Service Design for Social Innovation: A New Path for the Development of Government Public Services Based on the TB4D Model

Abstract

Public service is related to everyone’s life and future and directly feeds back on the development of society and the country. How to better shape and develop it is a critical issue for both individuals and groups. As the primary provider, the government plays a vital role in its creation, development, and transformation. In recent years, with the rapid development of human society, this field has been placed in the midst of new challenges. These are the difficulties that government departments urgently need to solve, and the traditional solutions have shown apparent inadequacies. Service design, as a powerful responder, is gradually emerging and playing an important role, influencing a series of dimensions from service innovation to social policies. The application of service design in government public services holds significant social value. However, related research remains in its infancy, needing a systematic theoretical framework. This paper focuses on government public service design and carries out systematic design research on it in order to realize the corresponding social and academic value. This paper established a theoretical framework for government public service design centered on the TB4D model, based on an in-depth study of the relevant literature, nearly 30 representative industry case studies, and three practical projects conducted by the author. The model integrates the TSLC operational mechanism model, the Behavior-Organization-Policy operational content model, the “3 + 1” development mode, and the method reference guide for government public service design based on the Double Diamond design process model. The letters and numbers in the model’s name sequentially represent these four components. Specifically, the TSLC operational mechanism model derives its name from the initials of four parts: trans-dimensional cognitive and thinking mode, systems thinking, learning interactive innovation process, and cultural regeneration and value shaping. The “3 + 1” development model denotes three forms of development centered on internal design capability and the form of joint development focused on external design capabilities. The TB4D model combines both theory and practice, yet to better illustrate its overall performance, this paper reverted to the practical domain. It quantitatively evaluated 20 complete projects, calculating the mean value and 95% confidence intervals to verify the model. The results demonstrate that the model is valid and possesses high industry representativeness, effectiveness, and universality. The organic operation of the model will provide systematic, innovative solutions to address the problems and challenges faced in the public service field, promoting the sustainable development of society. Since research in this area is still at an early stage, the theoretical model proposed here emphasizes its intrinsic principles and universal logic. It aims to provide foundational theoretical support for the development of this field and systematic guidance for relevant practices. As the industry evolves, the model’s content can be further refined and enriched to better reflect contemporary characteristics. Additionally, because this model serves as a foundational framework for the entire field, it can be further expanded to develop sub-models with local characteristics when applied to different regions.

1. Introduction

Public service is related to everyone’s life and directly feeds back on the development of society and the country. How to better shape and develop it is a crucial issue for both individuals and groups. As the primary provider, the government plays a vital role in its creation, development, and transformation. However, with the rapid development of human society, this field faces new challenges, and traditional solutions have shown apparent inadequacies. Service design, as a powerful responder, is gradually emerging and playing an important role, influencing a series of dimensions from service innovation to social policies.

Public services are crucial for everyone’s life and future and directly impact the development of society and the country. The forms and impacts of public services will directly affect millions of people (Junginger, 2017 [1]) and will have repercussions on the development of society and the country, which are formed by individuals. Therefore, better shaping and developing public services is a significant issue for both individuals and collectives. As the leading provider of public services, the government plays an essential role in their generation, development, and transformation.

In recent years, the rapid development of the times and the changing needs of the people are placing new demands on public service, with the emergence of the “wicked problems” of Charles West Churchman (1967 [2]) and the “super-wicked problems” of Banny Banerjee (2014 [3]) posing challenges to human life and development. Public services are facing six major challenges of the era: four key challenges arising from the contemporary development of human society, namely, high complexity, high interactivity, high ambiguity, and high developmental speed; and two key challenges prompted by the contemporary development of human needs, namely, differences between individuals and the whole, and dynamic development and iteration.

These challenges have naturally become the challenges faced by the public sector, with the government as the main body. They need to “create and implement innovative services” (Bækkelie, 2016 [4]). Innovation in the public sector is a major focus for many governments, and they need to alleviate intractable social problems through effective design and provision of public services (Adebajo, 2018 [5]). However, in the face of these demands for innovative development of public services and the essential public sector development and transformation needs that they entail, traditional public management methods have shown obvious deficiencies.

The introduction of design thinking and methods can break through its own limitations and be of significant importance for the innovative development of organizations and their public services. Service design, as a representative of the third and fourth fields of design, has become a key discipline for improving the quality of public services (Bason and Schneider, 2014 [6]) and is a generally recognized alternative approach to innovation in the public sector (Bason, 2010 [7]). The third and fourth fields refer to “activities and organized services” and “complex systems or environments for living, working, playing and learning” (Buchanan, 1992 [8]), emphasizing strategic planning and system integration capabilities, respectively. In addition, Banerjee (2014 [3]), based on the four areas of design activities proposed by Buchanan, has pointed out the fifth stage of design activities. The large-scale transformation needs of public services can be realized through the interdisciplinary behavioral capabilities of service design. Service design focuses on experience, processes, relationships, and systems as the main design objects, bringing innovative impact from the level of use to the organizational and policy levels (Junginger, 2013a [9]) in shaping the relationships between people, things, the environment, and society, which is an important approach for service and policy innovation in the public sector (Bason, 2014 [10]; Junginger, 2017 [1]; Silva and Minciotti, 2021 [11]). In the face of the wave of social and economic challenges, service design is becoming increasingly popular in the public sector (Adebajo, 2018 [5]) and is constantly improving (Sangiorgi, 2015 [12]) as a new method to transform public services (Parker and Heapy, 2006 [13]). In recent years, service design consultants have become drivers of governance transformation. Most governments of OECD countries are accepting the use of service design consultants at the policy level for social transformation (Adebajo, 2018 [5]). Service design has begun to influence many areas of government, from public management to social policy (Junginger, 2013b [14]) and plays a vital role in them (Junginger, 2013a [9]).

The innovative method framework provided by service design is not only the “panacea” for facing the present era and society’s challenges (Adebajo, 2018 [5]) but also serves people’s development needs and future citizens better through its unique future-oriented capabilities (Thoelen and Cleeren, 2016 [15]). Many governments, such as the UK, the US, Australia, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France, and Chile, have already used it to improve and innovate local public services and have reaped significant positive social benefits. Many governments have also established or invested in corresponding innovation units, design or innovation laboratories, such as Denmark’s MindLab, the UK Cabinet Office’s Policy Lab, the US Office of Personnel Management’s Innovation Lab, France’s La 27e Région, and the Innovation Lab of the Public Service Division of Singapore’s Prime Minister’s Office, etc. As of the second half of 2015, there were more than 200 (Junginger, 2017 [1]).

Public service design is significant from the individual level to broader social and national contexts, highlighting an urgent need for development. It is a highly promising subdomain in contemporary service design and a new field with considerable development prospects in modern design (Xu, 2010 [16]). However, this field has not yet formed a systematic theoretical system and methodology.

The concept of service design first emerged in management and marketing and can be found in related articles published by Shostack G. Lynn in the 1980s (1982 [17], 1984 [18]). In 1991, Bill Hollins and Gillian Hollins’ Total Design: Managing the Design Process in the Service Sector [19] was published, meaning the term “service design” was officially proposed in the design field (Xin and Cao, 2018 [20]). Due to its origins rooted in commerce, preliminary research focused more heavily on this aspect, leaving the study of public service design in its infancy. Over the past decade, there has been an increased focus on design theory and practice in the public sector (Strokosch and Osborne, 2023 [21]).

