens questions in new directions, such as widening the perspective towards the enterprise’s architecture, information system design, software development, and other technical issues that need alignment with business goals. Also, the research revealed the issue of a widening perspective in the societal sense. Two new concepts were recently introduced for service-dominant logic—institutions and institutional arrangements as important actors in the service system for the understanding of individual value. This is especially accentuated in contemporary online markets, where many different cultural worlds are encountered. Therefore, these concepts also need to find their place in service design for UX. Furthermore, this framework should be tested against particular circular or sustainable BM (arche)types (e.g., creating value from waste [112], delivering functionality rather than ownership [112], regenerating [113], sharing [113], etc.) to show the exact design contribution to sustainability goals.