Participatory Design of Scenarios for Future Service Implementation
The Case of Smart Campus Project: ICT based Services for Energy Efficiency
Daria Cantù
Department of Design, Politecnico di Milano, via Durando 38/a, Milano, Italy
Keywords: Service Design, Participatory Design, Energy Efficiency.
Abstract: Energy efficiency in public buildings is a fundamental goal for both public and private institutions. Its
achievement depends on different factors such as the policy of the institutions but also the behaviour of the
buildings users and the selections and availability of integrated technologies and monitoring systems. All
these elements require the coordinated activity of many stakeholders with common goals and shared vision
of the desired solutions, able to take into account needs and constrains of all the people involved. The paper
describes the participatory design process applied in the Italian pilot of Smart Campus EU project to design
ICT based services scenarios to reduce energy consumption in university campus buildings. It describes the
scenarios’ development process and discusses the results obtained and the positive implications of having
the stakeholders involved right from the context research phase. This process is more and more used in
Service Design projects in order to increase the possibilities of success for the following prototyping and on
field implementation of the solutions. The paper is a contribution to the practice of participatory design of
complex services.
1 INTRODUCTION
Reducing energy consumption is a major challenge
nowadays and this is especially important in cities
where the majority of the world population is
currently living and where more and more people
will concentrate in the next decades. Moving from
the first attempt to agree a common understanding of
the concept of sustainable development at global
level, reported by the Brundtland Commission in the
late 80’s, the movement towards sustainability has
done important steps forward in the last years. The
European Union recently adopted the Energy and
Climate Package (http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/
package/), a set of legislation and directives that aim
to ensure the European Union (EU) meets the set
climate and energy targets for 2020. On this basis
the EU member states have committed to the
20/20/20 goals reducing greenhouse gas emissions
by 20% from 1990 levels, increasing the use of
energy from renewable sources by 20%, and
improving energy efficiency by 20%.
In order to reach these targets, the building sector
is a key area. This sector is a big consumer of energy
and has on the other hand a great potential for
interventions aimed at reducing its consumption.
This is mostly true considering buildings used for
services, where different activities are performed
and where common policies and interventions can
significantly reduce energy waste.
Improving energy efficiency in public buildings
is a challenge since it depends on many factors, such
as external climate conditions, structure and
materials of the building itself and activities carried
out. The users’ behaviour towards the use of energy
is also a key factor to be considered, since
everybody has a different perception and
sensitiveness towards the use and value of energy.
Indeed the way people use Heating, Ventilation and
Air Conditioning (HVAC), lighting and appliances
has a great impact on a building’s energy
consumption.
2 SMART CAMPUS PROJECT AS
A TESTING ENVIRONMENT
“Smart Campus. Building User-Learning Interaction
for Energy Efficiency” (Smart Campus)
(http://greensmartcampus.eu) is a European project
funded by the Competitiveness and Innovation
Framework Programme 2007-2013, with the aim of
343
Cantù D..
Participatory Design of Scenarios for Future Service Implementation - The Case of Smart Campus Project: ICT based Services for Energy Efficiency.
DOI: 10.5220/0004981303430349
In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Smart Grids and Green IT Systems (IEEHSC-2014), pages 343-349
ISBN: 978-989-758-025-3
Copyright
c
 2014 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

achieving a 20% reduction in energy consumption in
public buildings, through the development and
installation of ICT based services at pilot buildings
in four European universities. These services will be
integrated with the energy management systems
present in the pilot buildings and provide guidance
that will lead to user behavior transformation
towards more energy efficient practices. The
possibility to actively interact, in a dynamic way,
with the buildings energy management systems,
gives users the possibility to control the
environmental conditions of their workspaces in a
way that until now has not been possible, becoming
aware of their energy consumption habits in the
process. At the same time the energy management
systems learn and adapt to specific user routines.
This way the users learn how to better use the spaces
of the buildings thanks to the installation of sensors
and technologies allowing them to interact directly
with the surrounding environment.