Current studies primarily focus on service behaviors, stressing the specific content of service innovation (e.g., Parker and Heapy, 2006 [13]; Freire and Sangiorgi, 2010 [22]; Leinonkoski, 2012 [23]; Adebajo, 2018 [5]). Most research centers around conceptual links based on design thinking or methodologies, lacking in-depth studies that treat service design as a core entity. Alternatively, some discussion revolves around particular service design tools or methods while overlooking the systemic nature of service design. Research into public service design at the organizational (e.g., Michlewski, 2008 [24]; Junginger and Sangiorgi, 2009 [25]; Heapy, 2010 [26]; Bason, 2012 [27]; Warwick et al., 2014 [28]; Junginger, 2015 [29]; Bækkelie, 2016 [4]) and policy levels (e.g., Bason, 2014 [10]; Kimbell, 2015 [30]; Rebolledo, 2016 [31]; Junginger, 2017 [1]) is still in its early stages. Although related studies have grown in recent years, they remain sparse. In particular, understanding policy design as a subsystem of public service design is insufficient. Whether in incremental or transformative public service design, policy serves as a vital element. Policy design influences the dynamics among people, objects, actions, environments, and societies (Xin, 2014 [32]), shaping and operating the overall system. The higher the degree of innovation, the more explicit the policy design becomes. Most existing studies isolate policy design, ignoring its relationship with the service design system.

Current research on public service design often remains fragmented. Most studies limit themselves to one aspect and fail to create a cohesive body of work. A more comprehensive account can be found in Transforming Public Services by Design: Re-orienting Policies, Organizations, and Services around People (Junginger, 2017 [1]), which emphasizes the conceptual relationship between organization and design and policy and design, outlining the forms of organizational design practices in government and a model map from policy intent to actual social change.

In summary, this study primarily highlighted the following significance: (1) the intrinsic social value of the research topic itself and (2) the proposal of the TB4D system model for government public service design, aiming to contribute to related academic research. Additionally, this complements the current focus of service design research, predominantly on the commercial sector. The letters and numbers in the model’s name sequentially represent these four components: the TSLC operational mechanism model, the Behavior-Organization-Policy operational content model, the “3 + 1” development mode, and the method reference guide for government public service design based on the Double Diamond design process model. Among them, the TSLC operational mechanism model derives its name from the initials of four parts: trans-dimensional cognitive and thinking mode, systems thinking, learning interactive innovation process, and cultural regeneration and value shaping. The “3 + 1” development model denotes three forms of development centered on internal design capability and the form of joint development focused on external design capabilities. (3) It provides systematic guidance for related practices. The organic operation of the TB4D model of government public service design will provide systematic and innovative solutions to the problems and challenges faced within the public service domain.

2. Materials and Methods

This paper explored the theoretical framework of governmental public service design based on an in-depth study of the relevant literature, nearly 30 representative practical cases within the industry, and three personal projects by the author. It proposes the TB4D model for government public service design. The diversity and representativeness of the cases are crucial for the model’s establishment. Therefore, the selection of cases emphasizes coverage across more regions, ultimately including six continents, excluding Antarctica (Figure 1).

Using methods such as literature research, case studies, experiential summaries, quantitative analysis, and qualitative analysis, this paper explored the operational mechanism, operational model, development mode, and government public service design methods. Section 3.1 focuses on the operational mechanism of government public service design, highlighting the overall characteristics and fundamental elements of its operation. It explores specifically how service design operates within government public services and how it responds to current challenges and issues, proposing the TSLC operational mechanism model. Section 3.2 and Section 3.3 build upon this by focusing on the specific content of public service design operations, emphasizing the presentation of content forms, and proposing the Behavior-Organization-Policy content model and “3 + 1” development mode. Section 3.1, along with Section 3.2 and Section 3.3, occur simultaneously across different dimensions, collectively constituting the overall shape of government public service design operations. This indicates that the TSLC operational mechanism model will thread throughout the government public service design operational model and development mode. Section 3.4 focuses on government public service design methods, examining specific methods from tools to technologies. The paper builds on the Double Diamond design process model introduced by the UK Design Council, outlining the Double Diamond design flowchart for government public service design. It also combines statistical data and analytical results regarding the use of relevant tools and techniques from the Service Design Tools website, two classic service design books, and the literature and cases involved, ultimately producing a reference guide for government public service design methods.

The TB4D model is a composite of the aforementioned four major components, serving as a product that integrates theory and practice. To better present its overall performance, this study revisited the practical field to conduct corresponding validations. By scoring and assessing 20 complete cases, the model’s completeness, representativeness, effectiveness, and applicability were evaluated. Data analysis included calculating means and confidence intervals, facilitating the model’s application assessment within the industry. The confidence interval estimates the performance of the unknown population based on the sample results. We could not test the model against every existing case in the industry. However, we could estimate and extrapolate the potential outcomes of the model’s application across the entire industry based on the results from the 20 sampled cases. Among the various confidence levels, 95% is the most commonly used. Using a 95% confidence level to compute results better balances accuracy and precision. Ultimately, the construction of the government public service design model was complete.

3. The TB4D Model of Government Public Service Design

The TB4D model of government public service design (Figure 2) consists of four parts: the TSLC operational mechanism model of government public service design, the “behavior-organization-policy” operational content model, the current “3 + 1” development mode, and the method reference guide for government public service design based on the Double Diamond design process model. The letters and numbers in the model’s name refer to the above components in turn.

3.1. TSLC Operational Mechanism Model of Government Public Service Design

The TSLC operational mechanism model consists of four parts: trans-dimensional (The term is used with reference to the term “trans-disciplinary”), cognitive and thinking mode, systems thinking, learning interactive innovation process, and cultural regeneration and value shaping. The four letters of TSLC represent the initials of these four components. They form a rhombic rising operation structure in the association. Among them, the trans-dimensional cognitive perspective and thinking mode are the foundational characteristics of the latter three, while systems thinking and learning interactive innovation process represent the mutually promoting process characteristics in the operation of government public service design. As the highest-level feature, cultural regeneration and value shaping present a certain productive color.

3.1.1. Trans-Dimensional Cognitive Perspective and Thinking Mode of Government Public Service Design

The perceptual perspective possessed by government public service design is not only diverse but also transcendent and connected on this basis. It is a non-linear cognitive thinking process that breaks the barriers of siloed cognitive perspectives horizontally and transcends the distinction between subject and object vertically, presenting the ability to establish connections between diverse elements.

The disciplines and individual experiences are the two critical factors constituting the cognitive perspective and thinking mode, corresponding to the trans-disciplinary ability and de-subjectivization ability in this characteristic. Service design builds on multidisciplinary contributions (Patrício, Gustafsson and Fisk, 2018 [33]) and spans multiple fields of knowledge. It serves as an essential pathway for fostering service innovation (Joly et al., 2019 [34]). Regarding trans-disciplinary ability, the perceptual dimensions and cognitive systems emphasized by service design are not just interdisciplinary but also a breakthrough and transcendence based on it. Interdisciplinary perspectives refer to the possibility of crossing the original boundaries of disciplines, finding a crossroads between them, and building consensus. In this process, cognitive behavior is to relate to other professional categories from its own specific professional perspective. Therefore, this behavior still has a solid professional color in nature, and it presents an introductory or borrowing tendency. Consequently, this naturally leads to the fact that the final activity subject perspective remains within their respective disciplines (Banerjee, 2014 [3]). In other words, the interdisciplinary perspective only temporarily crosses the watershed between disciplines within a specific range, to a certain extent, and with a strong primary and secondary cognitive color. This also means that the cognitive barriers between disciplines still essentially exist, and the primary way people perceive the world still comes from their own disciplinary cognitive lenses.

The “lens model” was proposed by psychologist Egon Brunswik (1952 [35]). The “lens” is an essential factor in understanding different domains of perception and decision bias (Banerjee, 2014 [3]). People’s perception of the world and corresponding decisions also manifest in their responses and performance under their respective cognitive systems. The discipline’s cognitive “lenses” influence people’s perception, understanding, and decision-making behavior. As a critical perceptual “lens,” disciplines influence how people understand things and solve problems. Practitioners in public administration are limited by the boundaries of the professional thinking mode they have received from professional learning or training or have been unconsciously nurtured in their environment. Whether practitioners have a background in the professional study of public management or have received professional training, they inevitably are influenced by the hierarchical operational mechanism and organizational structure from top to bottom and the corresponding capabilities and qualities required by their professional types, forming an overall thinking pattern with common characteristics in the industry, which is what we call the public management thinking pattern. In this “point-to-structure” cognitive approach formed by the disciplinary lens, it is easy to cause disciplinary disparities and a corresponding series of problems.

