1

Petra Černe Oven

Barbara Predan

Focus:

Service and infOrmatiOn

deSign

Ljubljana 2013

Fokus:

StOritvenO in infOrmacijSkO

OBlikOvanje

2

Petra Černe Oven, Barbara PredanOblikovanje agende ali kako se izogniti reševanju problemov, ki to nisoFokus: storitveno in informacijsko oblikovanje

Designing an Agenda, or, How to Avoid Solving Problems That Aren’tFocus: Service and information design

Zbirka 42:3

društvo Pekinpah/the Pekinpah association, www.pekinpah.com,zanj/represented by dr. Barbara Predan,in/andRegionalna razvojna agencija Ljubljanske urbane regije the regional development agency of the ljubljana Urban region, www.rralur.si,zanjo/represented by mag. lilijana madjar

Petra Černe Oven, Barbara Predan

dr. Sue Walker, dr. karel van der Waarde

katja Paladin

rawley grau, erica johnson debeljak

nataša velikonja

izidor jesenko (simpozij/symposium), nika jesenko (delavnice/workshops),Studio miklavc (platnica, poglavja/cover, chapters)

Studio miklavc, www.miklavc.si

dalmatin d.o.o.

Ljubljana 2013

© Avtorici/The authors

CIP - Kataložni zapis o publikaciji Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica, Ljubljana

7.05:659.2

ČERNE Oven, Petra Oblikovanje agende ali Kako se izogniti reševanju problemov, ki to niso : fokus: storitveno in informacijsko oblikovanje = Designing an agenda, or, How to avoid solving problems that aren’t : focus: service and information design / Petra Černe Oven, Barbara Predan ; [prevod v angleščino Rawley Grau, Erica Johnson Debeljak, prevod v slovenščino Nataša Velikonja ; fotografije Izidor Jesenko, Nika Jesenko]. - Ljubljana : Društvo Pekinpah : Regionalna razvojna agencija Ljubljanske urbane regije, 2013. - (Zbirka 42 ; zv. 3)

ISBN 978-961-93098-3-4 (Društvo Pekinpah) 1. Predan, Barbara 266872064

Izdala/Published by:

Avtorici/Authors:

Recenzenta/Referees:

Lektoriralaslovene copyediting by:

Prevod v angleščinoEnglish translation:

Prevod v slovenščinoslovene translation:

Fotografije/Photographs:

oblikovanje/Design:

Tisk/Printed by:

6

FoREWoRD

Liljana Madjar, RDA LuR

Service design for greater innovation in Services

IntroductIon

the need for designing an agenda, or, Why Service

and information design are again in Zbirka 42

Barbara Predan

“don’t know. dangerous to jump to conclusions.

need data.”

Petra Černe oven

“vision without action is merely a dream.

action without vision just passes the time.

vision with action can change the world!”

“DoN’T PANIc”

Service and information design:

methodology and tools

recommendations for Policy Planners:

the numbers and Strategies are on the Side of design

THE PRojEcTs:

the results of the Student Seminar and

the creative camp Workshops

A TIME LINE

formalizing Service and information

design in Slovenia

BIBLIogRAPHY

INDEx

8

12

16

44

126

176

214

360

372

386

7

PREDgoVoR

Liljana Madjar, RRA LUR

Storitveno oblikovanje za več inovativnosti v storitvah

uVoDNIk

Potreba po oblikovanju agende ali zakaj storitveno in informacijsko oblikovanje ponovno v Zbirki 42

Barbara Predan

»Ne vem. Nevarno je prehitro sklepati.Potrebujem podatke.«

Petra Černe Oven

»Vizija brez dejanja so samo sanje.Dejanje brez vizije je zapravljanje časa.Vizija z dejanjem lahko spremeni svet!«

»SAMO BREZ PANIKE«

Storitveno in informacijsko oblikovanje:metodologija in orodja

Priporočila za načrtovalce politik:številke in strategije so na strani oblikovanja

PRojEkTI

Rezultati študentskega seminarja indelavnic kreativnega tabora

ČAsoVNIcA

Formalizacija storitvenega in informacijskegaoblikovanja v Sloveniji

BIBLIogRAFIjA

IMENsko kAZALo

9

13

17

45

79

177

215

361

372

386

16

1 Mark gatiss, screenwriter, “The great game”, Sherlock, series 1, episode 3, Hartswood Films, BBc Wales and

WgBH, 2010.

2 Arthur conan Doyle, “A scandal in Bohemia” (1891), The Complete Sherlock Holmes, vol. 1, Barnes and Noble

classics, New York 2003, p. 189.

Barbara Predan

The words in the title (from sherlock Holmes in his latest BBc incarnati-

on)1 sum up one of the basic premises of service design. Even if we have

already been dealing with a given service, perhaps using it regularly or

even providing the service every day, in most cases we do not know all that

much about it. We may be familiar with only a segment of the service – and

that superficially – or we may simply be stuck in a routine and so lack the

necessary distance to evaluate it. jumping to conclusions, then, can be

dangerous: hasty conclusions too often lead us even farther from recog-

nizing the real problems in service and information design. In many cases,

we think that what (we think) we know is all the knowledge we need to start

redesigning a service. As sherlock Holmes said (in his original version): “It

is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins

to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”2

Redesigning or designing a service is a complex task, regardless of the

size of the project. Before we begin, as Holmes reminds us, we need data.

The more the better. And here I would stress that what we need is in fact

data, not information. Petra Černe oven notes this distinction in her essay

“Information Design – Designing for users”. Data are primary, complex, un-

organized, and unstructured; they need to be interpreted, to be translated

(if possible by an information designer), before they can become informa-

17

Barbara Predan

Citat Sherlocka Holmesa v naslovu1 je temeljno izhodišče storitvenega

oblikovanja. Tudi če smo se s storitvijo že srečali, jo morda celo redno

uporabljamo ali pa jo dnevno opravljamo, o sami storitvi v večini primerov

ne vemo prav veliko. Poznamo lahko zgolj segment storitve – pa še tega

površno – ali pa smo preprosto ujeti v rutino in zato nezmožni distance, ki

je nujno potrebna za evalvacijo storitve. Posledično je prehitro sklepanje

lahko nevarno, saj nas prepogosto oddalji od prepoznavanja pravega

problema storitvenega in informacijskega oblikovanja. Velikokrat namreč

mislimo, da je tisto, kar (se nam zdi, da) vemo, pravzaprav že vse vedenje,

ki ga potrebujemo, da se lahko lotimo preoblikovanja storitve. Kot je dejal

Holmes: »Teoretiziranje brez podatkov je kardinalna napaka. Dejstva bodo

na koncu neizogibno izkrivljena in prilagojena teorijam, namesto da bi bila

teorija prilagojena dejstvom.«2

Preoblikovanje ali oblikovanje storitve je – ne glede na velikost projekta –

kompleksna naloga. Preden se je lotimo – sledeč Holmesu – potrebujemo

podatke. Čim več podatkov. S pomembnim poudarkom: potrebujemo

podatke, ne informacij. Na distinkcijo opozori Petra Černe Oven v besedilu

Informacijsko oblikovanje – oblikovanje za uporabnika. Podatki so primar-

ni, kompleksni, neorganizirani, nestrukturirani. Potrebna je interpretacija,

prevajanje (po možnosti informacijskega oblikovalca), da nestrukturirani

1 citat sherlocka Holmesa iz televizijske nadaljevanke Sherlock (2010– ), epizoda »The great game«,

produkcija Hartswood Films, BBc Wales, Masterpiece Theatre.

2 Arthur conan Doyle, »A scandal in Bohemia« (1891), The Complete Sherlock Holmes, vol. 1, Barnes and Noble

classics, New York 2003, p. 189.

18

3 As Černe oven goes on to say, it is this step that takes us into the field of information design, which is

understood as “the work of ‘translating complex, unorganized, or unstructured data into valuable, meaningful

information’, with the emphasis on the readability, understandability, and ultimate usability of documents.”

(Petra Černe oven, “Information Design – Designing for users”, in 22. bienale industrijskega oblikovanja/22nd

Biennial of Industrial Design, Museum of Architecture and Design, BIo secretariat, Ljubljana 2010, p. 26; here

Černe oven quotes the definition of information design as formulated by the Information Design special Inter-

est group of the society for Technical communication.)

4 Norman Potter, What Is a Designer: Things, Places, Messages (1969), 4th ed., Hyphen Press, London 2003,

p. 46.

5 Victor Papanek, Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change (1971), 3rd ed., Academy

chicago Publishers, chicago 1992, p. 56.

tion.3 The difference is clear: information is something processed, cleaned

up, translated, and as such it can – if the data have been poorly or even

incorrectly interpreted – take us down the wrong road. We can see the

symptom as being the problem that needs solving, that needs redesigning,

and miss the real problem. And so we go astray at the very outset, twisting

the facts to suit the solutions we offer. The essence of service design, then,

is that, during the process of collecting data, we open up the possibility

of defining, of recognizing, the real problem, and then, in the next step –

designing the service – we will avoid solving problems that aren’t prob-

lems. As Norman Potter wrote: “The case for analytical technique – of the

simplest order – rests on the premise that you should find out what you

are doing, or what you should be doing, before considering how to do it.”4

Potter’s idea needs to be stressed again and again. Practice shows us

that clients, in most cases the ones who define the problem to be solved,

as well as designers who accept the proposed problem uncritically, often

fail to see the essence of the problem and sometimes miss the problem

altogether. In many cases they might even simply invent a problem – and

this despite the fact that design is supposed to be an activity whose

fundamental task is problem-solving (or maybe precisely because of this).