The project is carried out in four pilot locations
in the partner-country campuses (Italy, Portugal,
Finland and Sweden) and actively involves students,
professors and university staff in the development of
the field activities. The aim of the pilots is to work
on the criticalities observed and to reduce the energy
consumption by enabling a mutual learning process
between the building and its users and to facilitate
the application of the same solutions to other
university campuses.
3 DESIGNING SERVICES WITH
A PARTICIPATORY
APPROACH
Service Design is a relatively young discipline that
moves from different traditions such as design for
sustainability, interaction design and business
sciences (Manzini, 1993); (Pacenti, 1998); (Mager,
2004=; (Meroni and Sangiorgi, 2011). Especially
following the ‘interaction paradigm’, explored by
Pacenti, the perspective assumed to design a service
is the one of the user, detecting all the points where
he/she gets in touch with the service during his/her
journey across it. All these “touchpoints” are the
elements (products, communication elements and
processes) that need to be designed in order to assure
the best experience and results in its use.
Before getting to the full design of all these
interaction elements, especially when dealing with
complex solutions involving many stakeholders,
project scenarios are defined, aiming at creating a
shared vision taking into account their different
needs and behaviors. This is mostly true when the
stakeholders and final users become active players in
the solution development and in its adoption.
In the last decade the approaches to deal with
services projects has changes significantly (Sanders
and Stappers, 2008). In fact the perspective assumed
by the User Centre Design method that looks at the
users as “object” to be observed in their use of a
service or product has been slowly changed. In the
Human Centred Design concept proposed by IDEO
(http://www.ideo.com) or in the Community Centred
Design approached used by Meroni and the POLIMI
Desis Lab group when dealing with social
innovation initiatives (Meroni, 2008); (Cantù et al.,
2012), the users become “subject” in the project
development process, becoming active players in the
detection of the problems and in the design of the
solutions they will be using. Even if the user remains
at the center of the project this is a radical change in
its role, transforming him/her in co-designer of the
future solution.
This new perspective has significant implications
in the way designers work. In the Design discipline
tradition the designer was the inventor, the creative
person with a technical and cultural knowledge
supporting the creation of a new product for the
market. When dealing with services, characterized
by intangibility, heterogeneity, inseparability and
perishability (Lovelock and Gummesson, 2004), the
user experience become the key for the success of
the service solution. This, as a consequence, brought
the attention on the users perspective in the design
process and required service designers to become
‘facilitator’ in involving them in the early phase of
the solution design. In this process the users are
involved in collaborative activities where designers
support their participation to with face to face
meetings, workshops and specifically designed tools
and format.
Looking at recent service design research
projects (e.g. Feeding Milan. Energies for change
project, MedeaLab’s living labs in Malmo, Life 2.0
EU project) it is possible to recognize that the people
involved into the development process are not just
final users of the services. In fact to develop an
innovative service, entirely self-sustainable after
designers work ends, it is important to involve the
potential stakeholders right from the first phase of
context analysis and scenarios’ definition. This
allows local actors to have voice, raising their needs
and pointing out their potential role in the future
solution (Cantù and Rizzo, 2012).
From a design perspective the theoretical
SMARTGREENS2014-3rdInternationalConferenceonSmartGridsandGreenITSystems
344

reference used for discussion in this paper is
Participatory Design (PD). This is an approach that
is used in all the design process moving from the
collaborative definition of the project scenarios to
the service idea - the concept - and continues with its
testing and implementation together with the
stakeholders, and concludes with the service ready
to be used.
In order to develop this process, the methodology
adopted in the Smart Campus project pertains to PD
as defined by the Scandinavian school (Ehn, 2008);
(Bjögvinsson et al., 2010); (Emilson et al., 2011).