Practitioners in public management perceive and handle things from inside to outside in the “silos” formed by the perceptual lenses of the separate disciplines, which is also a manifestation of the characteristics of the traditional cognitive mode of the industry that have been lingering since the early administrative concepts and are increasingly highlighted. This kind of mode is a discrete, fragmented “point-to-structure” cognitive mode, as shown in Figure 3. The disciplinary perceptual lens and the silo structure formed and located by public management practitioners are equivalent to a whole “point” (viewed through the holistic public management mindset) or a series of more minor “points” (viewed through the individual practitioner) and workers are starting to relate to the outside world from their own “points”. Therefore, this process is naturally linear. Public service is a complex entity constituted by diverse elements in a highly interactive and extensively connected network of relationships, and its supply form affects various aspects, from the involved or included elements to the individuals and groups served. Hence, the form presented by public service is a highly intertwined and internally dynamic structural form rather than a simple point-like or planar form.

With human society’s rapid development, public service faces the six significant challenges mentioned above. All these challenges exacerbate the “structural” characteristics of public service, making practitioners in public management face even greater difficulties when dealing with public service problems from the “point-to-structure” cognition mode. To better achieve today’s and future public service provision, we must find a corresponding method to adapt to its increasingly complex structure. This is not only a requirement posed by the public service problems under the development of the times, but also what public service itself wishes for, and with the development of the times, this demand is becoming increasingly prominent and presenting an urgent trend.

The trans-disciplinary perspective of service design brings people a “structure-to-structure” mode of perception and thinking. It is a further dimension of the “line-to-structure” cognitive mode brought about by cross-disciplinary approaches. The interdisciplinary forms a perspective “line” in the point-to-point connection of disciplines, through the connecting line to insight, understand and deal with the systematic issues outside, but this process is actually still not a true breakthrough of the “point-to-structure” cognitive mode presented by the linear thinking structure. The trans-disciplinary perspective of service design emphasizes connection and breakthrough above the interdisciplinary. It builds a bridge that can connect and interact with each discipline, enabling them to form a bidirectional interactive structure (Figure 4). From this structure to the systematic public service issues, it is naturally suitable. After all, we need to use the same structure-centered approach to better address the reticular issues.

For instance, the Australian Capital Territory Government collaborated with the local design consultancy ThinkPlace on a family service design project. This project unfolded in two phases: the first phase focused on listening to families, while the second aimed at improving services with families. The emphasis lay particularly on the first phase, which involved problem insight. The working team conducted in-depth interviews and investigative studies with nine target families (Forrester and Body, 2014 [36]). Based on these insights, they discovered that families did not follow the logically predetermined paths when seeking services; rather, their behavioral trajectories exceeded the initial predictions and plans of providers. Consequently, they could not achieve their desired service outcomes through existing service pathways. The available service routes provided a misleading starting point, resulting in prolonged searches for genuinely needed services. Often, families had to undergo lengthy periods filled with trial and error in this quest. Research indicated that one of the most unfavorable outcomes was a family spending eight long years obtaining some of the services they required (Forrester and Body, 2014 [36]). Service providers developed these paths from a siloed perspective rooted in public administration expertise, leading to insufficient understanding of the problems they aimed to address and, consequently, resulting in service paths that did not meet the actual needs of real-world scenarios. Moreover, Denmark’s MindLab’s successful experience in the Danish tax department’s tax optimization project (Bason and Schneider, 2014 [6]) and government services and digital portal optimization projects (Amatullo, 2014 [37]) are all good examples. The former aims to address the challenges young taxpayers face when using online self-assessment systems, while the latter focuses on redesigning and optimizing services for the website catering to newly registered companies in Denmark (branchekode.dk). The prior provision of government services operated from the mindset of public administration practitioners, viewing issues through a specific internal perspective. This led to inadequate recognition and understanding of the actual needs of users, i.e., the service recipients, ultimately resulting in a series of corresponding consequences in service outcomes. In contrast, MindLab intervened with a service design thinking and methods, engaging in in-depth analysis of issues, identifying the fundamental factors causing problems, and offering relevant solutions. By systematically examining services through the lens of service design, employing design methods and techniques to visualize, observe, and interpret needs and behaviors, it translates them into potential service possibilities (Teixeira, Patrício, and Tuunanen, 2018 [38]).

The non-linear operation process brought about by the “structure-to-structure” cognitive and thinking mode of service design also provides an effective way to address the exponentially growing problems that traditional linear solutions find it difficult to cope with in the field of public services.

In its non-linear cognitive and thinking mode of “structure-to-structure”, the government’s public service design has internally transcended the horizontal perspective barriers and vertical distinctions between inside and outside of the subject brought about by professional lenses (Figure 5). At the same time, it also provides support for the building of bridges between various disciplines externally, promoting the occurrence and operation of strategic dialogues aimed at constructing common intentions. Service design can connect multiple disciplines, provide a space for strategic dialogue, and promote continuous forward movement. Individuals from all parties interact and engage with each other in an equal environment brought about by strategic dialogue, continuously forming a shared understanding and recognition of the problems. The concept of strategic dialogue in this paper emphasizes its broad meaning, that is, the environmental or platform-like form it contains, rather than specifically referring to a specific form of actual dialogue. The consensus it reaches also breaks through the horizontal barriers between individual disciplinary lenses and the vertical distinctions formed in professional perspectives, influencing the entire process from public service development to implementation, from policy concept development to service delivery (Junginger, 2013a [9]). For example, France’s innovation lab La 27e Région applies service design to public policy. It aims to support the modernization of public governance (Bry, 2015 [39]) and to foster innovation and transformation in the public sector (Jégou, Thévenet and Vincent, 2014 [40]). The lab emphasizes a citizen-centered design approach (NGO Source [41]) and encourages strategic dialogue among multiple stakeholders (Jégou, Thévenet and Vincent, 2014 [40]). Its school reconstruction program for the Champagne-Ardenne region is continuously developed based on this strategic dialogue framework (Bason, 2014 [10]). Service designers facilitate strategic discussions among students, teachers, school staff, architects, and government staff. This engagement allows students and faculty to participate in shaping the school’s future. The final design plan saved of EUR 1 million in construction costs (Bason, 2014 [10]).

The ability to de-subjectivize refers to the transcendence of subjective cognition formed from the individual’s own life experiences rather than from a professional perspective. The individual’s perception of the world from the perspective of their own cognitive warehouse has already drawn a “boundary” between the internal and external realms, thereby directly influencing the perception of things, issues, and the corresponding behavioral responses. For example, in the improvement of swimming pool projects by the Finnish municipal government (Junginger, 2014 [42]) and the Grocery Choice project by the Australian government (Body and Terret, 2014 [43]), the public management practitioners’ perceptions of their own life experiences were used to provide the public services that triggered the corresponding problems. Service design can overcome subjective cognitive barriers, dissolve the cognitive boundaries between the internal and external self, achieve a true perception of diverse subjects, and move towards new constructive connections. For example, the training of lead workers to become “designers” in the second phase of ACT’s family services design program.

3.1.2. Systems Thinking

From the perspective of trans-dimensional cognitive and thinking modes, government public service design presents two procedural characteristics: systems thinking and a learning interactive innovation process. The former focuses on constructing a thinking perspective, which can be understood as operating on a vertical structure, while the latter emphasizes attention to the development form, presenting a process form on a horizontal structure.