We are talking of course about existing problems, not imaginary ones.

Victor Papanek was one of the many people who addressed these issues.

In his book Design for the Real World, he presented three diagrams (fig. 1),

which, he says, “will explain the lack of social engagement in design. […]

Industry and its designers are concerned only with the tiny top portion [in

black], without addressing themselves to real needs.”5 Papanek here was

not declaring war on consumer products for the majority; he only wished

to point out that “all people are handicapped in some minor or major way,

19

podatki postanejo informacije.3 Razlika je torej jasna. Informacije so

že predelane, prečiščene, prevedene in kot take nas lahko – ob slabi ali

celo nepravilni interpretaciji – speljejo na napačno pot. Na pot označitve

simptoma kot problema, ki ga je treba reševati, preoblikovati. S tem pa

že v izhodišču zgrešimo, saj izkrivljamo dejstva, da jih lahko prilagodimo

ponujenim rešitvam. Zato je bistvo storitvenega oblikovanja v tem, da si

med procesom zbiranja podatkov odpremo možnost definiranja, pre-

poznavanja pravega problema in se ob naslednjem koraku, oblikovanju

storitve, izognemo reševanju problemov, ki to niso. Norman Potter zapiše,

da temelji analitični pristop »na premisi, da je najprej treba ugotoviti, kaj

sploh delaš oziroma kaj bi sploh moral delati, šele nato pa razmišljati o

tem, kako boš nalogo izvedel«.4

Potterjevo misel je treba nenehno poudarjati, saj praksa kaže, da tako

naročniki, ki največkrat določijo problem, ki ga je treba rešiti, kot tudi

oblikovalci, ki nekritično sprejmejo ponujeni problem, pogosto zgrešijo

bistvo problema, občasno pa problem v celoti. Velikokrat si problem tudi

preprosto izmislijo. In to kljub temu, da oblikovanje velja za dejavnost,

katere temeljna naloga je reševanje problemov (ali pa morda ravno zato).

Govorimo seveda o obstoječih problemih, ne namišljenih. Med številne, ki

se ukvarjajo z omenjeno problematiko, sodi tudi Victor Papanek. V svoji

knjigi Oblikovanje za resnični svet objavi tri diagrame (slika 1) in zapiše:

3 kot še nadaljuje Černe ovnova, prav s tem korakom vstopamo v polje informacijskega oblikovanja, s čimer je

mišljena »dejavnost, ki prevaja kompleksne, neorganizirane in nestrukturirane podatke v koristne in razumljive

informacije; pri tem je poudarek na čitljivosti, razumljivosti in končni uporabnosti dokumentov«. Petra Černe

oven, »Informacijsko oblikovanje – oblikovanje za uporabnika«, Storitveno in informacijsko oblikovanje, (ur.)

Petra Černe oven in Barbara Predan, Zbirka 42, društvo Pekinpah, Ljubljana 2010, str. 9.

4 Norman Potter, What is a designer: things, places, messages, Hyphen Press, London 2003, str. 46.

FIGURE 1: THE DESIGN PROBLEMSlika 1: OBlikOvanje

The realproblem

Thedesigner’sshare

FIGURE 2: A COUNTRY

The realproblem

Thedesigner’sshare

FIGURE 3: THE WORLDSlika 3: Svet

The realproblem

Thedesigner’sshare

Slika 1/fig. 1

20

6 Ibid., p. 68.

7 charles and Ray Eames, Indian Report (1958), http://observatory.designobserver.com/entry.

html?entry=12692 (the emphasis is in the original; accessed january 2013).

8 R. Buckminster Fuller, Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth, new ed., Lars Müller Publishers, Baden 2008,

p. 21.

throughout or for part of their lives.”6 so when we are designing for (what

seem to be) minority groups, we are also designing for the majority popu-

lation. But I should stress that this logic does not go both ways.

The husband-and-wife team charles and Ray Eames went a step further

in their Indian Report. They were not content with the idea that the de-

signer’s task is only to solve problems. In their view, designers “should be

trained to help others solve their own problems. one of the most valuable

functions of a good industrial designer today is to ask the right questions

of those concerned so that they become freshly involved and seek a solu-

tion themselves.”7 In other words, the designer’s task is also to educate

others to be able to solve the problems they face in the future. But one

of the conditions for starting to think about how to solve problems is to

reject the current way of doing things.

In his book Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth, R. Buckminster Fuller

describes the way people usually solve problems:

If you are in a shipwreck and all the boats are gone, a piano top buoyant

enough to keep you afloat that comes along makes a fortuitous life pre-

server. But this is not to say that the best way to design a life preserver

is in the form of a piano top. I think that we are clinging to a great many

piano tops in accepting yesterday’s fortuitous contrivings as constitut-

ing the only means for solving a given problem.8

synthesizing all three of these points brings us to the following conclu-

sion: if we wish to use design to solve real problems, the social engage-

ment of design is necessary to achieve the goal. But when we include

broader knowledge and behaviours, the goal itself also changes: design

stops being just a tool for increasing sales and becomes a tool for helping

a community. one of the conditions for this transformation, however, is

the rejection of yesterday’s understanding of design as a discipline that

21

»Trije diagrami razložijo pomanjkanje družbene vpletenosti oblikovanja.

[...] Industrijo in njene oblikovalce skrbi le majhen vrhnji delež [obarvan s

črno], namesto da bi se posvetili pravim potrebam.«5 Papanek z zapisa-

nim ne napove vojne potrošnim izdelkom za tako imenovano večino,

temveč želi le opozoriti, da »smo pravzaprav vsi v večji ali manjši meri

hendikepirani, občasno ali skozi celotno življenje«.6 Če torej oblikujemo za

(navidezno) manjšinske skupine, oblikujemo hkrati tudi za večino. Treba

pa je poudariti, da opisana logika ni reverzibilna.

Zakonca Eames gresta v poročilu Indian Report še korak dlje. Ne zado-

voljita se s tem, da oblikovalci le rešujejo probleme. Po njunem mnenju

bi morali oblikovalce »izobraziti v smeri, da bodo lahko pomagali ostalim

reševati njihove lastne probleme. Med najpomembnejše funkcije dobrega

industrijskega oblikovalca sodi postavljanje pravih vprašanj tistim, ki

jih zadevajo, in jih na sveže vplesti v iskanje lastnih rešitev.«7 Povedano

drugače: naloga oblikovalca ni le reševanje problemov, temveč tudi uspo-

sabljanje ostalih, da bodo probleme, s katerimi se soočajo, znali rešiti

v prihodnje. Pogoj za začetek razmišljanja o reševanju problemov pa je

ovržba trenutnega načina delovanja.

R. Buckminster Fuller v knjigi Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth

opiše, kako po navadi rešujemo probleme:

Če doživite brodolom in čolnov ni več, je lahko naključen rešilni pas pokrov

klavirja, ki pripluje mimo in je dovolj ploven, da se ne potopite. To pa ne

pomeni, da je pokrov klavirja najboljša oblika rešilnega pasu. Mislim, da

se oprijemamo vse preveč klavirskih pokrovov, saj sprejemamo včerajšnje

naključne izume kot edino možnost rešitve določenega problema.8

Sinteza vseh treh poant nas pripelje do naslednje ugotovitve: če želimo

z oblikovanjem reševati prave probleme, je za dosego cilja nujna

5 Victor Papanek, Design fort the Real World. Human Ecology and Social Change, Academy chicago Publishers,

chicago 1992, str. 56.

6 Ibid., str. 68.

7 charles in Ray Eames, Indian Report (1958), http://observatory.designobserver.com/entry.html?entry=12692

(januar 2013). Poudarki so avtorjevi.

8 R. Buckminster Fuller, Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth, Lars Müller Publishers, Baden 2008, str. 21.

(knjiga bo – predvidoma leta 2013 – v slovenskem prevodu Nataše Velikonja izšla pri društvu Pekinpah.)

22

9 Here I rely on Tony Fry’s idea: “As long as there have been designed, manufactured and marketed products,

design and consumption have been bonded together. However, it was not until the 1930s that they were

addressed and deployed strategically and thereafter considered reflectively.” (Design Futuring: Sustainability,

Ethics and New Practice, Berg, New York 2009, p. 191.)

10 According to Victor Papanek, we already are. He is talking about spontaneous, intuitive design, the organ-

izing of our own surroundings. For more on this, see his Design for the Real World.

11 It is best if the designer is included from the start. This is true of all types of designs and all kinds of tasks.

solves the problems of a small segment of society.9 This also means

rejecting all those crisis-induced, fortuitous contrivings that to a large

degree we still insist on using.

The proposal I have described offers a complex, two-way relationship.

From designers, it demands that they share their knowledge in the form

of tools with members of the community to which we all belong. What is

more, the Eameses call on us to share our knowledge and tools to such

an extent that, ultimately, we will all be able to solve our own problems

independently. In other words, we will all become designers, at least to

some degree.10 With this important new information, or more precisely,

with the resulting shift in perspective, we would, through the knowledge

and understanding of the design tools we have acquired, ground today’s

spontaneous, intuitive design (by unexpected designers) in the under-

standing that everything around us is designed. This “new” knowledge –

this understanding – would bring the question of deliberate planning into

the field of intuitive spontaneity. The first step in this direction, however, is

for all the other members of the community to allow designers to become

socially engaged. This can be achieved only when designers are (finally)

recognized as partners in the conversation – as people who have the

potential and the knowledge, not only to recognize the real problems (on

the basis of social inclusion), but also to offer solutions to these problems

in the form of new tools and new knowledge. And with this knowledge we

will then make it possible for all the other members of the community to

address the challenges they face.