The authors look at PD as a movement “from
designing “things” (objects) to designing Things
(socio-material assemblies)” and they argue that
“this movement involves not only the challenges of
engaging stakeholders as designers in the design
process, as in “traditional” Participatory Design (i.e.,
envisioning “use before actual use,” for example,
through prototyping), but also the challenges of
designing beyond the specific project and toward
future stakeholders as designers (in other words,
supporting ways to “design after design”, i.e. after
the conclusion of the design process for the specific
project). And they see this movement “as one from
“projecting” to one of “infrastructuring” design
activities” (Bjögvinsson et al., 2012, p.102).
As previously mentioned this means that the
work of designers in this process ranges from
engaging non-designers in envisioning and co-
designing future service ideas, to involving potential
stakeholders in the process, aligning their interests
and empowering them to create self-sustainable
services after the end of the design project.
In the Smart Campus project PD is applied right
from the beginning with the aim of co-creating the
digital services scenarios with the users and decision
makers at local scale, thus ensuring higher
sustainability of the solutions and better user
requirement identification. This will be eventually
translates into higher success rate of behavior
transformation and long term adoption of the
proposed solution.
This paper aims at giving a contribution to the
design practice in the field of PD, describing the
outcomes of the Smart Campus project scenarios’
definition, whose effective sustainability will be
verified with the conclusion of the EU project.
4 PARTICIPATORY DESIGN OF
SERVICE SCENARIOS AT
POLITECNICO DI MILANO
PILOT
Milan pilot is located in the campus Leonardo of
Politecnico di Milano. Inaugurated in 1927, over the
course of the decades the campus has been expanded
to encompass new campuses and given rise to a real
and genuine university quarter commonly dubbed
"Città Studi" (City of Studies). Specifically the pilot
will be implemented in one of the biggest building
of the Leonardo Campus: “La Nave” (The Ship).
This is structured in two main functional areas: the
classrooms used by the students and professors and
the department rooms. This building was selected as
it is one of the most representative for its double
function, offering at the same time the opportunity to
interact with a wide range of different users;
moreover it is already equipped with technologies
that collect data on costs of operation, maintenance,
surfaces, volumes and consumptions and it has a
significant potential in terms of reduction of energy
consumption.
This paper describes the participatory process
that defined how different kinds of users behave in
the spaces of the pilot building with good and bad
performances in term of energy consumption.
Moreover it reflects on how these information were
collaboratively transformed into future ICT services
and solutions aimed at reducing energy consumption
in the building.
The work was structured the same way in all the
country-partner pilots, conducting a context analysis
to define:
 Personas and “as is” scenarios
 “To be” scenarios and pilots requirements
Personas is a tool that represents a stereotypical
description of the main classes of users that will be
involved in the project and that will benefit from the
pilots implementation in terms of behavioural
changes towards a more efficient use of energy in
the universities pilots buildings. “As is” scenarios
are short storytelling describing the main situations
where bad behaviours of the building users generate
high energy consumption. From these tools “to be”
scenarios are generated describing future situation
where ICT based services support the users in
having more energy efficient behaviour and where
energy is saved due to partially automated systems.
This work concludes with the definition of the users
requirements to build the Intelligent Energy
ParticipatoryDesignofScenariosforFutureServiceImplementation-TheCaseofSmartCampusProject:ICTbased
ServicesforEnergyEfficiency
345

Management System supporting the new services in
all the pilots.
The following paragraphs will describe how the
main stakeholders and professionals were involved
right from the initial phases of the project,
describing their role and collective contribution to
the development of the services to be. The “to be”
scenarios, jointly with the elicited users
requirements, will be used in the second phase of the
project as the starting point for the pilot real
implementation.