Systems thinking can be divided into two sub-features: people-oriented, and from relational form building to service ecosystem construction. The former emphasizes the satisfaction of the comprehensive and diverse needs of the service audience, while also realizing the needs and expectations of government departments and other stakeholders, moving towards mutual benefits for stakeholders.

In government public service design, the direct target audience of the service is its primary focus. Public services have public attributes, and the user group involved is a corresponding group formed by general individuals. Therefore, the audience group faced in designing public services is not only composed of groups of individuals in need of services but a group that exhibits diverse characteristics within different individuals. This requires us to be able to assign based on common characteristics among individuals, achieving accurate and comprehensive identification of subgroups. The lack of subgroup identification will directly affect the final service results and may even lead to a series of issues. For example, the Washington State Department of Transportation in the United States caused a series of controversies when it selected the location for the Port Townsend Ferry Terminal (Thomas, 1995 [44]). Service design will classify the audience group internally into subgroups based on the common characteristics that affect the service experience, and on this basis, achieve comprehensive satisfaction of the overall group’s needs and internal diverse requirements. For example, the USPS (United States Postal Service) domestic mail manual transformation project developed by the School of Design at Carnegie Mellon University is a good example (Junginger, 2017 [1]). The design team conducted an in-depth study of the public involved in postal services and identified four major categories of mailers: household mailers, small to medium-sized business mailers, large business mailers, and special mailers (Junginger, 2017 [1]). Based on these findings, the project team planned to develop the corresponding DMM 100, DMM 200, DMM 300, and DMM 400. In DMM 200, the service design team further categorized small to medium-sized mailers based on different mailing methods into three service types: retail mailing, online mailing services, and discount mailing. This necessitates a systematic understanding of the relationship between users’ co-creation activities and the context, resources, and institutional arrangements involving multiple actors (Trischler and Trischler, 2022 [45]), achieving the categorization of relevant stakeholder groups and the construction of their structural networks.

At the same time, in addition to directly serving the audience group, the consideration of the interests of related groups, such as service providers, is also included in the government’s public service design. Service design can bring tangible benefits to government departments, providing support for the expected reduction in financial expenditures or the provision of high-quality services while using minimal costs in public administration. For example, in the Danish government’s service and digital portal optimization project (the Branchekode.dk project), the operation of the new website will save the government 24 million Danish kroner in expenditure between 2011 and 2015 (Amatullo, 2014 [37]); the housing public service design project by Lewisham LBC and the UK’s Design Council achieved a savings of GBP 368,000 from an investment of GBP 7000 in design funds (e.g., Design Council et al., 2013 [46]; Shakespeare, 2011 [47]; House of Commons, 2013 [48]). In addition, service design can also bring intangible benefits to government departments, such as improving work efficiency, reducing work pressure, enhancing job satisfaction, and building trust relationships. This can be clearly seen in cases such as the integrated tax design project of the Australian Taxation Office.

Based on people-centeredness, public service design also realizes the building process from relationship forms to constructing service ecosystems. Service design shapes the relationship network of stakeholders and solves public service issues. This shaping of relationships can include improvements based on the original relationship form or the construction of entirely new relationship forms. Regardless of the shaping method, it brings about new relationship forms, with a “new” degree of salience depending on the specific project. There is no comparison of high or low—the emphasis is placed on adaptability to the issue. Service innovation alters the design, development, delivery, and perception of services by creating, combining, and reconfiguring resources (Foglieni, Villari, and Maffei, 2018 [49]). Within this context, service design demonstrates its unique ability to transform and resolve issues effectively. For instance, the Parkwood Time Bank project from the Social Innovation Lab Kent in the UK allows individuals to earn points by volunteering or assisting others, which can later be exchanged for time or tangible goods from those needing help (Leinonkoski, 2012 [23]). The form of time banking transforms the realization of public services from direct provision to the construction of relationships within the target group, building a network of relationships between the public and activating the public’s internal vitality, thus gradually forming an endogenous service ecosystem with the ability to develop sustainably and move towards a vision of collective benefit. The UK’s People Powered Health program aims to provide innovative services for individuals with long-term health issues, enhancing the chronic disease healthcare system. In this initiative, participants do not directly address the point-to-point linear relationship between chronic disease patients and hospitals. Instead, they consider the societal system as a whole to find solutions, breaking the traditional linear problem-solving approach. Chronic diseases can often be effectively managed through self-management and support from friends, peers, communities, and other relevant social aspects (Christiansen and Bunt, 2014 [50]). This suggests that building an organic interaction network between patients and surrounding social resources by fully utilizing community resources can alleviate the strain on traditional healthcare. In this new healthcare relationship, patients become assets and contributors rather than just recipients of services (Horne, Khan and Corrigan, 2013 [51]), actively participating in the design of their healthcare. By redefining the patient-care relationship, social coping strategies emerge. For instance, the Newcastle area project employs a “social prescribing” method (e.g., Drinkwater, Wildman, and Moffatt, 2019 [52]; Oster et al., 2023 [53]). Here, adults with chronic diseases manage their conditions and improve their quality of life through active social engagement and partnership-building, moving away from passive, point-to-point clinical care paths. Public service design transforms issues by constructing new relationships among the stakeholders centered on the service user group. This transformation achieves non-linear resolutions. Shaping these relationships invigorates the intrinsic potential of service recipients, particularly those with long-term health challenges. It encourages them to shift from passive treatment approaches to active management models. Ultimately, this fosters an endogenous service ecosystem that sustains chronic disease treatment pathways. The implementation of PPH would save England at least GBP 4.4 billion annually and reduce AandE attendance, planned and unplanned admissions, and outpatient admissions by 7% (Nesta [54]), thereby alleviating healthcare pressures. Similar examples include the Fredericia Life Long Living Programme for innovative elderly care services in Denmark (e.g., Bason, 2010 [7]; Christiansen and Bunt, 2014 [50]).

The process of building and operating the relationship structure reflects the problem-solving process. Service design fully identifies, considers, meets, and coordinates the holistic and diverse needs of service audiences while also addressing the demands and expectations of service providers, such as government departments and other stakeholders. On this basis, service design is evolving from relationship formation to the construction of service ecosystems. By reconfiguring the system of internal value co-creation, participants can all influence, at least in part, how the overall system develops (Vink et al., 2021 [55]). People, objects and other elements flow through this new relationship framework, gradually forming the corresponding system structure and ultimately completing the generation of the service ecosystem through internal interconnection and interaction, forming a people-oriented service ecosystem (Figure 6). The system, due to its construction and development based on the interconnected relationship between people, its internal vitality is constantly stimulated and released, thereby forming endogenous dynamics and promoting the sustainable development of services.

3.1.3. The Learning Interactive Innovation Process

In constructing the people-centered public service ecosystem, government public service design often reflects a learning-oriented interactive innovation process in another dimension. Service design provides the tools and techniques needed for human-centered, creative, systematic and collaborative processes to meet specific needs (Foglieni, Villari, and Maffei, 2018 [49]). The two promote each other, together forming the operation process of government public service design. Systems thinking is the foundation and guarantee of the learning-oriented interactive innovation process. Conversely, the development of the learning interactive innovation process also supports the realization of systems thinking. The former emphasizes the construction of a thinking perspective, while the latter focuses more on the form of development, forming complementary dimensions.

The term “learning” in the learning interactive innovation process draws on Kit Lykketoft’s positioning of the Danish MindLab innovation lab as a learning organization, emphasizing communication and interaction processes among multiple disciplines and groups (2014 [56]). The learning-oriented concept in this article particularly emphasizes that in such a dynamic development process of multidimensional interaction, the services to be generated can activate and release their corresponding internal vitality through continuous learning from multiple sources, demonstrating sustainable development capabilities for the future.

