Reinforcing Double-loop Learning by Adopting Play in the Development of a Service Designer

A self-reflection on how play contributes to the development of a service designer

1. Introduction

1.1. Service Design

It is hard to describe service design in one single definition. Drawing from the co-create process of the book, This is Service Design Doing, Stickdorn et al. suggested that this evolving discipline is a human-centred, collaborative, interdisciplinary and iterative approach to shaping human activity. The discipline practices an iterative cycle of research and development, in which service designers would jump back to research after getting feedback from a prototype, and repeat again.

1.2. Double-loop learning

Figure 1. The concept of double-loop learning developed by Argyris (1991).

The process of service design can also be explained by the concept of double-loop learning developed by Chris Argyris (1991). While single-loop learning focuses only on actions and results, double-loop learning challenges the whys behind the actions and eventually promotes change in the underlying rules that cause problems. The service design process does not only develop solutions to solve obvious problems. It repeatedly explores to deeper understand the system that contributes to the experience of users. The whys are frequently challenged, and it often results in changes in the structure.

1.3. The self-reflection

Figure 2. The team activities and development stages of my WoW team

During the eight weeks in the Ways of Working unit in the MA Service Design at London College of Communication, University of the Arts London, I was involved in a service design team project where I recognised the development of double-loop learning. By laying out the team activities carried out over time and interviewing the team members, I identified the four stages of team development — forming, storming, norming and performing (Tuckman, 1965) in my team.

In the forming stage, we carried out online meetings and focused mainly on the task. In the storming phase, we maintained the working approach, but emotions like doubt, worry, disagreement and hesitation in communication were observed but unspoken, causing friction and rigidity in the team. We had low productivity and creativity, as one of the members described. The forming and storming stages have shown characteristics of a state of worry and boredom in Csikszentmihalyi’s model of “flow”. The hidden conflict was resolved during weeks 3 and 4, which I identified as the norming stage. Team members recalled that they were more comfortable in communicating and collaborating in the team. More explicit structure and ways of working in the team were established. This carried the team to the performing stage in week 5, when all members expressed enjoyment in the project, and positive feedbacks were received in the project presentation. The team reached an optimal state of ‘flow”(Csikszentmihalyi, 1991).

Figure 3. Csikszentmihalyi’s model of “flow”.

Throughout the 4 stages, various tools such as the Manual of Me, Retrospective (Derby, Larsen and Schwaber, 2006), Eight Culture Styles (Groysberg et al., 2018) and Johari Windows were adopted to help the team reflect and learn to work together. These tools acted as indicators of team development but did not necessarily promote the development of the team. The significant leap from the storming stage to the norming was brought by the in-person play sessions that started in week 3. Team meetings were switched from online to offline. During meetings, we played by the three methods suggested by Tim Brown (2008), building, role-play and exploration. These play sessions had an obvious impact on the double-loop learning of the team members, the team culture and the team project.

This essay intends to discuss the effect of play on the double-loop learning in the three tiers — service design project, team culture and self-awareness — and how they are interrelated in the development of a service designer, by reflecting on the experience of my team in this WoW unit.

2. Double-loop Learning with Play in Service Design Project

Figure 4. Double-loop learning with play in Service Design Project

2.1 Service design project

The process of service design can be represented by the Double Diamond model. It starts with the discover stage, which is exploring the related system and understanding the needs of stakeholders. Insights drawn from the understanding will help to define the key challenge, which brings to the define stage. Various solutions are developed to answer the defined problem in the develop stage, and then the solutions are refined based on feedback in the deliver stage. The feedback not only gives service designers clues to redesign possible solutions and research methods but also reshapes the understanding of the stakeholders and the system around them. The iterative process of service design projects breaks the assumptions on the real challenge, which results in double-loop learning.

Figure 5. Double Diamond diagram by Design Council.

2.2. The effect of play on service design project

At the forming and storming stage of our WoW team project, the team was low in productivity and creativity. One team member described that the storming period demonstrated some rigidity. The research was all second-hand information from the internet. Solutions were mostly developed based on assumptions. The real challenge was not well understood, as suggested by the feedback on our presentation in week 3. The project was stuck in a single-loop learning mode.