4.1 Collaborative Design of “As Is”
Scenarios: Users, Spaces and
Problems Setting
In Milan the people involved in the design of the
project scenarios were both users and more in
general stakeholders of the Politecnico system. Here
below a short description of each actor involved is
provided, jointly with its main role in the process:
a) Politecnico di Milano institution. The university
was involved right from the initial phase related
to the writing of the proposal and was constantly
updated during the development of the research
project. Polimi participated to the selection of the
building for the pilot project thanks to its
knowledge in terms of energy management of
the entire system and gave its endorsement and
support. The objective of the Smart Campus
project is in fact in line with the university
policies in terms of reduction of energy
consumption.
b) Students. The research team conducted a set of
activities in parallel with the students from the
Urban Planning Studio and Interaction Design
for PSSD Course in the School of Architecture
and the School of Design. The courses activities
carried out focused on users’ observation and
interviews, adopting an ethnographic approach to
investigate how people behave in the pilot spaces
and allowed to bring the peculiar students
perspective as users of the building in the project
(table 1).
The work done during the courses, permitted to:
highlight different classes of users described then as
personas; describe the areas of the building with the
major energy loss; detect the bad behaviours of
students and professors; develop initial service ideas
to overcome the problems detected.
c) Professors. Professors were involved through
interviews and informal discussions. They
contributed to highlight the current use of the
offices spaces, not visible to the students, raising
the awareness of the improper use of the energy
in those spaces and outlining possible solutions.
Table 1: Tools used for context analysis in Milan pilot.
T ool D
e
s
c
r
i
p
ti
o
nof th
e
t ool
in use
Du
r
ation an
d
fr equency
Te
c
hnol
o
gi es/
Material
s
P
r
ofi l
e
of
the
participa
nts
Main r
e
s
ult
s
FIE
L
D
OBSERVATI
ON
-O
b
s
e
rva
t
i
on o
f
the us
e
rs
of the building during the
interaction in different
time of the day (classes
hours, group work,
breaks)
- Visit of the building and
the heating management
spaces with the Polimi
technicians
D
e
c
e
m
b
er
2012
Photos,
notes
S
t
udents,
professors
, Polimi’s
technician
s
- Cri
t
i
c
a
l
behaviors
causing excessive
energy consumption
- building’s heating
and lighting
infrastructures
INTERVIEW
S
Interviews with students
and professors regarding
their perception on the
quality of the lighting
and heating in the
building
Interviews with
technicians and the chief
of the heating
management offices’
responsible
December
2012
(students and
professors)
January-
February 2013
(technicians
and
administrative)
Face to
face
interview
s
Mainly
students
and
professor
Discrepancy between
the negative effect of
a specific behavior
and its perception by
the users
Users are not aware
of the characteristic
of the building and its
infrastructure.
SURVEYS Both multiple choices
and open questions to
collect specific
information and
unexpected inputs
December
2013
Face to
face
Students Information
regarding the use of
the spaces, usability
issues and the
perceived efficiency
of the building.
From the first analysis on the consumption
monitoring system and from the on-field observation
with the energy managers and the students, a first
mapping of the pilot over-consumption areas and the
users' most significant negative behaviours has been
drawn, eliciting spaces for a significant
improvement in the energy efficiency management.
The pilot areas where the main critical behaviors
were detected are the classrooms, both during the
lectures and during the group study, corridors, where
the students have brakes during the day and
professors’ offices, where it happens that heating
and lighting systems are turned on even when the
rooms are not used.
From these problems, and using the personas
generated, a set of “as is” scenarios, similar to the
one reported in table 2, were generated.
4.2 Defining “To Be” Scenarios for
Future Implementation
“As is” scenarios were used to define the energy
managers perspective and were then translated into
“to be” scenarios (table 2). This process was
possible thanks to a joint work with managers and
technicians who supported the pilot designing the
system architecture, including sensors and logics.
d) Energy Managers. The energy managers of the
building were key actors to be involved to
understand the effective impact of the observed
bad behaviours on the energy consumption. They
SMARTGREENS2014-3rdInternationalConferenceonSmartGridsandGreenITSystems
346

supported the data collection of the building
performances and the understanding of the logics
behind them.
e) Technicians and app developers. Professionals
out of the Politecnico system participated to
collective workshops and individual meetings
and gave support in translating the users
(students and professors) point of view into
technical requirements and features needed from
the system to solve the problems emerged.