This feature is reflected in three aspects: from co-participation to co-creation, dynamic generation and development of services, endogenous dynamics and future-oriented capacity. In their successive relationship, they constitute a learning-type innovation operation structure. Service design can bring the audience, relevant government personnel, and other major stakeholders involved in the service production, making them active factors in realizing the creation of the service. Co-creation takes a multi-stakeholder approach to emphasize that public service users jointly create value by integrating resources from different sources (Trischler and Charles, 2019 [57]). Government public service design results from collaborative efforts among multiple parties.

However, the stakeholder participation feature inherent in service design differs significantly from what we commonly refer to as participatory design or co-design. Participatory design views users as partners, while user-centered design positions them as subjects (Sanders, 2006 [58]). In contrast, service design immediately breaks this subject-object relationship due to its trans-dimensional cognitive perspective and thought patterns, forming a natural potential partnership with users. This relationship exemplifies one of the key characteristics of collaborative participation in service design. Service design seeks to understand systems from various angles, reconstruct problems, extend systems, brainstorm with relevant stakeholders, and devise prototypes that are testable and improvable (Trischler, Dietrich, and Rundle-Thiele, 2019 [59]). In this collaborative process, stakeholders become proactive agents in shaping the final form of services rather than merely appearing as involved parties. Service design will more assertively address the complexities of multi-actor dynamics and interdependencies within complex service systems (Sangiorgi, Patrício, and Fisk, 2017 [60]). Government public service design presents a service co-creation structure with service design as the core, people-oriented pursuit, and stakeholder participation. It no longer simply reflects the design structure of “for”, “with”, or “by” the people and organizations but more like a synthesis of these.

At the same time, this process also reflects a dynamic generation and development of services. Service design is a design approach that places a relative emphasis on process, but this does not mean that it is orientated towards a purely process-oriented approach. Service design emphasizes the innovation capability of learning in action (Forrester and Body, 2014 [36]), highlighting the constructive development that emerges from an interplay between process and outcome. This approach transcends singular process or outcome orientations. Service prototypes continue to evolve in dialogue and practice among all parties, adjust and iterate in a timely manner based on corresponding feedback, and ultimately move towards the “people-oriented” application form in the spiral progression of the development-oriented service production mode. The resulting public services also meet the expectations of the field for risk minimization and scalability prospects, resolving the contradiction between the government’s risk issues and seeking development and even bringing more positive benefits.

This people-oriented dynamic learning operation process also provides endogenous dynamics for the generation and development of services, and together with the complementary operation of systems thinking, it constructs an organic ecosystem of services, leading to a service supply form with sustainable development capabilities for the future (Figure 7). It provides non-linear innovative solutions to the problems and challenges faced by the public service sector. For example, the service innovation project Mwana, addressing maternal and child health issues in rural Zambia (UNICEF Zambia, 2012 [61]), broke with UNICEF’s previous top-down approach to service delivery and flipped the model to form an end-user-driven service system. The team developed a shared vision through stakeholder meetings, linking clinic staff, community health workers, and mothers’ groups (both HIV and non-HIV) to create an ecosystem of self-managed, dynamic maternal and child health services with the local community at the center. Through the operation of this system, the time for mothers to obtain HIV results for their babies has been reduced by 57 percent (frog and UNICEF Tech4Dev, 2012 [62]), and the sense of achievement of frontline staff has been significantly enhanced. The project has been piloted in 31 clinics in six provinces and is being rolled out across Zambia (UNICEF Zambia, 2012 [61]); it was replicated by UNICEF teams in Malawi and Sierre Leone (frog and UNICEF Tech4Dev, 2012 [62]). The service design project for maintaining public safety in the UK (Kimbell, 2015 [30]) was developed by the UK’s Policy Lab, Home Office, Surrey Police, Sussex Police, and the Royal College of Art. Stakeholders such as victims, police officers and chiefs, and neighborhood watch members were all involved in the project’s development. As a result of this engagement and co-creation, a prototype of the online crime reporting service was created and trialed online in Surrey and Sussex. The Home Secretary has indicated that it is expected to save around GBP 3.7 million if rolled out to the whole of the UK (Drew, 2015 [63]).

3.1.4. Cultural Regeneration and Value Shaping

Regeneration of culture and value shaping, as the top characteristic of government public service design, has corresponding productive connotations. This characteristic can be divided into two aspects: value symbiosis and cultural belonging, trust and brand image building. The former focuses on the construction of shared values, social and cultural identity, and belonging, especially the social construction attributes presented in them. This model of value generation is similar to the Value Constellation theory (1993 [64]) proposed by Richard Normann and Rafael Ramirez, both of which emphasize that value is realized through the combined efforts of the members of a system rather than in a chained structure. There are, of course, differences between the value creation model of government public service design and the Value Constellation theory for business, from the beginning to the specifics. Government public service design emphasizes a symbiotic model of value where stakeholders move towards co-development in the construction and operation of service ecosystems. The value creation emphasized by service ecosystems is neither singular nor binary; rather, it represents a multi-actor phenomenon that involves dynamic and complex value configurations composed of citizens, volunteers, non-governmental partners, and others (Trischler and Charles, 2019 [57]). The trajectory touchpoint technique, as a service design methodology, can practically assist organizations in coordinating value co-creation by reallocating participants and other resources both within and across different levels of the service system (Sudbury-Riley et al., 2020 [65]). In designing service ecosystems, integrating multiple resources (e.g., Engen et al., 2021 [66]) can broadly activate participants’ agency, including those not directly involved in service design projects, and harness their potential to shape emerging forms of value co-creation, thereby establishing new patterns of value co-creation (Vink et al., 2021 [55]). The value of symbiosis and cultural belonging is evident in the government’s public service design, which not only represents a resultant benefit but also imposes corresponding requirements for its operation. The shared understanding, common interests, shared values, and sense of social and cultural belonging fostered by this process reflect the legitimacy of the public service. Legitimacy refers to a broad perception or assumption that an entity’s actions are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed norms, values, beliefs, and definitional systems (Suchman, 1995 [67]). This indicates that the government public service design has essentially realized a response to the legitimacy issues in the domain. Moreover, the ongoing realization of value symbiosis and cultural belonging propels future sustainable development of public services. For instance, the Australian family services design project enhanced social belonging for individuals by delivering needed services, and the Mwana project promoted a sense of national and community belonging among local people by improving local maternal and child health and hygiene issues.

The latter emphasizes the construction of a culture of trust between groups and the building of social image, especially the shaping of trust relationships between people and the government. Service design can integrate both aspects into the co-development of public services. This not only fosters citizens’ trust in government by meeting their service needs but also cultivates a culture of trust through mutual enhancement. Furthermore, the government’s social image continuously develops within the service ecosystem, reflecting a mutually reinforcing relationship with trust building. The development of these elements will provide feedback into public services, consistently providing impetus for future advancements. Additionally, the trust and brand image benefits arising from government public service design align closely with the expectations for a high level of government trust and a positive public image in this field. For example, the Danish tax department’s tax optimization project reshaped the trust relationship between young people and the tax department.

Although the characteristic of culture regeneration and value shaping has productive implications, this does not mean that it is a one-way output form. Instead, it constitutes a benign cycle of development together with public services themselves, providing impetus for the sustainable development of public services in the future.

The organic operation of the above four characteristics forms the TSLC operational mechanism model of government public service design, which provides innovative solutions to solve public service problems and challenges. The TSLC operational mechanism model, as the main component of the TB4D model of government public service design, is also prominently placed in the model to emphasize its leadership and principles.

3.2. Operational Model of Government Public Service Design

The letter B stands for the Behavior-Organization-Policy operational content model of government public service design, which takes its initials from the model’s name. The operational content model of government public service design is presented in a contour concentric circle form. It is located within the rhomboid box of the TSLC operational mechanism model of government public service design in Figure 1, forming a three-dimensional vertical relationship with the operational mechanism model.