Let me put this more concretely. Anyone who intends to produce and mar-

ket a new chair, shoe, refrigerator, car, lamp, newspaper, broom, backpack,

or spoon, will at a certain stage in the development11 ask for the help of

a designer. But in many other undertakings – when dealing with patient

admission in a trauma ward, easing rush-hour traffic jams, organizing daily

23

družbena vpletenost oblikovanja. Z vključitvijo širšega védenja in vedênja

pa se spremeni tudi cilj: oblikovanje se začne spreminjati iz orodja za

pospeševanje prodaje v orodje skupnosti. Pogoj za dosego slednjega pa je

zavrnitev včerajšnjega razumevanja oblikovanja kot stroke, ki rešuje prob-

leme majhnega dela družbe.9 Gre tudi za zavrnitev vseh kriznih, naključnih

rešitev, pri katerih v večji meri vztrajamo.

Opisani predlog ponuja kompleksno dvosmerno razmerje. Od oblikovalcev

namreč zahteva, da svoje znanje v obliki orodij delijo s člani skupnosti,

katere del smo vsi. Še več, Eamesova nas pozivata k deljenju znanja in

orodij do te mere, da bomo v končni fazi vsi samostojno reševali lastne

probleme. Na svoj način bi torej – vsaj do neke stopnje – vsi postali ob-

likovalci.10 S pomembnim dodatkom, ali bolje, s posledično preusmeritvijo

pogleda bi z osvojenim znanjem in razumevanjem oblikovalskih orodij

današnje spontano, nezavedno oblikovanje (nenadejanih oblikovalcev)

postavili na temelj razumevanja, da je vse okoli nas oblikovano. »Novo«

védenje – omenjeno razumevanje – bi v polje nezavedne spontanosti

vneslo vprašanje načrtovanega snovanja. Prvi korak v opisano smer pa je,

da vsi ostali člani skupnosti oblikovalcem omogočijo družbeno vpletenost.

Slednje bo mogoče doseči le takrat, ko bodo oblikovalci in oblikovalke

(končno) prepoznani kot potencialni sogovorniki. Kot tisti, ki imajo po-

tencial in znanje, da prave probleme (na podlagi družbene vključenosti)

ne samo prepoznajo, temveč njihove rešitve ponudijo v obliki novih orodij

in znanj. Znanj, s katerimi bodo nato vsem ostalim članom dolgoročno

omogočili reševanje izzivov, s katerimi se soočajo.

Naj konkretiziram. Vsak, ki namerava izdelovati in tržiti nov stol, čevelj,

hladilnik, avtomobil, svetilko, časopis, metlo, nahrbtnik ali žlico, bo v

določeni fazi razvoja11 izdelka – vsaj upam, da smo v Sloveniji že tako

daleč – k sodelovanju povabil tudi oblikovalca. Pri številnih drugih

pobudah (pri sprejemanju bolnikov na travmatološki oddelek, soočanju

9 Tu se naslanjam na misel Tonyja Frya, ki zapiše: »oblikovanje in potrošnja sta povezana, že vse odkar izdelke

oblikujemo, proizvajamo in tržimo. kljub temu se šele od tridesetih letih dvajsetega stoletja dalje omenjeno

razmerje obravnava in razvija strateško in od takrat dalje oboje odseva v povezavi.« V: Tony Fry, Design Futuring.

Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice, Berg, New York 2009, str. 191.

10 Po Victorju Papaneku v načelu že smo. gre pa za primer spontanega, t. i. intuitivnega oblikovanja, urejanja

lastnega okolja. Več glej v: Papanek, Design for the Real World.

11 Najbolje je, če je oblikovalec vključen od začetka. Velja za vse tipe oblikovanja in vse vrste nalog.

24

12 What I have described applies to slovenia. In all the areas I have mentioned, many excellent examples of

service design can be found outside of slovenia.

programmes for the elderly, devising bill forms and consumption break-

downs, helping disgruntled passengers waiting at airports, or addressing

the problem of vacant urban office space, etc. – nobody even thinks of

using a designer.12 Designers are not regarded as potential partners in the

conversation and so are completely left out of the process of solving dif-

ficult situations. Recognizing and solving problems usually remain the re-

sponsibility of only one of the stakeholders in a service, while solutions are

too often sought only after there’s been a shipwreck (to return to Fuller’s

thought). As a result, in all the examples listed above, we are for the most

part clinging to piano tops even today. We grab onto temporary solutions,

treating as if they were permanent and, what is more, even building on

them – instead of seeing the potential of service and information design-

ers to discover different and fundamentally new ways of doing things.

The advantage of the designer (provided she/he has the necessary social

engagement) lies in her/his position at the centre and in the fact that

she/he is able to “change glasses” during the design process. In other

words, the designer constructs a comprehensive picture of the service by

putting on the glasses of the different stakeholders she/he identifies in

the analytical process of learning about the service. When I use the word

“stakeholder”, I mean the people who use the service as well as those

who primarily provide it – both the active and passive participants in the

interaction with the user. After all, every time a service is performed, all

the stakeholders involved in the service process are at the same time

co-creating it. For this reason, it is all the more necessary to map out in

precise terms all the stakeholders and their roles in the service process.

only such an analysis will allow us to identify any possible actual problem,

for it will be clearly drawn out before us. As Potter would say, only then can

we begin to think about what it is we should be doing.

Tony Fry – as a kind of supplement to Potter – has underscored three

things we need to determine before beginning any design of a product or

service: namely, the nature of the product/service itself, the way people

25

s prometnimi zamaški na poti v službo in domov, ob pripravah dnevnega

programa za starejše, pri zasnovi položnic in specifikacijah porabe, pri

ukvarjanju z nejevoljnimi čakajočimi potniki na letališčih ali s praznimi

poslovnimi prostori v mestu itn.) pa na oblikovalca sploh ne pomislimo.12

Ne prepoznamo ga kot potencialnega sogovornika; iz reševanja nastalih

situacij ga povsem izključimo. Prepoznavanje in reševanje problemov po

navadi ostane na ramenih zgolj enega od deležnikov storitve, rešitev pa

se vse prevečkrat išče le – če se ponovno vrnem k Fullerju – v trenutku

brodoloma. Posledično se pri vseh naštetih primerih še danes v večini

oprijemamo klavirskih pokrovov. Oprijemamo se začasnih rešitev, ki jih

obravnavamo kot trajne in jih povrhu še nadgrajujemo, namesto da bi

potencial za drugačno, v izhodišču spremenjeno delovanje poiskali pri

storitvenih in informacijskih oblikovalcih.

Prednost oblikovalca (z zagotovljeno družbeno vpletenostjo) je v njegovem

središčnem položaju in v tem, da v procesu načrtovanja menja očala.

Povedano drugače: oblikovalec celovito sliko storitve gradi z menjavo očal

deležnikov, ki jih prepozna v analitičnem procesu spoznavanja storitve. Z

besedo deležniki imam v mislih tako tiste, ki storitev uporabljajo, kot tiste,

ki jo v prvi vrsti ponujajo, torej tiste, ki so v interakciji z uporabnikom tako

aktivno kot tudi pasivno udeleženi. Kajti vsakič, ko se storitev izvaja, jo

prav ti deležniki, ki se znajdejo v procesu storitve, soustvarjajo. Zato je še

toliko bolj nujno natančno mapiranje deležnikov in njihovih vlog v procesu

storitve, saj nam šele ta analiza omogoči prepoznavanje morebitnega de-

janskega problema, ki se izrisuje pred nami. Ali kot je zastavil Potter, šele

takrat lahko začnemo razmišljati o tem, kaj je sploh tisto, kar naj bi delali.

Tony Fry – kot dopolnilo Potterju – izpostavi tri stvari, na katere je pred

vsakim načrtovanjem izdelka ali storitve treba odgovoriti: naravo izdelka/

storitve, način, kako izdelek/storitev uporabljamo, in namen izdelka/

storitve.13 Pred oblikovalce torej postavi izdelek/storitev in kontekst.

Slednje spomni na Christopherja Alexandra, ki v delu Synthesis of

12 opisano stanje velja za slovenijo. V tujini na vseh naštetih področjih poznamo številne odlične primere

storitvenega oblikovanja.

13 Fry v besedilu govori o stavbi. Menim, da je napotek mogoče brati širše, zato sem vsebino prenesla na

področje izdelka/storitve. V: Fry, Design Futuring, str. 188.

26

13 see Fry, Design Futuring, p. 188. Although Fry is writing about buildings, I believe his advice can be taken

more broadly; for this reason, I am applying his idea to products and services.

14 christopher Alexander, Notes on the Synthesis of Form, Harvard university Press, cambridge, Mass., 1964, p. 15.

15 Ibid., pp. 18–19.

16 In Civilization and Its Discontents, sigmund Freud discusses the consequences of cultural progress. Every

advance is followed by having to address the problems generated by this very same advance. Freud describes

this phenomenon with the example: “If travelling across the ocean by ship had not been introduced, my friend

would not have embarked on his sea-voyage and I should not need a cable to relieve my anxiety about him.”