Properly supported by the research team,
especially service designers, they actively
collaborate to the definition of the “to be”
scenarios, merging the description of the future
solutions from the point of view of the users and
the one of the other stakeholders.
“To be” scenarios have been detailed during a local
workshop following these steps:
1. Analysis of all the materials and data collected
during the context observation (personas and
scenarios);
2. Elaboration, on the basis of the results of the step
1 of ideas of possible solutions for the users
represented by the personas and for the problems
represented by the “as is” scenarios;
3. Design of “to be” be scenarios as suggestions for
energy saving solutions in the pilots building and
service ideas and functionalities on which to
build up the Smart Campus pilots requirements.
Table 2: Example of the evolution from “as is” scenario to
“to be” scenario (taken from Smart Campus project
deliverable 2.2).
A
S
I
S
SCE N
A
RI
O
1: W orking
home having a room in the
Pol it ecni co.
Te
c
h
n
i
c
al
d
es
c
ri
p
tion
TO BE
S
CEN
A
RI
O
5: 3
temperature levels in the
faculty rooms
M ain characte
r
: Alessandro, a
FULL professor at the Politecnico
di Milano
Secondar y char acter s: Students
and colleagues
Alessandro is a Full professor in
Planning at the Politecnico of
Milano, school of architecture. He
has a studio in la Nave building one
of the most famous Politecnico
buildings since it was designed by
a famous Italian architect. He likes
very much that space but he
doesn’t come there often, only one
or twice per week when he needs to
meet his students or some
colleagues with which he carries on
projects. In fact Alessandro lives
out of Milano in the surroundings
and he prefers do not travel during
the week but to stay home, for this
reason his computer in the office is
always on. In this way he can
access it remotely for every files he
might need. The only thing that he
feels not comfortable with his
office is the control of the heat
during winter-time as well as that
of the air conditioning in summer.
In fact his office is equipped with a
fan coil that has a hand based
control system. The problem that
Alessandro sees is that if he turns
off the fan coil his office is always
cold in winter and hot in summer.
To solve that problem Alessandro
always leaves the fan coil on.
The rooms of teachers have
problems related to their
orientation North or South.
The rooms facing north
have very little lighting and
require artificial light
constantly. The rooms
facing south have a strong
radiative load, which
requires the constant use of
curtains on the windows.
The rooms are heated by
forced air systems (fan
coils on the floor or
channelled vents with
supply and return); the
temperature is regulated by
means of a room
thermostat. The use of
metal channelled vents to
distribute hot air in the
rooms is the most critical,
because the hot air tends to
stratify on top and to be
short-circuited by the pick-
up duct, often too close to
the outlet nozzle.
Furthermore, the air flow is
often oversized, so those
who frequent the rooms
often “play” with the
thermostat turning the plant
“on” or “off” even in very
short times, which is the
index of a really bad plant
management
The regulating system has three
temperature levels:
‐ 14°C, minimum
temperature of the room
(during an extended
absence of people);
‐ 16°C, medium temperature
of the room (when there are
no people in the space);
‐ 20°C, higher temperature of
the room (when there are
people using the space).
People presence is controlled by a
presence sensor or, preferably, by
the professor, researcher or PhD
candidate who have the right to
access by interacting with the
APP.
When someone enters the room
the fancoil starts reaching the 20
°C temperature. When the sensor
does not detect presence in the
room the temperature tend to
reach the 16 °C, (under this level
the fancoil turn on again to
prevent an excessive temperature
reduction). If the professor knows
that the room will be not used for
an extended arch of time he can
access the APP and indicate the
period in which the room will be
not used so to allow an extra
saving of energy. In this case the
room will be not heated up to the
reaching of the lowest level of 14
°C.
Figure 1: The participatory design process.