The content of government public service design can be divided into three dimensions, namely the service behavior layer, the organizational layer, and the policy layer. The service behavior layer is the most basic form of service design intervention in the public service field, indicating specific service application form innovations, represented by the outermost circular ring in the figure. The middle circular ring represents the organizational layer, and organizational innovation is a further form of intervention in service design. The innermost circle represents the policy layer, with policy being the top-level factor affecting public services.

In terms of policy design, Junginger has proposed the fourth domain of design practice—“policy-making as designing”—pointing out that it is a key factor for government transformation and innovation (2013a [9]). Service design is receiving increasing attention in the strategic part of government, especially in policy development (Sangiorgi, et al., 2019 [68]). Junginger (2017 [1]) views policy-making as a comprehensive design problem and activity, emphasizing that design runs through the entire process from policy needs identification to evaluation, breaking the limitation of Howlett and Ramesh’s (2003 [69]) positioning design only at the execution level of the policy cycle. Howlett and Ramesh’s policy cycle presents a linear, relay-style development process, with policy-making placed in a problem-based, linear, fragmented response activity and separated from the implementation activity (Junginger, 2013a [9], 2014 [42]). This has raised a series of issues, such as the model’s neglect of the “fuzzy front end” phenomenon in the early stages, making policy-making more like a tool for standardizing past experiences than creating future experiences, and not considering and embracing people and relevant workers (Junginger, 2014 [42]). These issues are very serious for the public service domain itself and its development. Junginger covers the design activity throughout the policy cycle, forming a mode of operation for policy-making as design, which effectively responds to the above problems. At the same time, she points out that service is the key to successful policy-making, as people cannot experience policies but experience the services they bring, making services turn policies into reality (Junginger, 2017 [1]). Based on this, she proposes that services are the core of policy-making, policy intent, and policy implementation. Therefore, service design will also play an important role in this, and policy design is the innermost application domain of government public service design. The results of policy design will directly affect the subsequent specific service innovation process. For example, the successful services brought about by the USPS domestic mail manual transformation project also benefited from its successful design in the policy stage, splitting and planning the DMM and then designing corresponding services for the relevant groups (Junginger, 2017 [1]). In the service design project of the grassroots government’s convenience service ecosystem (Hou and Wang, 2023 [70]) in J province, China, we started from policy design and gradually moved outward to corresponding organizational innovation, specific service form innovation and other related design outputs, promoting the optimization, upgrading and sustainable development of the town’s administrative approval public services.

The three levels mentioned above reflect the relationship between the two dimensions. In the structure of intervention, government public service design presents a deepening process from the service behavior layer to the policy layer; in the specific carrying out form, it presents the opposite development pattern, i.e., starting from the policy design as the uppermost layer towards the innovation of the specific service form. This paper proposes the “Behavior-Organization-Policy” model, borrowing the presentation of contour maps to integrate the three-dimensional relationships into a two-dimensional diagram. The arrow line in the lower right corner functions like a ridge line, representing the gradual development of government public service design from design as the uppermost policy layer to the outermost concrete service innovation form. Meanwhile, the horizontal arrow on the left emphasizes the progressive relationship moving from the outer layer inward (Figure 8). In the TB4D model of government public service design, to maintain overall clarity, the ridge-line arrow representing specific developmental forms in the lower right of the BOP operating content model and the leftward horizontal arrow depicting the relationship of intervention structures will be replaced, converted into a diagonal arrangement representing the three content dimensions.

3.3. The “3 + 1” Development Mode of Government Public Service Design

The number 4 is a collective term for the “3 + 1” mode of government public service design, which is presented in the horizontal axis of the icon in the lower right corner of Figure 1. The “3” refers to three forms of development with internal design capability as the core: establishing internal innovation units, having professional personnel with service design capability take up corresponding positions in the original unit, and training staff with the corresponding capabilities to carry out the work. The “1” refers to the external joint development form dominated by non-governmental units for design capability.

3.3.1. The Form of Development with Internal Design Capability as Its Core

There are three forms of development centered on in-house design capability. The first one is the establishment of internal innovation units, which is a major form of development of government service design centered on internal design capability, referring to the corresponding design capability-oriented Innovation Lab, Policy Lab, or Living Lab within government departments to create better services and future. Representatives such as Denmark’s MindLab, the Mayor’s Office of New Urban Mechanics in Boston, the Innovation Lab of the United States Office of Personnel Management, the UK Cabinet Office’s Policy Lab, the Innovation Lab of the Public Service Division of Singapore’s Prime Minister’s Office, and the Laboratorio de Gobierno of the Chilean government are among them. At the annual LabWorks conference organized by the UK’s National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (Nesta) in the second half of 2015, more than 200 government-related public innovation labs were in attendance (Junginger, 2017 [1]).

Outside of establishing innovation labs, there are cases where professionals with service design skills fill the corresponding positions in the original units. In this paper, the emphasis on professionals with service design capability refers to those who take up the corresponding positions in the original units without setting up innovation laboratories to differentiate the phenomenon of service design professionals being recruited in innovation laboratories. Our public service design project in a town government in Province J is an example of this type of development (Hou and Wang, 2023 [70]). In the Design Exchange Programme, a pilot project carried out by Innovation Finland Stira (an independent public foundation operating under the direct supervision of the Finnish Parliament) in cooperation with the City of Lahti, the City of Helsinki, the Ministry of Employment and the Economy, and the Ministry of the Environment, four designers are working full-time in Finnish ministries and municipalities on innovation in government [71]. More and more government organizations are now hiring service designers to work in their systems as government employees (e.g., Dale et al., 2022 [72]; Dragoman, 2019 [73]). At the same time, this form is showing considerable promise as the industry grows rapidly.

In addition, the development form of government public service design with internal design capabilities as the core also shows that internal employees are trained to have service design-related capabilities and then carry out corresponding work. The emphasis is on bringing in firms, agencies, organizations or individuals with expertise in service design to provide skills training to staff in the relevant departments. For example, the Australian Taxation Office’s Integrated Tax Design Project trained key staff in design thinking and methods through design meetings, and they formed an Integrated Tax Design Team, which introduced design capability into government agencies to provide the basis for subsequent service innovation (Junginger, 2017 [1]); the UK’s Design Council organized training in public service design for public sector staff (Leinonkoski, 2012 [23]); the UK Policy Lab has introduced design tools to thousands of policymakers and initiated many design projects with policy teams up to the end of 2015 (Buchanan, Junginger and Terrey, 2017 [74]).

Apart from general training, the term “training” also includes two special forms: guiding internal personnel of the government in public service innovation activities and developing service innovation design tools applicable to the respective government departments, which are then used by the government personnel in their practical environments. This process inherently involves some form of training, directly or indirectly. Moreover, specific service innovation activities are actually carried out by the relevant government personnel, which, to some extent, means that the design process is still internally conducted. Therefore, it can also be classified under this category.

The trend of establishing the government’s internal service design capabilities through training is showing increasing development in the field of government public service design. There is also evidence of internal mutual learning, such as the role transition of the Innovation Lab of the Public Service Division of Singapore’s Prime Minister’s Office from 2016 onwards (Lau, 2019 [75]). As the industry continues to evolve, such situations are likely to increase.

3.3.2. The Form of Joint Development Centered on External Design Capabilities

External units include companies and non-profit organizations, such as collaboration with design companies represented by ThinkPlace, IDEO, and Frog Design, and collaboration with non-profit organizations represented by La 27e Région, MaRs Solutions Lab (e.g., Buerkli, 2017 [76]; Ryan et al., 2018 [77]) and so on. Among them, cooperation between government departments and universities is also a common form, such as the USPS project with Carnegie Mellon University mentioned above. DESIS Lab ELISAVA, as part of the DESIS Network (Design for Social Innovation and Sustainability) in Barcelona, Spain, is located in the design innovation laboratory of the Elisava Barcelona School of Design and Engineering [78]. The laboratory has signed a cooperation agreement with the Barcelona government [79] to strive to create a better city.