(Civilization and Its Discontents, W. W. Norton, New York 1962, p. 55.) From this it follows that, although we seek

pleasure through advances in human culture, progress has not, in Freud’s view brought human happiness (p.

38). or as he tells us in the very title of his work, when we chase after pleasure in the development of culture,

we at the same time always generate new discontentments. By building our culture we find ourselves in a

situation which, according to Freud, serves a dual purpose. on the one hand, culture protects humankind from

nature, while, on the other, it organizes people’s relations among themselves (p. 55). By building and creating

an artificial environment that gives protection to the community, we at the same time, in the very construction

of our environment, generate new tensions in society. To put it differently, through our progressive and creative

culture we generate new problems for ourselves.

use the product/service, and what the product/service is used for.13 The

product/service and its context are in this way set out in front of design-

ers. This idea recalls christopher Alexander, who in his book Synthesis

of Form, described the design problem as “an effort to achieve fitness

between two entities: the form in question and its context. The form is the

solution to the problem; the context defines the problem.”14 He goes on to

explain his idea more fully: “The form is a part of the world over which we

have control, and which we decide to shape while leaving the rest of the

world as it is. The context is the part of the world which puts demands on

this form; anything in the world that makes demands of the form is con-

text.”15 of course, we need to be aware that, with the appearance of the

new form that is created under our control, the world changes. The new

form becomes part of a new, altered context, which, therefore, presents

us (possibly) with a new (unforeseen) problem. To put it another way, the

newly designed product or service becomes part of the broader social

structure. As such, it may (possibly) solve the problems we have identi-

fied, but it may also (possibly) create new ones.16

To avoid this situation, we need to keep returning to Potter’s idea about

what it is we are doing (what is the actual problem we should be solving?)

and to Fry’s advice: to ask about the nature of the service or product and

to think about how and why we use it. oscar Wilde, in his essay “Art and

the Handicraftsman”, makes exactly this point: “It is, no doubt, a great

advantage to talk to a man at the Antipodes through a telephone; its

27

Form oblikovalski problem opiše kot »poskus, da bi dosegel skladnost

dveh entitet: iskano obliko in njen kontekst. Oblika je rešitev prob-

lema; kontekst problem definira.«14 Slednje v nadaljevanju še dodatno

razloži: »Oblika je del sveta, ki ga nadziramo in ga zavestno oblikujemo,

medtem ko je ostali svet tak, kot je. Kontekst je del tistega sveta, ki

obliki postavlja zahteve; vse, kar na svetu obliki postavlja zahteve, je

kontekst.«15 Seveda pa je treba vedeti, da se z nastopom nove oblike,

ki nastane pod našim nadzorom, svet spremeni. Nova oblika postane

del novega, spremenjenega konteksta, ki posledično (lahko) pred nas

postavi nov (nepredviden) problem. Povedano drugače: na novo ob-

likovan izdelek ali storitev postane del širšega družbenega ustroja. Kot

tak(a) (lahko) določene probleme rešuje, hkrati pa (lahko) tudi ustvarja

nove probleme.16

Da se lahko izognemo opisani situaciji, se moramo vsakič znova vrniti

k Potterjevemu razmisleku o tem, kaj sploh počnemo (kaj je tisti de-

janski problem, ki naj bi ga reševali), in k Fryevim napotkom: nujnosti

izpraševanja o naravi storitve/izdelka in razmisleku o tem, kako in zakaj

storitev/izdelek uporabljamo. Oscar Wilde v besedilu Art and the Handi-

craftsman izpostavi prav slednje: »Nobenega dvoma ni, da je možnost

telefonskega pogovora s prebivalcem južne poloble izjemna prednost,

toda prednost v celoti temelji na tem, kaj si imata sogovornika povedati.

Udeleženca pogovora nimata nobene koristi od izuma, če prvi le vreščeče

kleveta, drugi pa šepeče neumnosti v slušalko.«17

14 christopher Alexander, Notes on the Synthesis of Form, Harvard university Press, cambridge (MA) 1964, str. 15.

15 Ibid., str. 18–19.

16 sigmund Freud v besedilu Nelagodje v kulturi izpostavi posledice tako imenovanega napredka v kulturi. Z

vsakim napredkom sledi odpravljanje problemov, ki jih ta isti napredek generira s svojim nastankom. Freud slednje

opiše s primerom: »Če ne bi vpeljali plovbe prek oceana, prijatelj ne bi šel na pot prek morja in jaz ne bi potreboval

telegrafa, da bi pomiril svojo skrb zanj.« (V: sigmund Freud, Nelagodje v kulturi, gyrus, Ljubljana 2001, str. 37.) Iz

česar sledi: čeprav z napredkom v kulturi iščemo ugodje, nam napredek – po Freudu – ne prinaša človekove sreče

(ibid., str. 38). Ali kot nam pove že z naslovom, z lovljenjem ugodja v razvoju kulture hkrati generiramo vedno novo

nelagodje. Z izgradnjo kulture se znajdemo v situaciji, ki po Freudu služi dvojnemu namenu. Po eni strani kultura

ščiti človeka pred naravo, hkrati pa ureja medsebojne odnose med ljudmi (ibid.). s tem ko gradimo, ustvarjamo

umetno okolje, ki skupnosti daje zaščito, hkrati pa prav z izgradnjo okolja generiramo dodatne napetosti v družbi.

Povedano drugače, nove probleme generiramo prav z našo napredno in ustvarjalno kulturo.

17 oscar Wilde, »Art and the Handicraftsman«, Essays and Lectures, The Echo Library, cirencester 2005, str.

68–69.

28

17 oscar Wilde, “Art and the Handicraftsman”, Essays and Lectures, Echo Library, cirencester, uk, 2005,

pp. 68–69.

18 Ibid., p. 69.

advantage depends entirely on the value of what the two men have to say

to one another. If one merely shrieks slander through a tube and the other

whispers folly into a wire, do not think that anybody is very much benefited

by the invention.”17

Besides underscoring the need to ask questions about benefit, Wilde also

makes another extremely important point: no matter how pleasant an

event might be – such as a holiday or trip – in the end we will remember

it mainly for the negative things that happened while using some service.

As Wilde writes, we’ll remember being cheated in Rome and getting a bad

dinner in Verona.18 These, at first glance incidental, details are what in the

end construct the service – construct our relationship to the service and

our memory both of the service itself and of our experience as a whole, of

the broader event. And this is key. While the service is constructed from a

basic premise, our opinion about it ultimately depends on all the details

that accompany us on the journey of receiving or providing the service.

Here too we discover why it is we enjoy returning to a given service, use

it regularly, and, most importantly, participate in the service without any

feeling of being trapped – in other words, without feeling as though we are

returning to it only because we have no other choice.

A CONCRETE EXAMPLE

given what has been said, the feeling of being trapped is the worst pos-

sible thing you can leave someone with when performing or providing a

service. In such cases, the service provider constantly risks losing un-

happy customers the moment any alternative appears on the scene. This

is a problem even with providers who don’t have to worry about competi-

tion (for instance, government offices that issue official documents such

as ID cards, passports, etc.). The irritation and stress on the part of users

or employees (or even worse, on both sides) created by complications and

misunderstandings only prolong the unpleasant experience unnecessarily.

29

Poleg nujnosti izpraševanja o koristnosti pa Wilde opozori še na eno

izredno pomembno zadevo: dogodek še tako prijetnega značaja –

počitnice, potovanje – si bomo na koncu najbolj zapomnili po negativnih

pripetljajih med uporabo storitve. Zapomnili si jih bomo, kot zapiše Wilde,

po tem, da so te ogoljufali v Rimu in ti postregli slabo večerjo v Veroni.18

Prav ti, na prvi pogled obrobni detajli na koncu gradijo storitev, gradijo naš

odnos do storitve in naš spomin tako na storitev kot tudi na bivanje, širše

dogajanje. To pa je ključno. Storitev sicer gradi osnovna premisa, toda

naše mnenje o njej je v končni fazi odvisno od vseh detajlov, ki nas na poti

sprejemanja ali dajanja storitve spremljajo. V tem se skriva tudi razlog, da

se k določeni storitvi z veseljem vračamo, jo redno uporabljamo in – kar je

najpomembnejše – da v storitvi sodelujemo brez občutka ujetosti; da se

torej k njej ne vračamo zato, ker nimamo druge možnosti.

KONKRETIZIRAJMO NA PRIMERU

Občutek ujetosti je, glede na vse povedano, najslabša možna popotnica

pri izvajanju in zagotavljanju storitve. Ponudnik storitve nenehno tvega,

da bo ob pojavu kakršnekoli alternative nezadovoljne uporabnike izgubil.

Problematičen je tudi v primeru, ko se ponudniku ni treba bati konkurenčne

alternative (na primer pri izdajanju uradnih listin – osebnih izkaznic, potnih

listov itd.). Slaba volja in stres, ki se zaradi komplikacij in nerazumevanja

pojavljata med uporabniki ali med zaposlenimi (ali, še slabše, na obeh

straneh), po nepotrebnem podaljšujeta neprijetno izkušnjo.

