Next Article in Journal
Application of Project Management Techniques for Timeline and Budgeting Estimates of Startups
Previous Article in Journal
The Characteristics of Rainfall-Runoff Generation and Its Influencing Factors in a Desert Steppe, China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 21
10.3390/su152115530
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Review of Service Design Pedagogy to Identify Potential Added Value to Product Innovation in Higher Education

by
Shiyao Ding
1,*,
Cees J. P. M. de Bont
2,
Stuart Cockbill
2 and
Qiaozhuang Zhou
1
1
School of Art and Design, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou 510090, China
2
School of Design and Creative Arts, Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(21), 15530; https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115530
Submission received: 16 July 2023 / Revised: 19 September 2023 / Accepted: 23 October 2023 / Published: 1 November 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Education and Approaches)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
It is widely accepted that service design is a discipline that is becoming increasingly recognized as a key element for productive collaboration between multidisciplinary stakeholders. However, it is difficult to understand the interplay between service design and product innovation in higher education. There is a gap in the service design literature on how its way of teaching can enable better product innovation if introduced within product innovation degrees. This study seeks to explore how product innovation might be stimulated by service design teaching, with a focus on collaborative participant activities often used within the service design discipline. Previous studies on service design pedagogy have provided various frameworks for teaching service design that are often drawn from different disciplinary perspectives, such as engineering, social sciences, marketing, business, etc. This article, in contrast, examines service design pedagogy strategies applied in design education within the realm of product innovation. A bibliometric analysis method was adopted to review the existing literature. We found that the selected studies touched upon several themes, which all relate to collaboration among participants and stakeholders in service design and product innovation. The findings shed light on specific projects and case studies that were implemented via team collaboration. Further analysis proposes that the service design pedagogy in design education enhances product design via wider value considerations such as sustainability principles and methods. This study begins to illustrate how service design as a systemic approach to designing products might better enable product innovators to consider wider aspects of value co-creation and sustainability via explicitly involving and considering wider stakeholder networks beyond simply designing a product for a user.

1. Introduction

Service design and service design pedagogy are essential elements of design education. Over the past ten years, it has generally become accepted that service design is a popular method for solving design problems [1]. The main reason for this is that service design creates value using clear methods and approaches [2]. Service design is a popular method in various domains, such as decision making in healthcare, public service design, and service design pedagogy [3,4,5,6,7,8]. An increasing number of studies on service design education have concentrated on design methodology and digital service transformation. Service design has been shown to be quite versatile, and many interdisciplinary service design methods have been introduced in recent years [9,10,11,12]. Gao et al. [13], for instance, employed service design for the development of destination tourism service ecosystems, which relate to service concepts, service ecosystems, and service processes. Studies on service design in design journals often focus on the effects of design methods and on problem solving. Wetter-Edman, Vink, and Blomkvist [14] proposed design methods for service innovation. Suoheimo, Vasques, and Rytilahti [1] indicated the connections and roles of service design related to wicked problems. Our study focuses on how service design pedagogy might stimulate and add value to product design innovation in higher education.
Previously, most researchers considered product design and service design separately, whereas nowadays, service design has become a common pedagogic practice within higher education and public service design [4,8]. Furthermore, various scholars have shared their views on changes to the pedagogy of product innovation. Aldoy and Evans [15] put forward digital industrial and product design methods in higher education. Ackermann [16] discussed product design from the perspective of consumers’ repair and maintenance activities. However, few researchers have addressed the challenges of integrating product innovation strategies with service design pedagogy, in particular, paying attention to the role of participant activities in service design pedagogy. The problem, as we see it, is that products (when designed by students) are separated from the service activities that will eventually deliver them [17]. This paper focuses on identifying how product design innovation can be enhanced using more integrative service design teaching in higher education. This study aimed to answer the following research questions: (1) How does service design enable learning and teaching practice in a sustainable way and lead to product design innovation? (2) How can service design in higher education facilitate sustainable development of pedagogy to achieve comprehensive innovation, including product innovation?

2. Literature Review

In this section, we review current research on service design and service design pedagogy and its synergies with product design innovation in higher education.