In summary, government public service design currently presents a “3 + 1” development form model. It should be noted that the forms of development model summarized here are based on the current situation. With the development of the industry and time, corresponding iterative changes may occur in the future.

3.4. The Methods of Government Public Service Design

The letter “D” represents the government public service design methods section and is presented at the vertical axis of the icon in the bottom right corner of Figure 1. The letter “D” is derived from the bottom-level framework of the government public service design method reference guide formed in this paper, namely, the initial letters of the name of the Double Diamond design process model.

The selection of tools and techniques is based on the data analysis of “Service Design Tools” (https://servicedesigntools.org/ (accessed on 22 August 2024)), a website commonly used in the field of service design, using the website analysis tool SimilarWeb, and the analysis of two classic books on service design, namely, This is Service Design Thinking: Basics, Tools, Cases (Stickdorn and Schneider, 2011 [80]), Service Design: From Insight to Implementation (Polaine et al., 2013 [81]), representative literature and cases related to the specific research fields covered in this paper, and our three practice projects. It selects more representative and targeted tools and techniques in government public services as examples.

In the data analysis of the Service Design Tools website, based on the keyword search situation of the website during the three months from September to November 2022 as the basis, we used “https://servicedesigntools.org/tools” (accessed on 22 August 2024) as the selection condition to extract the visitation situation of the corresponding tools provided by the website and processed the relevant data. Finally, the top 20 tools ranked by visitation are summarized as shown in the

Table 1. Top 20 most visited service design tools on the Service Design Tools website.

Ranking	Tools	Visitation	Website
1	Service Blueprint	2.7k−	https://servicedesigntools.org/tools/service-blueprint (accessed on 22 August 2024)
2	Ecosystem Map	1.5k−	https://servicedesigntools.org/tools/ecosystem-map (accessed on 22 August 2024
3	Evaluation Matrix	1.3k+	https://servicedesigntools.org/tools/evaluation-matrix (accessed on 8 August 2024)
4	Future Backcasting	978	https://servicedesigntools.org/tools/future-backcasting (accessed on 8 August 2024)
5	System Map	939	https://servicedesigntools.org/tools/system-map (accessed on 8 August 2024)
6	Service Safari	816	https://servicedesigntools.org/tools/service-safari (accessed on 22 August 2024)
7	Role Playing	748	https://servicedesigntools.org/tools/role-playing (accessed on 22 August 2024)
8	Journey Map	687	https://servicedesigntools.org/tools/journey-map (accessed on 8 August 2024)
9	Value Proposition Canvas	615	https://servicedesigntools.org/tools/value-proposition-canvas (accessed on 8 August 2024)
10	Emotional Journey	572	https://servicedesigntools.org/tools/emotional-journey (accessed on 22 August 2024)
11	Personas	465	https://servicedesigntools.org/tools/personas (accessed on 22 August 2024)
12	Stakeholders Map	435	https://servicedesigntools.org/tools/stakeholders-map (accessed on22 August 2024)
13	Experience Prototypes	409	https://servicedesigntools.org/tools/experience-prototypes (accessed on 22 August 2024)
14	Brainstorming	311	https://servicedesigntools.org/tools/brainstorming (accessed on 22 August 2024)
15	Tomorrow’s Narratives	288	https://servicedesigntools.org/tools/tomorrows-narratives (accessed on 22 August 2024)
16	Success Metrics	263	https://servicedesigntools.org/tools/success-metrics (accessed on 22 August 2024)
17	Diary Study	259	https://servicedesigntools.org/tools/diary-study (accessed on 22 August 2024) https://servicedesigntools.org/tools/diary-study (accessed on 22 August 2024)
18	User Scenarios	239	https://servicedesigntools.org/tools/user-scenarios (accessed on 22 August 2024)
19	Offering Map	219	https://servicedesigntools.org/tools/offering-map (accessed on 22 August 2024)
20	Empathy Map	177	https://servicedesigntools.org/tools/empathy-map (accessed on 22 August 2024)

below. The higher the visitation, the higher the attention to the tool and its potential usage may also be relatively higher.

In terms of the literature and cases related to government public service design, the selection criteria of this paper mainly include the relative frequency of occurrence and specific domain relevance. Combined with the results of the analysis of the tool website, this paper has carried out the integrated selection and unification process, and the final selection is shown in

Table 2. The government public service design reference toolkit.

Tools/Technologies	Service Design Tools Website	This is Service Design Thinking	Service Design: From Insight to Implementation	Literature and Cases Related to Government Public Service Design	Personal Practice Projects
Qualitative research (observations, interviews, user diaries, etc.)	√	√	√	√	√
Quantitative research					√
Personas	√	√		√	√
User Journey Map	√	√	√	√	√
Stakeholders Map	√	√			√
Ecosystem Map	√
Service Ecology Map			√		√
Evaluation Matrix	√
System Map	√			√	√
Service Blueprint	√	√	√	√	√
Storyboard		√	√	√	√
Prototypes (rapid prototyping, experience prototypes/low-fi prototypes, service prototypes/hi-fi prototypes, etc.)	√	√	√	√	√
Success Metrics	√		√	√	√

below. The toolkit of government public service design presented in this table emphasizes the importance and specificity of the practical activities in this field rather than seeking comprehensiveness. In addition, the use of tools should be appropriate to meet the needs and purposes, rather than more is better.

Based on the above table, this paper uses the Double Diamond model, which has been widely accepted as a description of the design process, as the underlying foundation to categorize the relevant tools and techniques to form a reference guide for the final solution. The Double Diamond design process model was designed when service design appeared as a more straightforward practice (Drew, 2019 [82]), was launched by the UK’s Design Council in 2004 (Ball, 2019 [83]), and has been widely circulated within the service design field. The model divides the design process into two parts and four phases. The diamonds correspond to the two parts, and the four phases are discovery, definition, development and delivery. The first two phases are located in the first diamond and are dedicated to the research part of the problem, while the last two phases are located in the second diamond and are concerned with the generation of the solution. At the same time, the UK’s Design Council suggests that the model should be adapted and changed according to the needs and characteristics of the project (Gustafsson, 2019 [84]), and many model variations have emerged.

Based on practical experience, relevant literature, and representative practical case studies in the industry, this paper draws a reference guide for government public service design methods, as shown in Figure 9. The first diamond represents the problem exploration stage, and the second represents the solution stage. Within the first diamond, the relevant work can be divided into two phases, namely the investigation and discovery phase and the insight and positioning phase. Practitioners can use qualitative and quantitative research methods in the investigation and discovery phase. In particular, we emphasized the combined use of the two. The corresponding reference example based on personal practical experience and industry characteristics is the “qualitative-quantitative-qualitative” approach. The combined qualitative and quantitative research methods can enhance research depth, breadth, and accuracy through complementary and supportive interactions. In the insight and positioning phase, the relevant reference tools or techniques mainly include personas, user journey maps, stakeholder maps, ecosystem maps, and service ecology maps. By using these tools and techniques, in-depth research can be conducted on the previous results, uncovering and positioning issues, pain points, needs, and corresponding opportunities and providing a basis for the subsequent solution stage.

The second diamond stage mainly involves service innovation activities and service design evaluation. The former includes reference tools or techniques such as evaluation matrix, system map, service blueprint, storyboards, and prototyping technologies, while the latter focuses on setting success indicators. This stage features development-oriented service outputs through learning in action, and the final delivered service form is produced through continuous adjustment and iteration. Therefore, relevant tools may be repeatedly used, which is why we do not use internal sub-phases here.