Da pričujoče besedilo ne bi ostalo zgolj na ravni abstrakcije, sem si za

kratko študijo primera izbrala Ljubljanski potniški promet (v nadaljevanju

LPP). Slednjega sem izbrala zato, ker je skupna lastnost precejšnjega

števila potnikov ljubljanskih mestnih avtobusov omenjeni občutek

ujetosti.19 Zaradi vedno večjega števila cenovno dosegljivih alternativ

18 Ibid., str. 69.

19 slednje smo lahko izvedeli na simpoziju Oblikovanje doživetij: Procesi storitvenega oblikovanja, na zaključni

okrogli mizi 2. oktobra 2012. organizatorji simpozija so bili: Regionalna razvojna agencija Ljubljanske urbane

regije (RRA LuR), Muzej za arhitekturo in oblikovanje (MAo) in urad Republike slovenije za intelektualno lastnino

(uIL). kot predstavnik LPP-ja je na okrogli mizi sodeloval jošt Šmajdek, vodja prometno-komercialne službe v

LPP. Vir: www.rralur.si/aktualni-projekti/ccalps/dogodki/simpozij (februar 2013).

30

19 Ljubljanski potniški promet – literally, Ljubljana passenger transit.

20 This issue was mentioned at the concluding roundtable of the symposium “Designing Experiences: Pro-

cesses in service Design” in Ljubljana, 2 oct. 2010. The roundtable included a representative from the LPP, jošt

Šmajdek, the director of the company’s transit-sales office. The symposium was organized by the Regional

Development Agency of the Ljubljana urban Region, the Museum of Architecture and Design, and the slovene

Intellectual Property office. Reports and videos from the symposium can be found on the agency’s website (in

slovene only): www.rralur.si/aktualni-projekti/ccalps/dogodki/simpozij (accessed February 2013).

21 As the newspaper Delo reported, “The number of rides taken by passengers on the LPP fell last year [2012]

for the first time to under 40 million. They totalled 39.4 million, which is 4 percent less than in 2011 and 6.5

percent less than in 2010.” (Maša jesenšek, “Padanje uporabe javnega prevoza se nadaljuje” [The decline in

the use of public transport continues], Delo, 7 February 2013, www.delo.si/arhiv/padanje-uporabe-javnega-

prevoza-se-nadaljuje.html (accessed February 2013). The drop in the number of rides in the summer months

was undoubtedly caused in part by Ljubljana’s new public programme of inexpensive bike rentals, Bicikelj, which

became available in May 2011 and has since attracted nearly 41 thousand users (Alma M. sedlar, “Vandali

Biceklj puščajo pri miru” [Vandals leave Bicikelj alone], Planet Siol.net, 16 February 2013, www.siol.net/novice/

slovenija/2013/02/vandali_bicikelj_puscajo_pri_miru.aspx [accessed February 2013]).

Not wanting the present text to remain merely on the level of abstraction,

I have chosen the example of the Ljubljana public transit system – known

by its slovene acronym as the LPP19 – to serve as a short case study.

I chose it because many of the riders on Ljubljana’s city buses share this

feeling of being trapped.20 Due to the ever-growing number of cheap

alternatives for getting around town, the number of rides on LPP buses

has been falling from year to year.21 Nevertheless, the municipality’s tran-

sit policy foresees a growth in bus users from 13 percent today to 33 per-

cent in the next six years. I will admit that, before we began our seminar

on service and information design at the Academy of Fine Art and Design

in Ljubljana, I didn’t have the best opinion about riding the city buses. My

ideas were based on memories. When I was a student at the secondary

school for Design, I had to catch the no. 20 bus every morning at 6:36.

Proving Wilde’s point, four things – all negative – have remained in my

memory from that experience: the crowdedness, the hard wooden seats,

too many people with colds in the winter, and the unpleasant smells in

the summer. I could hardly wait to turn eighteen so I could get my driver’s

licence and buy a car with the money I’d saved up. of course, I still

find myself taking the bus a few times a year, but it’s always because

circumstances force me to rather than because I see the bus service

as the best alternative.

Despite my dismissive attitudes about the LPP, when I was studying

design I was nevertheless inspired by various projects dealing with public

31

število voženj iz leta v leto pada,20 kljub temu pa prometna politika MOL

predvideva porast števila uporabnikov s sedanjih 13 odstotkov na 33

v naslednjih šestih letih. Priznam, o vožnji z mestnim avtobusom pred

seminarjem storitvenega in informacijskega oblikovanja nisem imela

najboljšega mnenja. Večinoma je temeljilo na spominih. V času obisko-

vanja Srednje šole za oblikovanje sem namreč vsako jutro ob 6:36 lovila

dvajsetko. V skladu z Wildovimi ugotovitvami so mi od takrat v spominu

ostale tri – izključno negativne – stvari: gneča, trdi leseni sedeži ter

preveč prehlajenih ljudi pozimi ali neprijetne vonjave poleti. Posledično

sem komaj čakala, da dopolnim osemnajst let, opravim vozniški izpit in si

s privarčevanim denarjem kupim avto. Seveda sem se nekajkrat na leto še

zmeraj znašla na avtobusu, toda vedno bolj po sili razmer kot pa zato, ker

bi v storitvi prepoznala boljšo alternativo.

Kljub precej omalovažujočemu odnosu do storitev LPP-ja pa so me v

času študija oblikovanja navduševali različni projekti reševanja javnega

prevoza. Med njimi je izstopalo delo arhitekta Jaimeja Lernerja, nekdan-

jega župana brazilskega mesta Curitiba in v tistem času (druga polovica

devetdestih 20. stoletja) guvernerja zvezne države Paraná. Njegov sistem,

še danes znan pod kratico BRT (bus rapid transit; avtobusni hitri tranzit),

je v Curitibi dobesedno revitaliziral javni prevoz. To je dosegel s poseb-

nimi, zgolj avtobusu namenjenimi cestnimi pasovi, s posebej za Curitibo

načrtovanimi avtobusi, ki lahko naenkrat prevažajo več kot 200 potnikov,

in s premišljenimi avtobusnimi postajami, ki so v avtobusni sistem vpel-

jale rešitve iz podzemne železnice (npr. validiranje pred vstopom na av-

tobus). Vsi ti in še številni drugi koraki so bili praktični prikaz učinkovitega

razmišljanja; praktični prikaz tistega, kar bi danes označili z besedno

zvezo storitveno oblikovanje. Lerner si je kot eden prvih županov že v

sedemdesetih letih dvajsetega stoletja upal v teoriji in praksi pokazati, da

mora biti avtomobil podrejen prebivalcem mesta. Na enem svojih številnih

predavanj je dejal: avtomobil je zahteven egoist, vedno znova zahteva

20 kot navaja Maša jesenšek, je »lani [število voženj] prvič padlo pod 40 milijonov. Našteli so jih 39,4 milijona,

kar je štiri odstotke manj kot leta 2011 in 6,5 odstotka manj kot leta 2010.« V: Maša jesenšek, »Padanje

uporabe javnega prevoza se nadaljuje«, Delo, 7. 2. 2013, www.delo.si/arhiv/padanje-uporabe-javnega-prevoza-

se-nadaljuje.html, februar 2013. Določen upad števila voženj je v poletnih mesecih nedvomno povzročila tudi

nova ljubljanska pridobitev Bicikelj, ki je v Ljubljani na voljo od maja 2011 in je od takrat pritegnila skoraj 41.000

uporabnikov. Vir: www.siol.net/novice/slovenija/2013/02/vandali_bicikelj_puscajo_pri_miru.aspx (februar 2013).

32

22 jaime Lerner, “jaime Lerner sings of the city”, TED Talks, March 2007, www.ted.com/talks/jaime_lerner_

sings_of_the_city.html (accessed February 2013).

transport. one that especially stood out was the work of the architect

jaime Lerner, the former mayor of curitiba, Brazil, and at the time (the

second half of the 1990s) the governor of the state of Paraná. The system

he developed, today known as bus rapid transit (BRT), literally revitalized

public transport in curitiba. This he achieved with special bus-only lanes,

buses specially designed for curitiba that could carry up to two hundred

passengers, and well-conceived bus stops that brought ideas from metro

systems to the bus system (e.g. validating your ticket before you get on).

All these measures, as well as many others, were a practical display of

effective thinking – and, indeed, what today we would call “service design”.

Even in the 1970s, Lerner was one of the first mayors who had the cour-

age to show, in both theory and practice, that cars must be subordinate to

the needs of city residents. In one of the many talks he has given, he said:

“[The automobile is] very egotistical: he carries only one or two people and

he asks always for more infrastructure.” He compared the car to an an-

noying guest at a party: “He never wants to leave. … And he drinks a lot.”22

This last point, alluding to the high cost of car ownership, I had the oppor-

tunity to experience in practice (quite unexpectedly) during preparations

for the recent service-design workshop, exhibition, and book (which you’re

currently reading). In 2012, because I own a car, I had to deal with the

unlawful usurpation of the common parking area in front of the apartment

building I live in. since the day it was appropriated, the lack of parking

spaces in front of the building has become acute (for comparison: it’s

easier for me to find a parking space in the heart of Ljubljana than it is in

a bedroom community on the city margins). Also, in the worst possible

heat of summer, the air conditioning in my five-year-old car broke down.

I had to go through three mechanics before the problem was finally fixed

(and of course they all were happy to charge me for the repairs). And then

when the first snow fell last year, my fellow citizens carted off all four of

my winter tyres overnight, hubcaps included. I found the car literally sit-

ting on top of bricks. Finally, four days before the new year, white smoke

started billowing from the car. so I was without a car for the next fourteen

days. Next to these things, the fact that petrol prices are going up almost

33

novo infrastrukturo, hkrati pa največkrat prevaža le eno osebo.

