In this topic 11 sections
- 11Customer needs and the development brief
- 12Research questions, prototypes and evidence
- 13New product development and commercialisation
- 14Stage-Gate decisions and development partners
- 15Kano model: fulfilment and customer satisfaction
- 16Goods, services and their design implications
- 17Service encounters, systems and social context
- 18Customer journeys and service blueprints
- 19Servitisation and productising services
- 20Design beyond launch
- 21Sources and further reading
Customer needs and the development brief
New product development turns a need or opportunity into an offer that can be delivered. The starting point is the outcome a customer needs, not an assumed feature list. Distinguish the purchaser, the person using the offer and people who help deliver it: their needs may differ.
A useful brief identifies the user, the task, the setting and the difficulty to overcome. Research should include people with different access and support needs. Record observations separately from assumptions and proposed solutions; revise the brief when evidence challenges it.
GOV.UK's Learning about users and their needs explains this evidence-led approach in the context of public services. The same distinction between a need and a proposed solution is useful when considering a commercial offer.
Research questions, prototypes and evidence
Select a research method because it can answer the question. Interviews can explore experiences; observation can reveal workarounds; usability testing examines whether a proposed interaction works. Surveys can assess patterns across respondents when questions and sampling are appropriate. No single method is automatically right for every development phase.
| Question | Useful evidence | Limitation to address |
|---|---|---|
| What makes the current task difficult? | Interviews and observation of actual activity | A small group may not represent every user |
| Can people use the proposed design? | Tasks completed with a prototype | An attractive demonstration may hide practical failures |
| How widespread is the issue? | Appropriately sampled survey or operational data | Poor questions or missing groups can distort the result |
Concept sources: GOV.UK: Plan user research for your service — Concept reference; research comparison prepared for these notes.
A prototype is a testable representation, ranging from a sketch to an interactive model. Choose enough detail to investigate the uncertainty. Do not spend heavily on polish when the team still needs to establish whether the basic approach is useful. Prototype code is not automatically suitable for production, security or ongoing maintenance. GOV.UK's Making prototypes explains these distinctions.
New product development and commercialisation
Commercialisation brings the offer into practical operation and the market. Development therefore includes technical work, customer testing, the delivery model and the business case. Marketing, operations and finance should contribute while choices remain changeable.
- Identify the need
- Screen alternative concepts
- Assess feasibility and economics
- Build and test prototypes
- Validate delivery and demand
- Launch
- Review use and improve
Concept sources: Business Queensland: New product development — Concept reference; development path prepared for these notes.
The path can loop backwards. A test may reveal a different need, a cost estimate may invalidate the concept or a delivery constraint may require redesign. Before launch, establish quality controls, supplier and distribution arrangements, realistic capacity, staff readiness and the customer promise.
Estimate development expenditure and continuing costs separately. Include support, returns and delivery costs when assessing contribution; an attractive selling price alone does not establish viability. The production method and volume assumptions should agree with the financial model.
Stage-Gate decisions and development partners
In Robert Cooper's Stage-Gate approach, stages contain development work and gates make decisions about further commitment. A gate reviews evidence, readiness and the proposed next investment. It is not simply a meeting confirming that time has passed.
| Gate decision | Practical meaning |
|---|---|
| Go | Authorise the next work and its resources |
| Kill | Stop the project on the available evidence |
| Hold | Pause until a specified condition changes |
| Recycle | Return for defined additional work or revision |
Concept sources: Robert G. Cooper: The Stage-Gate Model — An Overview — Framework reference; gate summary prepared for these notes.
The process should match the project's uncertainty and commitment. Cross-functional work and iterative testing can occur within stages; gates need not impose a rigid waterfall. Agree the evidence needed for the next decision before the team spends the associated budget.
Internal development is not the only route. External specialists, suppliers or development partners can provide missing capabilities. Keep responsibility for the complete customer promise and ask whether outsourcing would weaken a core capability, leave critical knowledge inaccessible or create an unacceptable dependence. Business Queensland's development guidance includes using relevant external expertise; the retain-or-partner decision still needs strategic judgement.
Kano model: fulfilment and customer satisfaction
The Kano model distinguishes how different attributes affect satisfaction. It compares the extent to which an attribute is fulfilled with the customer's response. It is not a graph of investment against profit. Kano and colleagues' original study established the importance of attractive, must-be and one-dimensional quality.
| Category | Typical satisfaction pattern | Design implication |
|---|---|---|
| Must-be / basic | Absence causes dissatisfaction; fulfilment is largely expected | Establish an acceptable baseline |
| One-dimensional / performance | Better fulfilment generally improves satisfaction | Compare the benefit of further improvement with its cost |
| Attractive / delighter | Presence can please customers who did not expect it | Test whether the extra benefit matters to the intended segment |
| Indifferent | Presence or absence makes little difference to satisfaction | Avoid assuming every additional feature creates value |
| Reverse | Some customers prefer the attribute absent or reduced | Investigate differing preferences and unnecessary complexity |
Concept sources: Noriaki Kano and colleagues: Attractive Quality and Must-Be Quality, ASQ: What is the Kano Model?, Yasutaka Kainuma: Customer Satisfaction Driven Decision Making Approach using a Combination of AHP and Utility Function — Concept references; comparison prepared for these notes.