ParticipatoryDesignofScenariosforFutureServiceImplementation-TheCaseofSmartCampusProject:ICTbased
ServicesforEnergyEfficiency
347

The dialogue and work done with the technicians
moreover permitted to foreseen the effective impact
of the solution further evaluating the 5 scenarios
generated. The latter were translated into users,
systems and functional requirements by other project
partners and will be then implemented for the
piloting phase in the classrooms, corridors and
offices.
4.3 Main Achievements
All the 5 actors aforementioned (a-e) were involved
in the design process as they represent different
perspective on the project that needed to be taken
into account for the development of effective
solutions. The activities done by the research group
through the repeated interactions with them led to
the collection of the following information that were
finally translated in the scenarios “to be” (figure 1):
 the detection of the building for the pilot project;
 the main users typologies involved;
 the everyday practices that users conduct in the
pilots sites that mostly affect energy
consumption/saving in the building;
 the rules and procedures applied by Politecnico
di Milano to regulate the use of the building with
respect to energy consumption/saving;
 the historical data on energy consumption of the
building;
As a synthesis of the contextual research process 3
main things were outlined within the scenarios:
1) ICT based services for students and professors
aiming at User Behaviour Transformation
towards a more energy efficient use of the
building spaces;
2) Automated solutions to save energy depending
on the users behaviours;
3) Interfaces for energy consumption monitoring
and management;
5 STAKEHOLDERS
PARTICIPATION IN SERVICE
SCENARIOS DESIGN
Energy efficiency in public buildings is a
fundamental goal for both public and private
institutions. Despite that its achievement depends on
different factors such as the policy of the institutions
but also the behaviour of the buildings users and the
selections and availability of integrated technologies
and monitoring systems. All these elements require
the coordinated activity of many stakeholders with
common goals and shared vision of the desired
solutions, that are able to take into account needs
and constrains of all the people involved.
In the Smart Campus project these conditions
clearly emerged right from the fist phases of work,
where the dialogue with the Politecnico institution
started. As the project evolved it emerged the need
to involve new actors in order to set the condition to
create the “socio-material assemblies” argued by the
PD Scandinavian school.
Moving from these considerations the research
group decided to start working with the students in
order to have a bottom-up perspective on the uses’
behaviour in the spaces, to discuss them later on
with the professors, energy managers and the
institution. The definition of a set of bad habits (i.e.
causing excessive energy consumption) by the
students, and the generation of draft service ideas to
solve them, were used as material to start involving
professors in the research. The latter supported the
understanding of the classrooms use but also became
slowly aware of their bad behaviour in the offices
spaces as well contributing to define new areas for
intervention. This process started the engagement in
the project of the professors more committed to the
topic, preparing their participation to the following
piloting phase. On the other hand the continuous
dialogue with the energy managers of the university
permitted to have a direct feedback on the emerging
ideas, letting the researchers evaluate their effective
feasibility.
The participation of all the actors mentioned and
the co-design workshops and activities carried out
allowed to have a holistic perspective on the
problems in order to define well-articulated,
innovative and realistic design. In the definition of
the “to be” scenarios the designers work was to
collect and integrate feedbacks, insights and
suggestions from all the people involved, merging
the knowledge provided by technical partners with
the users perspective.
In this first phase of the Smart Campus project
the idea was to “projecting”, preparing the ground
for future involvement of local actors in the
following “design after design” process, that is the
“infrastructuring” work where all the elements to
implement the solution need to be included and
where the “alignment” of their interest is the basis to
create a partnership to run the solution in the future.
SMARTGREENS2014-3rdInternationalConferenceonSmartGridsandGreenITSystems
348

6 CONCLUSIONS
The paper discusses the process of building
scenarios for ICT based services with the
collaboration of users and stakeholders. This
approach raise more and more interest both in public
and private sector in order to develop effective
solutions really adopted by the users. This holistic
perspective to contexts analysis and problems
detection is more and more used by Service Design
to develop projects aimed at solving real problems
and producing more sustainable solutions. In this
field traditional tools used for research are adapted
and re-designed to meet the need of involving
individuals or groups into a co-generation process,
supporting the inclusion of non-designers into the
design process but also aligning the interest of
potential stakeholders in the solution
implementation.