Je eden tistih nadležnih gostov na zabavi, ki nočejo oditi domov, hkrati pa

še ogromno popijejo.21

Slednje, visok strošek posedovanja lastnega avtomobila, sem v praksi –

povsem nenadejano – imela možnost izkusiti prav v času priprav na

delavnico, razstavo in knjigo, ki jo ta hip berete. V letu 2012 sem se zaradi

posedovanja pet let starega avtomobila morala ukvarjati z nelegalno

uzurpacijo skupnega parkirnega prostora pred blokom, v katerem živim.

Z dnem prisvojitve je pomanjkanje prostih parkirnih mest pred domom

postalo akutno (za primerjavo: v najožjem centru Ljubljane je lažje

najti prosto parkirno mesto kot v spalnem naselju na obrobju mesta).

V največji poletni vročini se je v avtomobilu pokvarila klima. Zamenjati

sem morala tri avtomehanike, preden je bila napaka uspešno odprav-

ljena (seveda so mi vsi veselo zaračunali servis). V noči, ko je v lanskem

letu prvič zapadel sneg, so mi someščani odnesli vse štiri stare zimske

pnevmatike – s platišči vred. Avtomobil me je dobesedno pričakal na

opekah. Za zaključek pa se je štiri dni pred novim letom iz avta začel valiti

bel dim. Posledično sem bila brez avtomobila naslednjih 14 dni. Ob vsem

naštetem zveni dejstvo, da je gorivo v Sloveniji skoraj vsaka dva tedna

dražje,22 kot zanemarljiv detajl, Lernerjev opis avtomobila pa kot dobro-

nameren evfemizem.

Vsi našteti pripetljaji so me prisilili k ponovni redni uporabi avtobusa. Ne-

prostovoljno uporabo storitve sem izkoristila za študijo delovanja sistema,

ki je temeljila na opazovanju uporabnikov ljubljanskih mestnih avtobusov.

Sledile so tudi izčrpnejše terenske analize s strani študentov in študentk

oblikovanja Akademije za likovno umetnost in oblikovanje Univerze v

Ljubljani,23 na katere se v nadaljevanju besedila tudi delno naslanjam.

21 jaime Lerner, Jaime Lerner sings of the city, www.ted.com/talks/jaime_lerner_sings_of_the_city.html

(februar 2013).

22 »cene naftnih derivatov (motorni bencini, dizelsko gorivo in kurilno olje ekstra lahko) se oblikujejo na osnovi

določil uredbe o oblikovanju cen naftnih derivatov (ur. l. Rs, št. 76/12). V skladu z uredbo se cene naftnih

derivatov spreminjajo vsakih 14 dni.« od 1. 1. 2007 je cena neosvinčenega motornega bencina (95-oktan-

skega) z 0,971 EuR/liter zrasla na 1,549 EuR/liter. Vir: www.mgrt.gov.si/si/delovna_podrocja/notranji_trg/sek-

tor_za_preskrbo_nadzor_cen_in_trgovino/cene_naftnih_derivatov (februar 2013).

23 Analize so opravili: Benjamin Beci, Dea Biličič, urška kadunc in Vesna skornšek (vsi študenti in študentke

oblikovanja na ALuo).

34

every other week in slovenia sounds like a trivial detail23 and Lerner’s

description of cars as heavy drinkers seems like a friendly euphemism.

All these occurrences forced me to go back to regularly taking the bus.

I used my involuntary experience of the service to make a study of how

the system worked based on my observation of other users of the city

buses. Later, more exhaustive field analyses of the system were made

by four of my design students at the Academy of Fine Art and Design of

the university of Ljubljana;24 in the discussion that follows I will be relying

partly on their work as well. In the light of my new discoveries, the stereo-

typed and superficial view I had had of the service quickly faded. The idea

expressed in the title of this essay – that it is foolish to make judgements

solely on the basis of past personal experiences and unverified informa-

tion – was now confirmed in practice. And it’s no less a mistake to persist

in a self-centred attitude about receiving a service. such as: The bus stop

must be in front of my building. When I get to the bus stop, the bus should

arrive the very next minute. of course if I’m late, it should stay there while

I run up to it. once I’m on the bus, there must be an empty seat waiting for

me – even better, two. once I’m seated, the bus should take me to where

I’m going with as few stops and as little waiting as possible. During the

ride, I need the fastest possible wireless Internet connection. And since I’ll

be very busy browsing the Web, it would be nice if someone could kindly

let me know when we were approaching my stop. And so on.

The nature of service design requires us to look at the service from the

perspective of all the stakeholders, whether they are actively or passively

involved in the service. We can only understand the complexity of the ser-

vice when we have put on the glasses of the bus driver, for instance, or try

to see things through the eyes of the person waiting at the next stop:25 the

23 “The prices of oil derivatives (automotive petroleum fuels, diesel fuel, and extra light heating oil) are formed

on the basis of stipulations in the Regulation on Forming the Prices of oil Derivatives (Ur. l. RS, no. 76/12). In

accordance with the regulation, the prices of oil derivatives change every fourteen days.” (slovene Ministry of

Economic Development and Technology, “The Prices of oil Derivatives”, www.mgrt.gov.si/si/delovna_podrocja/

notranji_trg/sektor_za_preskrbo_nadzor_cen_in_trgovino/cene_naftnih_derivatov [accessed February 2013]).

According to Ministry data, the price of unleaded petroleum (95 octane) rose from €0,971 on 1 jan. 2007 to

€1.549 on 19 Feb. 2013.

24 Benjamin Beci, Dea Biličič, urška kadunc and Vesna skornšek.

25 There are a number of different kinds of stakeholders in the LPP’s service. For my example, I am focusing on

the most obvious ones.

35

Moje stereotipno in površno gledanje na ponujeno storitev je po zaslugi

novih dognanj kaj hitro zbledelo. V praksi se je potrdila misel iz naslova,

kako nespametno je soditi le na podlagi preteklih osebnih izkušenj in

nepreverjenih informacij. Prav tako napačno je vztrajanje pri egoistični

drži dojemanja storitve. Saj veste: postaja mora stati pred mojim domom.

Ko stopim na postajo, mora avtobus priti v naslednji minuti. Če zamu-

jam, me mora seveda počakati, da pritečem do njega. Na avtobusu me

mora čakati prost sedež, še bolje dva. Ko enkrat sedim, naj seveda s

čim manj ustavljanja in čakanja pripelje do moje izstopne postaje. Med

vožnjo potrebujem najhitrejši brezžični internet. Ker bom z brskanjem po

spletu zelo zasedena, bi bilo lepo, če bi me nekdo prijazno opomnil, da se

približuje moja postaja. In tako naprej.

Narava storitvenega oblikovanja nas sili, da na storitev pogledamo s

strani vseh deležnikov, bodisi aktivno bodisi pasivno vpletenih v storitev.

Kompleksnost storitve lahko dojamemo šele, ko si nataknemo očala

voznika ali poskušamo gledati skozi oči nekoga, ki čaka na naslednji

postaji24: voznik avtobusa nenehno lovi vozni red, po katerem se ori-

entira precejšnje število ljudi, hkrati pa je vpet v promet, ki je velikokrat

nepredvidljiv.25 Številni uporabniki, ki čakajo na naslednji postaji, ne

bodo niti najmanj zadovoljni, če bo avtobus zamujal (pa četudi bi jim

dali vedeti, da je zamuda posledica čakanja na zamudnike na prejšnjih

postajah). Vsak prebivalec Ljubljane je od najbližje avtobusne postaje

oddaljen največ 500 metrov. To seveda pomeni, da je po mestu razpore-

jenih več kot 700 postajališč. Številnost postajališč narekuje število

postankov, končno hitrost in čas, ki ga avtobus porabi od začetne do

končne postaje. Tudi če bi bilo postajališč manj, bi avtobus le stežka

presegel povprečno hitrost 30 km/h. Pri višjih hitrostih bi namreč težko

zagotovili varnost stoječih potnikov. Gre torej za kompleksen storitveni

sistem, v katerem več kot očitno velja misel danskega oblikovalca

Pera Mollerupa, da je »cena za udobje določene osebe [...] neudobje

24 Deležnikov je v storitvi LPP več. Za prikaz se osredotočam le na najočitnejše.

25 kot smo še lahko izvedeli na okrogli mizi simpozija Oblikovanje doživetij: Procesi storitvenega oblikovanja

2. oktobra 2012, je zaradi vseh nihanj, ki se dogajajo v prometu skozi dan, zgolj na liniji 6 dvaindvajset različnih

voznih časov. Po besedah Šmajdeka se lahko vozni čas zamenja v pičlih treh minutah, saj se promet v Ljubljani

lahko tako hitro zgosti. In naloga LPP-ja je, da kljub tem spremenljivkam zagotavlja približno enako kakovostno

raven storitve skozi ves dan. Vir: www.rralur.si/aktualni-projekti/ccalps/dogodki/simpozij (februar 2013).

36

26 As we also learned at the roundtable at the “Designing Experiences” symposium (see n20), daily fluctua-

tions in traffic mean that on the no. 6 bus line alone there are twenty-two different driving times. According to

LPP representative jošt Šmajdek, the driving time might change in a mere three minutes, since Ljubljana traf-

fic can so quickly become congested. The task of the LPP is to ensure approximately the same level of quality

throughout the day despite such variables.