2.1. Definition of Service Design and Service Design Pedagogy

Recently, service design has enjoyed increasing popularity [9,10]. Service design encompasses multiple approaches, with its main driver being to facilitate value co-creation between the customer (i.e., the one who receives the service—or the service receiver, and the service provider delivering that service [18]. Design scholars have explored service design concepts from multidimensional aspects [19]. Firstly, service design not only pays attention to the links between customer emotions and services but also to customers’ participation in the servicescape [20]. Secondly, in recent decades, the conceptualization of service design as an evolving process was considered [21] (p. 2), and researchers explored the basic issues of service design research in terms of the following topics: (1) purpose of service design; (2) materials of service design; (3) processes of service design; and (4) actors in service design. Furthermore, service design is often integrated with broader areas. Scholars have applied service concepts such as drivers of service design decisions [22]. Dennington [23] explored service design as a cultural intermediary, and Duan, Vink, and Clatworthy [24] aimed to narrate service design for cultural plurality.
It is generally accepted that service design is strongly associated with eco-design and sustainable design. Sierra-Pérez et al. [25] presented eco-service design methods as bridges between environmental sustainability and service design. Similarly, Kim et al. [26] suggested approaches for designing services from the perspective of eco-driving service design using behavioral data on bus drivers. Villari [27] also implemented eco-service design (ECO-SD) methods that integrate eco-design and service design toward sustainable services.
Table 1 sets out a range of current definitions of service design from a range of sources and suggests that the key proponents of the subject are consideration of wider product lifecycles, end-to-end experiences, and collaboration between diverse participants involved in both projects and in service design pedagogy. Our study also investigated related derivative terms, for instance, “service design education for sustainability”, with the goal of identifying whether service design can positively impact learners’ abilities to consider wider sustainability implications when designing.

2.2. Product Design and Product Innovation

Product design and product innovation are attracting widespread interest in the fields of design practice and design theory research. Increasingly, product design is associated with the circular economy, which is based on circular product design strategies [31].
We argue that product design increasingly deals with the balance between product design in a strict sense and sustainable product manufacturing in a broader sense. Burke, Zhang, and Wang [32] investigated product design and supply chain management with a focus on the transition to a circular economy. Similarly, He, Wang, Huang, and Wang [33] suggested design solutions for each stage of the product life cycle, especially considering the impact of product design throughout the product life cycle to realize a low-carbon design. Recent studies have explored the role of a circular economy in product design. Han et al. [34] conducted a conceptual framework via a systematic literature review from the perspective of the product life cycle. Adilah, Rau, and Procopio [35] conducted a literature review to identify the development of product innovation processes with a circular design.
In recent years, several studies have focused on product design and product design innovation in higher education toward sustainability [36]. Scholars have advocated for applying insights and challenges to contemporary sustainable product design education in higher education [37] (p. 611). For example, Muñoz López et al. [38] explored the role that the sustainable design of products and services plays in higher education, whilst Mancini [39] attempted to shed light on the didactics of product design innovation. These studies suggest that product design and product design teaching are starting to think more systemically and holistically about the design of the product beyond the user via the integration of circular economy teaching [40].
Table 2 identifies current definitions of product design and how this is broadening to consider terms such as circular design. Table 3 sets out wider definitions of product innovation. Our study also focused on derivative terms, such as product innovation for sustainability. The academic research on product innovation mainly focuses on resource efficiency, the circular economy, and product life cycles. Additionally, there are numerous studies that highlight the positive effects of integrating product innovation with and for sustainability [41].