Figure 6 & 7. Rapid prototyping and role-playing sessions.

Then play sessions break through the rigidity. We built rapid prototypes and talked to people in 90 minutes. Within a short period of time, interesting new insights were found. A role-play session was also carried out by trying out the prototype in a real-life situation. Empathy on the actual user experience was promoted. The team discussion moved from solely on problem-solving, to reshaping the understanding of the real challenge. The presentation following these sessions was more comprehensive as we gained a deeper understanding of the project. Play sessions set off the double-loop learning in our service design project.

3. Double-loop Learning with Play in Team Culture

Figure 8. Double-loop learning with play in team culture.

3.1. Team culture

The performance of a team project is a result of the professional culture clash in a team of members from different backgrounds (Edmondson, 2017). Groysberg et. al. (2018) defined culture as the social order in an organisation created by the unspoken behaviours and social patterns of its members. They identified eight culture styles that apply to organisations and leaders — caring, purpose, learning, enjoyment, results, authority, safety and order. The culture in an organisation can be defined by the relative strength of these eight styles. Team members from diverse backgrounds bring various ways of working to the team, creating professional culture clash.

3.2. A effect of play on the team culture

To understand the professional culture clash of my team, I studied the combination of culture styles contributed by the team members based on their self-evaluation in week 3 and week 7.

In week 3, before the norming stage, “learning” was considered the most significant culture style in the team, followed by “purpose” and “order”. The rigidity in this stage could be explained by the high extent of “order”, which promoted efficiency but limited agility. Team member recalled doubt towards the feasibility of the project topic but it was not expressed. This is where “purpose” clashed with “order”. “Learning” was inexplicit, based on the low productivity in this stage. Low level of collaboration was observed.

Figure 9 & 10. Team culture style in week 3 and week 7

Then in week 7, the dominant culture style switched to “enjoyment” and “caring”, followed by “purpose”. The change was triggered by the play sessions started from the norming stage. Team members were more engaged by playing with building prototypes. “Enjoyment” was even explicitly expressed in meetings and even in team presentations. While Tim Brown (2008) suggested that people need trust to play and be creative, I recognised play promoted mutual trust in my team. “Caring” was intensified as the bonding between members was built stronger during play. “Purpose” was therefore reinforced. The team was more collaborative and creative. The effect was especially obvious in the brainstorming session by playing with the SCAMPER method. We were confident to share crazy ideas, but at the same time comfortable to be disagreed and move on with more feasible solutions. Play contributed in shaping the culture styles each individual brought to the team, which results in a double-loop learning in the team culture.

Figure 11. Building prototype of user journey.

Figure 12. Brainstorming session by playing with the SCAMPER method.

While the effect of play on the team culture was obvious, the self-evaluations on the contribution of culture styles has its limitation. Like mentioned, “learning” was inexplicit before the norming stage in my team. This discrepancy between the knowledge and observation may be caused by the inadequate awareness of one self, which will be discussed in the following section.

4. Double-loop Learning with Play in Self-awareness

Figure 13. Double-loop learning with play in self-awareness.

4.1. Self-awareness

There are two independent types of self-awareness, internal self-awareness and external self-awareness (Eurich, 2020). The internal self-awareness is the understanding from the inside out and the external self-awareness is the understanding of how other people see us. Both internal and external self-awareness are genuinely required to achieve actual self-awareness. A similar concept was illustrated by the Johari Window (Chapman, Alan, 2009), which depicts the relationship between information that is known to self and known by others. By drawing feedback from others, one can gain external self-awareness that helps to reshape internal self-awareness. This process of achieving actual self-awareness is a double-loop learning.

Figure 14. Johari Window model.

4.2. The effect of play on self-awareness

In the first week of our WoW project, each of us prepared a Manual of Me (Kroghrud, 2013) that could help the team learn to work together. On the manual are the personal values and ways of working known to me, whereas an unknown attribute was suggested by team members in week 2. A team member asked if I was a natural leader. The conversation invited me to reconsider my role within the team and the way I worked with the team. However, these conversations were limited to private chats but not in the team setting in the forming and storming phase. External self-awareness was hindered due to a sense of insecurity, which was caused by the uncertainties in understanding the team members, even after reading their user manuals.