27 Per Mollerup, “simply Put”, in Barbara Predan and cvetka Požar, eds., Sustainable alternatives in design: It’s

high time we start losing time, Architecture Museum of Ljubljana and Pekinpah Association, Ljubljana 2009,

p. 116.

bus driver is always trying to keep to the timetable, which a great number

of people use to organize their time, while at the same time he has to deal

with often unpredictable road traffic,26 while numerous bus users wait-

ing at the next stops won’t be at all happy if the bus is late (even if you

told them the delay was caused by waiting for late riders at the previous

stops). No-one in Ljubljana lives more than five hundred metres away

from the nearest bus stop. This means, of course, that there are more

than seven hundred stops distributed around the city. This large number

of bus stops is dictated by the total amount of stops a bus can make, its

maximum speed, and the time it needs from the first to the last stop.

Even with fewer bus stops, it would be hard for a bus to exceed an average

speed of 30 km/h, since it would be difficult at higher speeds to ensure

the safety of standing passengers. We are talking, then, about a com-

plex service system that clearly illustrates the truth of Danish designer

Per Mollerup’s statement: “The price of one person’s comfort is another

person’s discomfort.”27 It is the task of service and information design,

then, to discover, design, and plan the best possible balance between all

stakeholders in the service and at the same time to demonstrate why,

for instance, it pays to be at the bus stop at least a minute before the

scheduled arrival of the bus; why parking your car at a bus stop (even if

you’re just “stopping for a minute to buy cigarettes at the newsstand”)

hinders traffic and compromises the safety of riders getting on and off

the bus; why passengers moving towards the rear of the bus provides a

better use of space and a more comfortable ride for everyone; and so on.

Even a quick rough analysis, then, confirms what I wrote in the first sec-

tion, namely, that when planning or redesigning a service we can expect

good results only when we are very familiar with the perspectives of the

different stakeholders in the service process and only when we have close

cooperation of a large number of these stakeholders.

37

druge«.26 Naloga storitvenega in informacijskega oblikovanja pa je, da

poišče, oblikuje in načrtuje najboljše ravnovesje vseh deležnikov v storitvi

ter hkrati prikaže, zakaj se na primer splača priti na avtobusno postajo

vsaj eno minuto pred predvidenim prihodom avtobusa, zakaj parkiranje

na postajališčih (pa četudi gre za kratkotrajen, saj-sem-skočil-le-po-

cigarete-v-trafiko postanek) ovira promet in varno vstopanje/izstopanje

potnikov iz avtobusa, zakaj pomikanje potnikov proti zadnjim vratom

omogoča boljši izkoristek prostora in udobnejšo vožnjo za vse. Že s hitro

pavšalno analizo je torej mogoče potrditi v prvem delu zapisano trditev,

da lahko pri snovanju ali preoblikovanju storitve pričakujemo zadovoljive

rezultate le ob dobrem poznavanju vidikov posameznih deležnikov v pro-

cesu storitve in ob čim tesnejšem sodelovanju večjega števila deležnikov.

Hkrati pa je na novo pridobljena osebna izkušnja redne vožnje z avtobu-

som precej hitro pokazala, da se je storitev od mojih srednješolskih dni

konkretno izboljšala. Uvedena je bila kartica Urbana;27 za različne skupine

funkcionalno oviranih uporabnikov je na voljo storitev Prevoz na klic;28 do-

datna alternativa v ožjem mestnem jedru sta električni vozili Kavalir; dobra

pridobitev za uporabnike je napoved prihodov avtobusov, tako prek zaslonov

na avtobusnih postajah kot prek različnih spletnih in mobilnih aplikacij.

Seveda pa je še kar nekaj stvari, ki bi se jih dalo izboljšati. Eurotest

javnega transporta iz leta 2010 izpostavlja, da storitev ni na voljo 24

ur; da so zunanje povezave počasnejše od evropskega povprečja; da ni

na voljo enodnevne ali večdnevne vozovnice; da so večje postaje precej

kaotične; da so ekrani na avtobusu namenjeni oglaševanju, medtem

ko ni na avtobusu skoraj nič informacij o potovanju itd.29 Podrobnejše

26 Per Mollerup, »Enostavnost«, v Trajnostne alternative v oblikovanju. Skrajni čas, da začnemo izgubljati čas,

(ur.) Barbara Predan in cvetka Požar, AML in Pekinpah, Ljubljana 2009, str. 110.

27 kartica omogoča 90-minutno brezplačno prestopanje od začetne validacije na avtobusu; z njo je mogoče

plačati v parkirnih hišah, garažah, na parkomatih, ali pa si v Mestni knjižnici Ljubljana izposoditi knjigo, če

naštejem le nekaj prednosti.

28 Po besedah predstavnika LPP-ja storitev ni prav dobro zaživela. Po njihovih besedah skupine funkcional-

no oviranih uporabnikov raje še naprej izkoriščajo sisteme, ki so jih vzpostavili v lastni skupnosti. Podatek

pridobljen na sestanku 12. 2. 2013 na LPP-ju. sprejela sta nas (skupino študentov in mentorjev z ALuo) vodja

prometno-komercialne službe v LPP jošt Šmajdek in svetovalka za komunikacije Tamara Deu.

29 www.eurotestmobility.com/eurotest.php?itemno=346 (februar 2013). kar nekaj negativnih točk, ki jih

Eurotest še navaja, so na LPP-ju v tem času že odpravili. V besedilu navajam tiste, ki po mojem vedenju v času

pisanja tega besedila še niso odpravljene.

38

28 The urbana card allows you to changes buses for free for ninety minutes after the card has been validated

on the bus. You can also use it for paying in public parking lots and garages and at parking meters, as well as

for borrowing books from municipal libraries, to mention only a few of its advantages.

29 According to LPP representatives, the service has not really taken off. In their view, people with functional

disabilities still prefer to use the systems established by their own communities. (This information comes from

a meeting with jošt Šmajdek, director of the LPP’s transit-sales office, and Tamara Deu, LPP communications

consultant, attended by students and tutors from the Academy of Fine Arts and Design at the LPP offices in

Ljubljana, 12 Feb. 2013.)

30 Meaning “gentleman” or, historically, “knight”.

31 EuroTest 2010, city Dossier on Ljubljana, www.eurotestmobility.com/images/filelib/Ljubljana_2470.pdf

(accessed April 2013). A number of the negative points listed in the EuroTest 2010 report have since been ad-

dressed by the LPP. Here I mention only points that to my knowledge have not yet been addressed.

At the same time, my new personal experience with riding the bus

on a regular basis very quickly showed me that the service had sub-

stantially improved since my schooldays. The urbana smart card had

been introduced;28 the new “call for a Ride” service was available for

different groups of functionally impaired users;29 two electric buggies

(christened “kavalir”30) offered a new alternative for getting around the

city centre; and bus arrivals were now announced to users both through

display screens at bus stops and various Web and mobile phone

applications.

of course there are quite a few other things that still need improvement.

The EuroTest 2010 report, which looked at the public transit systems of

twenty-three major European cities, noted a number of problems with

the Ljubljana system: among other things, there was no twenty-four-hour

service provided; outer city connections were slower than the European

average; there were no day tickets or multi-day tickets available; the

major bus stops were often chaotic; while the display screens on buses

were intended for advertising, there was almost no information about the

bus trip itself; etc.31 closer observation soon reveals additional shortcom-

ings that can make taking the bus rather unpleasant: the route maps

on the buses are hard-to-read or almost unreadable (they are too small

and placed at too great a height); it’s too hot inside the buses in winter

(someone forgot that we don’t take our coats off on buses); many bus

stops are only partly cleared of snow (when exiting from the rear, we are

often forced to step down into snow or slush); although it is good that

parents with strollers and functionally impaired riders can enter through

different doors, the validation boxes are placed only at the front (so they

39

opazovanje nam hitro razkrije dodatne pomanjkljivosti, ki lahko naredijo

vožnjo na avtobusu precej neprijetno, in sicer: slabo ali skoraj neberljiva

shema linij na avtobusih (zaradi majhnosti in nameščenosti na preveliki

višini); pretirano gretje pozimi (neupoštevanje dejstva, da na avtobusu

ne slečemo zgornjih oblačil); le delno očiščene postaje v primeru

snega (ob izstopu pri zadnjih vratih smo dostikrat prisiljeni stopiti v

kup snega ali plundro); potniki in potnice z otroškimi vozički in funkcio-

nalno ovirani sicer lahko vstopijo pri drugih vratih, toda validatorja sta

nameščena le pri prvih vratih (potniki so tako prisiljeni prositi druge

potnike za pomoč pri validiranju ali držanju vozička)30; itd.