Moving from the experience achieved in
previous projects, and taking into account the Smart
Campus scenario building work, it appears evident
the need to start right from the beginning to include
potential users and stakeholders in this process. We
can refer at the process of Service Design as divided
in two parts: the design of the service concept and its
prototyping and real implementation with local
stakeholders. In both the phases, when the service
concept needs to be defined and when the future
ownership of the solutions generated is not yet
determined, PD approach seems to significantly
increase the possibility of success for the service to
be.
PD is promising to develop services with the
highest level of acceptance and adoption by their
users and promoters. Nevertheless the experience
achieved up to date indicates that in high complex
condition involving different stakeholders on
relevant topics, such as energy consumption, the
success of the service can not be certain.
The work done so far in Smart Campus to
collaboratively build the project scenario will be the
basis for the follow up of the project. Here
designers’ work will focus on the development of
the services concepts, defining the detail of the
users’ journey through the service and which will be
the touchpoints used to interact with the system.
Then a strong effort will be addressed to the
‘alignment’ of the stakeholders’ interests during the
piloting and prototyping of the solutions, designing-
after-design (Bjögvinsson, Ehn & Hillgren 2012).
This paper is a contribution on how services’
scenarios can be designed using PD. The future
outcoms of the alignment and prototyping phase will
integrate the results achieved, verifying the
effectiveness of the PD approach towards the
implementation of the services to be.
REFERENCES
Björgvinsson, E, Ehn, P, Hillgren, PA 2010. Participatory
Design and democratizing innovation. Proceedings of
PDC 2010;
Björgvinsson, E, Ehn, P, Hillgren, PA, 2012. Design
Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary
Participatory Design Challenges. DesignIssues: vol.
28, no. 3, pp.101-116;
Cantù, D., Corubolo, M. and Simeone, G., 2012. A
Community Centered Design approach to developing
service prototypes. 3nd Nordic Conference on Service
Design and Service Innovation proceedings, Espoo,
Helsinki 8-10 February 2012;
Cantù, D., Rizzo, F., 2012. Managing innovation through
participatory processes. In Leading Innovation
Through Design, Proceedings of the DMI 2012
International Research Conference, Boston, MA,
USA, 8–9 August 2012;
Ehn, P, 2008. Participation in Design Things. Proceedings
of the 10th Proc PDC 2008;
Emilson, A, Seravalli, A, Hillgren, PA, 2011. Dealing
with Dilemmas: Participatory Approaches in Design
for Social Innovation, Swedish Design Research
Journal vol. 1, pp. 23-29;
Lovelock, C. and Gummesson, E. 2004. Whither services
marketing? In search of a new paradigm and fresh
perspectives. Journal of Service Research, 7(1), 20–
41.
Mager, B., 2004. Service Design. A Review. Köln: Köln
International School of Design;
Manzini, E. 1993. Il design dei servizi. La progettazione
del prodotto-servizio. Design
Management, 4, 7–12;
Meroni, A., 2008. Strategic design: where are we now?
Reflection around the foundations of a recent
discipline. Strategic Design Research Journal, 1(1),
July-December. pp. 31-38, [available at:
www.unisinos.br/sdrj/];
Meroni, A., Sangiorgi, D., 2011. Design for Services.
Aldershot, UK: Gower Publishing;
Pacenti, E. 1998. Il progetto dell’ interazione nei servizi.
Un contributo al tema della progettazione dei servizi.
Ph.D. thesis in industrial design, Politecnico di Milan.
Sanders, E, Stappers, PJ, 2008. Co-creation and the new
landscapes of design, CoDesign: International Journal
of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, vol. 4, no. 1, pp.
5-18.
ParticipatoryDesignofScenariosforFutureServiceImplementation-TheCaseofSmartCampusProject:ICTbased
ServicesforEnergyEfficiency
349