Playful sessions from week 3 encouraged more diverse dialogues between myself and team members (Henricks, 2014), specifically in playing by building prototypes. By thinking with our hands, we broke the language barrier and were more expressive. Sharing freely with a sense of humour started to become a norm. More interactions were shown in week 5 on the Retrospective board, where we shared our feedback for the past week of the project. Trust cultivated by play allowed us to be authentic and open to feedback when interacting with one another. The team members even started to playfully call me “project manager” whenever I showed my leadership.

Figure 15. Retrospective board in Week 2.

Figure 16. Retrospective board in Week 5.

Play was also applied to our team reflection sessions. We played with Johari Window by putting paper on our backs for other team members to write their feedback anonymously. The rule was to write three positive and three negative comments for each member. Play created a safe and fun space for team members to contribute to the development of others positively. All of us discovered new abilities and behaviours from the feedback and were encouraged to be better.

Figure 17. Playing with Johari Window.

In these play sessions, the open area of my Johari Window expanded towards the hidden area when my authentic self was more known to the team, and towards the blind area when I received encouraging feedback from the team. Double-loop learning was cultivated between internal and external self-awareness, moving me toward actual self-awareness.

5. Conclusion: Double-loop Learning with Play in the Development of a Service Designer

Figure 18. Double-loop learning with play in the development of a service designer.

In this essay, I identified the double-loop learning in service design projects, team culture and self-awareness, and explored the effect of play on these learning processes. Play can trigger, encourage and intensify the double-loop learning in each tier.

By reflecting on my learning on these tiers, I recognised the project outcome is highly related to my team culture and interaction, and team culture is shaped by the learning of actual self-awareness of members. In order to manage a service design project effectively, I should proactively allow feedback to challenge my self-awareness and always apply play to facilitate the double-loop learning process. If the learning process is internalised, it will strengthen my ability to break my assumptions and understand the users better.

Developing myself as a successful service designer should be considered an iterative service design project to work on in the long run. After all, service design is not only about ways of working, but ways of being.

References

1. Stickdorn, M. et al. (2018). This Is Service Design Doing: Using Research and Customer Journey Maps to Create Successful Services (1 edition). O’Reilly Media.

2. Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399.

3. Foxlark Strategy Limited. (n.d.) Manual of Me. https://www.manualof.me/

4. Derby, E., Larsen, D. and Schwaber, K. (2006). Agile Retrospectives: Making Good Teams Great. Pragmatic Bookshelf.

5. Groysberg, B., Lee, J., Price, J., Yo-, J., & Cheng, J. (2018). The Leader’s Guide to Corporate Culture. Harvard Business Review, January-Feburary 2018, 44–52.

6. Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching Smart People How to Learn. Reflection, 4(2). 4–15.

7. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience: Steps toward Enhancing the Quality of Life. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.

8. Henricks, T. (2014). Play as Self-Realization: Toward a General Theory of Play. American Journal of Play, 6(2), 190–213

9. Reeves, M. (2021). Why play is essential for business [video]. TED Conferences. https://www.ted.com/talks/martin_reeves_why_play_is_essential_for_business?autoplay=true&muted=true

10. Eurich,T. (2020, May 21). You Aren’t Actually Self-Aware [Audio podcast episode]. In The Science of Success Podcast. https://www.successpodcast.com/show-notes/2020/5/20/you-arent-actually-self-aware-with-tasha-eurich

11. Edmondson, A. (2017). How to turn a group of strangers into a team. [video]. TED Salon: Brightline Initiative. https://www.ted.com/talks/amy_edmondson_how_to_turn_a_group_of_strangers_into_a_team?autoplay=true&muted=true&language=en

12. Chapman, Alan. “Johari Window Model — helpful for personal awareness and group relationships.” Businessballs Free Online Learning. 29 October 2009. Accessed 1 March 2010.