Ob vsem naštetem je največjega krivca za trenutno upadanje števila

voženj težko določiti.31 K spremembi32 bodo nedvomno prispevali

predvideni ukrepi omenjene prometne politike MOL: zapiranje centra in

zmanjševanje površin, namenjenih mirujočemu prometu, nova krožna

LPP-linija, povezovanje posameznih omrežij v enoten sistem itd. Za

uresničenje precej drznih načrtov (glede na trenutno situacijo) bo ver-

jetno treba odpraviti tudi vse prej naštete opažene pomanjkljivosti in se

soočiti z naslednjima izzivoma:

spremembe zakoreninjenega obnašanja: mestni promet je treba

predstaviti kot dobro alternativo avtomobilu, in ne kot nujno zlo, ki

smo ga prisiljeni uporabljati, ko sneži ali dežuje (po podatkih LPP-ja

v slabem vremenu uporaba mestnih avtobusov naraste za 20 %33);

prisilna uporaba namreč ustvarja negativni občutek ujetosti, kar

povzroča številne predsodke34 in negativne izkušnje (pridobljene npr.

ob slabem vremenu: gneča, zamude);

30 Po podatkih gospoda Šmajdeka bodo slednje pri večjem številu avtobusov v kratkem odpravili. Podatek

pridobljen na sestanku 12. 2. 2013 na LPP-ju.

31 glej opombo 20.

32 Po predlogu prometne politike MoL naj bi odstotek prebivalstva, ki uporablja avtobusne storitve, do leta

2015 zrasel z današnjih 13 % na 19 %, do leta 2020 pa celo na 33 %. Predlog prometne politike MoL, www.

ljubljana.si/si/zivljenje-v-ljubljani/promet-infrastruktura (februar 2013).

33 Podatek pridobljen na sestanku 12. 2. 2013 na LPP-ju.

34 Že po nekajminutnem pregledu spletnih člankov naletimo na številne negativne komentarje: »1,2 € da

se počutiš kot sardina v konzervi. super.« 420 (24ur.com); »Nesramnost voznikov, neudobna vožnja in še

podražitev na 1.20. Naj vas lep k... gleda grem raje s kolesom!!!« DirtTrials (MMc RTV); »Problem je samo v tem,

da je to [vožnja z avtobusom] najbolj tečnih 15–20 min v celem dnevu.« Allove (MMc RTV); »Veliko raje bi bil v

15. min. na drugem koncu mesta, kot pa da lahko srfam 40 min na avtobusu.« MatejP (MMc RTV); »A lahko že

-

40

32 According to jošt Šmajdek, this last problem will soon be fixed on many LPP buses. (From the meeting with

LPP representatives, 12 Feb. 2013.)

33 see n21.

34 According to the Transit Policy Proposal of the Municipality of Ljubljana (2012), the percentage of the city’s

population who use bus services should increase by 2015 to 19 percent (from today’s 13 percent) and by 2020

to as much as 33 percent. (The policy, in slovene, is available on the municipality’s website at www.ljubljana.si/

si/zivljenje-v-ljubljani/promet-infrastruktura [accessed February 2013]).

35 This information comes from the meeting with LPP representatives on 12 Feb. 2013.

36 A few minutes of browsing articles on the Web yields numerous negative comments about the LPP’s service:

“€1.20 to feel like a sardine in a can. great.” (“420”, 24ur.com.) “Rude drivers, uncomfortable rides, and now

a fare increase to 1.20. You can go f… yourselves, I’d rather use my bike!!!” (“DirtTrails”, MMC RTV.) “The only

problem is that this [the bus ride] is the most aggravating 15–20 min. in the whole day.” (“Allove”, MMC RTV.)

“I’d rather be at the other end of town in 15 min. than surfing on the bus for 40 min.” (“MatejP”, MMC RTV.)

“can’t you just stop once and for all with this stuff about public transport? We’re talking about a country of

20,000 sq. km. and 2 mil. inhabitants, whose capital city is no more than 300,000 souls. And at today’s pace

you expect people to take buses? We should ban cars altogether and starting tomorrow just walk everywhere.”

(“nepokorni”, MMC RTV.) “In Lj. you’d sooner walk than go by public transit. And that’s at normal times, let alone

rush hour. I’m not kidding, in all seriousness. so the only ones who take public transit are people who really have

no other choice.” (“pešhonda”, http://med.over.net/.) “Also this 50% increase for a ride on the LPP from €0.80

to €1.20 is totally wrong. If you live on the edge of Ljubljana, it works out better to go by car to do whatever

you need to do in the city, because if you take the bus you pay €2.40 to get there and back, which is clearly too

much. When the price was still 80 cents, it still sort of made sense to go by bus, but now it absolutely doesn’t

pay anymore. of course the best solution is the bicycle, but when it’s raining or in winter I’d rather take the car

because it’s still cheaper and clearly much faster than with these too pricey and too slow buses.” (.cis, MMC

RTV.) (Accessed February 2013).

are forced to ask others to help them validate their cards or to hold the

stroller for them);32 etc.

In light of all these things, the biggest reason for the current drop in bus

rides is hard to determine.33 undoubtedly, some of the measures foreseen

in the city’s transit policy will bring about change:34 closing the centre to

traffic and reducing the amount of road surface intended for idling traffic;

the new LPP ring route; connecting the different public transit networks

in a single system; and so on. To realize these rather bold plans (given the

current situation), it will probably be necessary to fix all the shortcomings

noted above and also address the following two challenges:

To change deep-rooted behaviours: The city transit system should be

presented as a good alternative to cars and not as a necessary evil we

are forced to use when it snows or rains (the use of city buses rises

by 20 percent in bad weather, according to LPP data35); forced use

creates the feeling of being trapped, which can lead to many biases36

and negative experiences (arising, for example, from the bad weather:

crowded buses, delays, etc.);

-

41

boljša predstavitev že obstoječih storitev obstoječim in potencialnim

uporabnikom; zgovoren je podatek, da kar 70 % predlogov, ki jih na

LPP-ju prejmejo s strani svojih uporabnikov, v praksi že izvajajo.35

Vse našteto so potencialna izhodišča za definiranje in potrjevanje prob-

lema ter iskanje rešitev s pomočjo storitvenih in informacijskih oblikoval-

cev in oblikovalk v tesni povezavi z vsemi deležniki, ki so vpeti v delovanje

in soustvarjanje storitve. Zadnje zagotavlja obvezno družbeno vpletenost

oblikovanja, vključenost širšega védenja in vedênja ter drugačen pogled

na ustaljene (dostikrat naključne) rešitve. Vse s ciljem oblikovanja rešitve,

ki ne bo le naključna rešitev problema, temveč bo način, orodje, znanje, ki

bo hkrati generiralo model, kako pristopati k iskanju rešitev v prihodnje.

Prav tako pa bo odgovor na naravo storitve, odgovor na zakaj in kako; bo

vrnitev k tistemu osnovnemu poslanstvu, ki oblikovalca postavlja v položaj

tistega, ki je sposoben reševati probleme. S pomembnim dodatkom

(nanj nas vsakič znova opominja metodologija storitvenega oblikovanja):

da lahko problem rešimo, ga moramo najprej prepoznati, definirati.

Izluščenje pravega problema je glavna in najtežja naloga vsakega ob-

likovalca. Napotek za to, da sploh začnemo, pa je jasen: potrebujemo

podatke.

enkrat nehate o teh javnih prevozih? Pogovarjamo se o deželi z 20.000 km2 in 2 mil. prebivalci, katere prestol-

nica ne presega 300.000 duš. In v današnjem ritmu pričakujete, da se bodo ljudje vozili z avtobusi? Najbolje, da

avtomobile kar prepovemo in od jutri dalje hodimo peš.« nepokorni (MMc RTV); »V Lj. si prej peš kot z javnim

prevozom. In to celo ob normalnih urah, kaj šele ob konicah. Pa se ne hecam, čist resno. Tako, da se z javnim

prevozom vozijo samo tisti, ki dejansko nimajo druge izbire.« pešhonda (http://med.over.net/) »Tudi 50 %

podražitev vožnje z lpp-jem z 0.8 € na 1.2 € je totalno napačna. Če živiš na obrobju Ljubljane, se preračunano

bolj splača z avtom kake opravke zrihtat v mestu, saj če greš z busom, daš samo za vožnjo tja pa nazaj 2,4 €,

kar je občutno preveč. ko je bla cena še 80 centov, se je še nekako izšlo it z busom, zdaj se absolutno več ne

splača. seveda je najboljša rešitev kolo, ampak v primeru dežja ali pa pozimi grem pa raje z avtom, ker je to še

vedno bolj poceni in občutno hitreje kot pa s predragimi in prepočasnimi busi.« .cis (MMc RTV), februar 2013.

35 Podatek pridobljen na sestanku 12. 2. 2013 na LPP-ju.

-

42

To present the existing services more effectively to both current and

potential users: one very revealing piece of data is that as many as 70

percent of the suggestions the LPP receives from bus riders are, in fact,

already being put into practice.37

Everything I have mentioned are potential points of departure for defining

and verifying problems, and seeking solutions, with the help of service

and information designers in close connection with all stakeholders

involved in the operation and co-creation of the service. This connection

is ensured by the social engagement of design, the inclusion of broader

knowledge and behaviour, and a different perspective on the established

(very often “fortuitous”) solutions – all with the goal of designing some-

thing that will not be merely a fortuitous solution to the problem, but a

method, a tool, and a form of knowledge that will also generate a model

for approaching problem-solving in the future. Answering questions

about the nature of the service, and why and how we use it, is essential –

as is too a return to the basic mission of design, which puts the designer

in the position of the one who knows how to solve problems. With this

important note (as the methodology of service design constantly reminds

us): to be able to solve a problem, we must first recognize it; we must

define it. unearthing the right problem is the main – and most difficult –

task of every designer. But to even begin, the message is clear: we need

data.

37 This information comes from the meeting with LPP representatives on 12 Feb. 2013.

-