 |
 |
Hi Nicola, I think we may agree more than we disagree. Of course, anyone doing research into service design should be able to investigate any aspect of service design, and there are many aspect of that research (probably the most interesting parts) that have nothing to do with ROI. I must admit, though, that I like the question of whether or not Einstein's theory of relativity has made a positive contribution to the universe. Is the universe a better place for Einstein's theory? Have we had a social or cultural return on our investment in allowing Einstein to pursue his work? I don't want to go there in this thread, even though I can see the possibilities for some extended debate. But returning to service design. My question was not about the value or otherwise of service design research, my question is about the PRACTICE of SERVICE DESIGN, and I'm quoting from people who are championing the PRACTICE of SERVICE DESIGN. The example I used from the ATO is based on a number of recent papers. In particular: John Body (2008) Design in the Australian Taxation Office Design Issues Volume 24, Issue 1 pp 55-67. The claim that design has a measurable return on investment is made explicitly in John's paper, where he gives a number of reasons for the ATO's interest in design. The 3rd reason is: > 3. Using design to make paying tax easier, cheaper, and more > personalized p56 Without going into detail about the Goods and Services tax--the tax mentioned in the paper, the introduction of which the ATO seriously bungled--I would suggest that what is said after that in that section is a bureaucratic fudge which contains a sentence that Sir Humphry Appleby would have been proud of (sorry if the allusion to an English TV character is obscure). > This program has been underway for two years now, and several > initiatives have been implemented as a result of listening to the > community and designing an appropriate response. I also seriously doubt that the weazle words that follows about the ATO "Compliance Model" have anything to do with tax payer centred design, and indeed would go some way to totally negate any such idea. My point here is simple and involves juxtaposing what is claimed, with the evidence in support of that claim. Claims without evidence never to knowledge go, just as 'Prayers without thoughts never to heaven go'. (may Shakespeare forgive me!). I can fully agree, as you say, that: > I'm not sure that service designers (here I mean the people with > the technical knowledge to organise front and back office of a > service) can provide an answer to any question, they may be able to > support decisions, but I'm not sure they should be accountable for > calculating the ROI, especially when they derive from political or > strategic considerations. Indeed, but as you can see, the claim for ROI is not me calling those specific designers to account, but rather me asking the ATO to provide the evidence for a claim it makes. As a citizen I have every right to question how the ATO uses my money. So I think the legitimacy of my question stands. David blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog web: http://www.communication.org.au