Classification depends on the respondent group and context; expectations can change over time. Something once attractive may become a basic expectation. The model does not itself calculate willingness to pay, investment returns or legal and safety requirements.
Goods, services and their design implications
Many offers combine a physical product with service activities. A service may provide access, expertise or an outcome without transferring ownership of the underlying asset. The following characteristics are useful design considerations, rather than absolute rules applying equally to every digital and physical service.
| Service characteristic | Meaning | Design response to consider |
|---|---|---|
| Intangibility | Important benefits may be difficult to inspect before purchase | Explain the promise and provide credible evidence of delivery |
| Inseparability | Delivery and customer participation may occur together | Design the interaction and prepare both staff and users |
| Variability | Quality can change with the provider, circumstances or customer input | Define standards, training and exception handling |
| Perishability | Unused time-specific capacity cannot simply be stored | Match bookings, staffing and demand to available capacity |
Concept sources: OpenStax: 11.1 Classification of Services — Concept reference; comparison prepared for these notes.
Technology may separate parts of production from use, but does not remove every delivery constraint. An automated response is reproducible; a complex case needing a specialist still consumes limited time.
Service encounters, systems and social context
Service design examines more than the interface. Kimbell and Blomberg discuss different perspectives on what is being designed. Each brings a different part of the service into view.
- Service encounter
- Examine what happens at a touchpoint, including the user's interaction, staff work and physical or digital evidence.
- Value co-creating system
- Examine how people and organisations combine resources and activities to achieve the service outcome.
- Socio-cultural configuration
- Examine how practices, expectations, relationships and material arrangements shape participation. The authors also use the term socio-material configuration in their discussion.
Concept sources: Lucy Kimbell and Jeanette Blomberg: The object of service design — Concept reference; perspective cards prepared for these notes.
Customer journeys and service blueprints
A customer journey map follows the customer's experience of a task. A service blueprint connects that journey to the work required to deliver it, including activity the customer cannot see. This helps reveal broken handovers and unclear responsibilities.
| Blueprint element | What to document |
|---|---|
| Customer actions | What the customer does to progress towards the outcome |
| Frontstage activity | Staff or system interactions visible to the customer |
| Backstage activity | Work supporting delivery outside the customer's view |
| Supporting processes and evidence | Systems, resources, records and other dependencies |
Concept sources: Sarah Gibbons, Nielsen Norman Group: Service Blueprints — Definition — Concept reference; table prepared for these notes.
Add responsibility, timing and failure points where useful. If a confirmation is sent before capacity is reserved, a polished booking screen cannot prevent the resulting disappointment. Track the complete task rather than assuming each department's individual target guarantees a good overall experience.
Servitisation and productising services
Servitisation means extending a product business through services, potentially moving towards promises about use or results. Delivering advanced services can require new customer relationships, operational knowledge, risk management and support arrangements. Revenue becomes connected to a continuing obligation, not just the initial sale. Aston University's servitisation research examines these capabilities across the organisations involved.
Productising services moves in the other direction: identifying repeatable elements in service work and packaging, standardising or automating them. Bespoke work can reveal common needs before the business invests in a reusable offer. Standardisation may help scale delivery, but building too soon risks solving the wrong problem; waiting indefinitely can leave growth dependent on more staff hours. Mohanbir Sawhney's Kellogg discussion explains this transition.
Distinguish the charging basis from the promise. A fixed fee for a defined report buys a deliverable. An outcome-based arrangement ties payment or responsibility to an agreed result. Define measurement, customer responsibilities and factors outside the provider's control before accepting that risk. Automation can handle repeatable steps, while exceptions still need appropriate review.
Design beyond launch
Whole-life thinking follows materials from acquisition through production, use, maintenance and end-of-life management. Product design can affect repairability, material use, disassembly and recovery long before disposal occurs. The US EPA's Sustainable Materials Management Basics explains why assessing the whole life cycle can reveal opportunities missed by considering manufacturing alone.
For the business case, include the support and resources required after launch. Compare observed use, defects, service effort and financial results with the assumptions that justified development. Decide whether to improve, continue or retire the offer rather than assuming launch completes the work.
Sources and further reading
- GOV.UK — Learning about users and their needs: needs, evidence and inclusive research.
- GOV.UK — Plan user research for your service: matching methods to questions.
- GOV.UK — Making prototypes: prototype purpose and limitations.
- Business Queensland — New product development: concept, feasibility, testing and commercialisation.
- Robert G. Cooper — The Stage-Gate Model: An Overview: stages, gates and resource decisions.
- Kano and colleagues — Attractive Quality and Must-Be Quality: original research; the linked page provides an English abstract.
- ASQ — What is the Kano Model?: satisfaction categories and changing expectations.
- Yasutaka Kainuma — Customer Satisfaction Driven Decision Making Approach using a Combination of AHP and Utility Function: research discussion including indifferent and reverse attributes.
- OpenStax — 11.1 Classification of Services: service characteristics.
- Kimbell and Blomberg — The object of service design: different perspectives on service design.
- Nielsen Norman Group — Service Blueprints: Definition: connecting customer activity with delivery processes.
- Aston University — Servitization capabilities for advanced services: a multi-actor perspective: capabilities supporting advanced services; research abstract.
- Kellogg Insight — To Grow Your Company, Create Products from Services: repeatable service knowledge and productisation.
- US EPA — Sustainable Materials Management Basics: whole-life material use, maintenance and recovery.