The government public service design reference guide formed in this paper is intended to provide a reference for relevant practitioners rather than being an absolute or complete process template. In fact, such templates do not exist. Tools and technologies constantly evolve and will undergo corresponding changes as the industry progresses. Practitioners should flexibly select and use relevant tools and technologies according to the actual project situation.

4. Results and Discussion

The TB4D model of government public service design was constructed based on literature research, case studies, and experiential summaries, representing a blend of theory and practice. In the process of building, it was developed partly as a starting point. Therefore, to test the model’s overall representativeness, validity, and applicability, we needed to return to the practical field to carry out quantitative evaluation work to obtain clearer and more scientific results.

In this study, SPSS 26.0 was used to analyze the data. In the validation, only two parts of the TSLC operational mechanism model and the “behavior-organization-policy” operational content model, which are located in the main body of the TB4D model, were assigned compliance scores. As for the “3 + 1” development model and the method reference guide, which are represented by the miniature icon in the lower right corner of the model diagram, this paper did not assign any score to them. The development form itself is a summarization of the main development forms presented in current government public service design, indicating that most relevant practices in the industry will basically conform to this model. As for the method, the reference guide diagram emphasizes referentiality, which is consistent with this paper. At the same time, the overall framework structure of this diagram is based on the double diamond model introduced by the UK’s Design Council, a design process model that has been widely accepted and used in the industry. At this level, it also means that this part possesses validity. In conclusion, the development form and the method reference guide have significant establishment and do not have a decisive impact on the overall validation results of the model, meaning they did not affect the final judgment of the model, so we did not repeat the verification of these parts.

In the assessment of the operational mechanism and operational content of the TB4D model, 20 complete cases were evaluated according to the degree of compliance. In the operational mechanism section, the scoring criteria were as follows:

(1) In the “trans-dimensional cognitive and thinking mode” aspect, scores of 0 and 1 corresponded to “non-compliance” and “compliance”, respectively, with a passing score of 1 point.

(2) In the “systems thinking” aspect, a scoring of 0 and 1 corresponded to “non-compliance” and “compliance”, and additional points were assigned based on the ability of transformational problem solving as the basis for judgment, with 0 meaning that the case does not present the ability, and 1 is vice versa. The total score for this aspect (including additional points) was 2 points, with a passing score of 1 point. The values of 0, 1, and 2 corresponded to “non-compliance”, “compliance”, and “highly compliant”, respectively. Although the manifestation of this ability does not directly correspond to the degree of compliance, it can be understood as a form of compliance with a higher degree of performance to some extent. Therefore, a score of 2 was associated with the “highly compliant” label.

(3) In the “learning interactive innovation process” aspect, we evaluated the degree of participation of the two major stakeholder groups in government public service design—the direct service audience and the staff group—and assigned scores of 0, 1, and 2 to “non-compliance”, “compliance”, and “highly compliant”, respectively. The total score for this aspect was 4 points, with a passing score of 2 points (i.e., each sub-item receives 1 point).

(4) In the “cultural regeneration and value shaping” aspect, this paper assigned scores to two sub-sections: “value symbiosis and cultural belonging” and “trust and brand image building”. Each sub-section is scored 0, 1, or 2 based on the degree of compliance, corresponding to “non-compliance”, “compliance”, and “highly compliant”. The total score for this aspect is 4 points, with a passing score of 2 points (i.e., each sub-item receives 1 point).

In the operational content section, the scoring criteria were as follows: the evaluation of the “service behavior layer”, “organizational layer”, and “policy layer” was carried out, with scores of 0 and 1 corresponding to “non-compliance” and “compliance”, respectively. Cases that did not clearly demonstrate involvement in the corresponding layers were assigned a score of 0 for the respective layer; otherwise, a score of 1 was given. The total score for this section was 3 points. Due to the influencing factor of practical project limitations, a passing score was calculated by taking half of the total score, i.e., 1.5 points.

The evaluation system of the two parts mentioned above was integrated, which is the validation standard of the TB4D model for government public service design. The total score of the TB4D model was 14 points. A score of 7.5 points or above and no 0 points in the sub-aspects of the operational mechanism section (excluding additional scoring items) indicated the model’s effectiveness. Under this evaluation standard, we conducted corresponding scoring calculations and data analysis on 20 cases, and the results showed the following:

(1) The lowest score of the model was 11 points, which was higher than the passing line of 3.5 points, and the highest score was 14 points (full marks). There were no 0-point items in the sub-aspects of the operational mechanism model section (excluding additional scoring items), which means that the government public service design TB4D model was not only established but also performs excellently.

(2) The model’s average compliance score was approximately 12.9 points (equivalent to 92 points in percentage), and if the “highly compliant” items scored as additional points were not included in the calculation, the model’s average score converts to approximately 96.5 points in percentage (using a total score of 13 points). The above data indicate that the model performs remarkably well in compliance, demonstrating a high level of expressiveness, representing high representativeness, effectiveness, and applicability of the government public service design TB4D model. The scores of such models are affected by various associated factors, and achieving full marks is often unrealistic. The average score of the TB4D model is already at a high level.

(3) In order to better assess the performance level of the model across the entire industry, this paper used the concept of confidence interval commonly used in natural and social science research, that is, to estimate the performance characteristics of the unknown whole to which the sample belongs based on the test results of the sample. It is not possible to use all existing cases in the industry to test the model, but we can estimate and infer the results that the model may present across the entire industry based on the results of the corresponding 20 cases as samples. In confidence interval calculations, the most commonly used confidence level is 95%, and the results obtained from calculating with a confidence level of 95% can better balance accuracy and precision. Therefore, this paper used SPSS 26.0 to calculate the model’s 95% confidence interval. This sample meets the requirements for the normal distribution form and sample data selection necessary for calculating the confidence interval. Through calculation, the 95% confidence interval of the model’s average compliance score in the overall industry was approximately between 12.4 and 13.3 points, which is equivalent to between 89 and 95 points in percentage. This result indicates that the government public service design TB4D model has high industry representation, effectiveness, and universality.

5. Conclusions

Public service impacts everyone’s life and future. It directly influences societal and national development. Shaping and developing public service is a crucial issue for both individuals and communities. The government plays a vital role as the provider, influencing these services’ generation, development, and transformation. Recently, with the rapid advancement of human society, this area faces new problems and challenges. Traditional public management approaches exhibit notable shortcomings in addressing these issues. Service design, as a robust response, is gradually emerging and playing an important role. This article systematically studied government public service design, aiming to achieve academic and social value while providing guidance for related practices. Based on an in-depth study of the relevant literature, nearly 30 representative cases within the industry, and three personal practice projects, this paper proposes the TB4D model for government public service design. The letters and numbers in the model’s name sequentially represent these four components: the TSLC operational mechanism model, the Behavior-Organization-Policy operational content model, the “3 + 1” development mode, and the method reference guide for government public service design based on the Double Diamond design process model. Among them, the TSLC operational mechanism model derives its name from the initials of four parts: trans-dimensional cognitive and thinking mode, systems thinking, learning interactive innovation process, and cultural regeneration and value shaping. The “3 + 1” development model denotes three forms of development centered on internal design capability and the form of joint development focused on external design capabilities. The TB4D model is a product that combines theory and practice. To verify its overall performance, the paper conducts a quantitative assessment. Data indicates that the organic operation of the TB4D model can offer systematic, innovative solutions to the challenges faced in public service, promoting the sustainable development of society. As the industry evolves, the TB4D model’s content can be further refined and enriched to better reflect contemporary characteristics. Since the government public service design field is still in its early stages, the current TB4D model emphasizes its inherent principles and general logic, aiming to provide foundational theoretical support for the sector’s development. Moreover, as the TB4D model presents a basic framework for the entire field, future applications in different regions can further develop corresponding sub-models with local characteristics based on this foundation.