3. Method

The aim of this study was to explore how service design education has currently been embedded with product design teaching using the literature as a primary data source. A bibliometric content analysis method [50] was used to address the research questions on the basis that such an approach can use the actual contents of research articles to identify commonly occurring concepts and map these occurring terms and their co-occurrences [51] (p. 1259). Although bibliometric research has been extensively employed in recent years, this is a new approach in this particular application context. Few studies have sought to investigate how service design pedagogies might stimulate product innovation using this approach. Bibliometric analysis aims to investigate the development status, the research areas of interest, the frontiers, and the trends [52] (p. 2).
We use co-occurrence analysis to analyze the data. Bibliometric analyses on curriculum were used in a study by Joshi and Alavaikko [53]. Efilti and Gelmez [54] observed design teachers’ pedagogical roles via an integrative literature review. Huang, Ali, and Noor [55] conducted a bibliometric analysis to review the reform of the design history curriculum. We conducted bibliometric analyses based on a procedure consisting of four steps: (1) define the aims and scope of the bibliometric study; (2) choose the techniques for the bibliometric analysis; (3) collect the data for the bibliometric analysis; and (4) run the bibliometric analysis and report the findings [50]. Our study conducted an initial search with the following keywords and their combinations: “service design”, “product design”, “service design pedagogy”, “service learning”, “service learning & higher education”, “service design & product design”, “service design & product design innovation”, “service design & higher education”, “service design & product innovation & higher education”, “product service system learning”, and “product service system pedagogy”. The results were filtered based on inclusion criteria, which meant that articles must be published in English, and study participants must teach service design or service innovation in higher education. Articles that did not meet these criteria were manually deleted. We further examined the literature by reviewing citations in the articles selected from the databases. The following inclusion criteria were used: (1) only open access; (2) articles could include journal articles and proceedings; (3) must be published in the English language; and (4) must be published in the last 10 years, between 2012 and 2022. The search was limited to research areas, including social science and education. All studies were gathered from databases using keywords and keyword combinations. Then, we filtered and screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts; excluded papers included publications that did not concentrate on service design or service design education’s integration with product innovation in higher education. To ensure that the selected papers had a strong relationship with sustainability and were high quality, we screened journals such as Sustainability, International Journal of Engineering Education, and The Design Journal. A total of 187 publications were excluded as being not relevant to studies of service design or service design education’s integration with product innovation. Based on the established inclusion criteria, 201 publications were selected for analysis (see Figure 1).
VOSviewer version 1.6.19 was used to support the bibliometric analysis by identifying relationships between particular themes of interest, such as service design and value co-creation, product design and methodology, service innovation and participatory design, service learning, and higher education. This enabled the identification of research trends, as well as scientific patterns of connection based on [56] (p. 1811).

4. Findings

To respond to the research questions, we examined current research trends in service design, product design, and in the relationships between service design and product innovation in higher education. The co-occurrence analysis of the selected studies indicated that previous studies addressed some of the themes, such as product, product design, service innovation, higher education, participants, and collaboration. We discuss four pairs of themes, each of which consists of combinations of the core concepts: service design and value co-creation, product design and methodology, service innovation and participatory design, and service learning and higher education. Themes found in the literature show that service design pedagogy can add value to product design with a focus on social innovation and learning abilities, such as design thinking, design methodology, and design participation.

4.1. Core Author Analysis

Scholars have used CiteSpace to map core authors and core research institutions. An author cooperation network map was used for the core author analysis (Figure 2). There were 256 nodes in the atlas, 258 connections, and a network density of 0.0079. The top three core authors identified were Patricio, Lia (five times), Edvardsson, Bo (three times), and Holmlid, Stefan (two times).

4.2. Research Institution Analysis

In our study, the research institution network diagram was used to analyze research institutions. As shown in the research institution network (Figure 3), there are nodes 193 and connections 202 in the diagram. The top ten research institutions included Polytechnic University of Milan (eight times), Karlstad University (seven times), Universidade do Porto (seven times), INESC TEC (six times), Delft University of Technology (six times), Loughborough University (six times), Oslo School of Architecture & Design (four times), Texas State University San Marcos (four times), Aalto University (four times), and Texas State University System (four times). As shown on the co-occurrence network map (Figure 4), the product is a key element of the main themes.

4.3. Keyword Co-Occurrence Analysis

A keyword co-occurrence analysis on service design, product design, and the relationships between service design and product innovation in higher education was conducted using VOSviewer to reveal high-frequency keywords (Figure 4). The high-frequency keywords reflect the research focus of the selected literature and include the following: “design education”, “design thinking”, “higher education”, “innovation”, “methodology”, “participatory design”, “product design”, “service design”, “service innovation”, and “value co-creation”.
Sustainability 15 15530 g004
Figure 4. Co-occurrence map of emerging themes.
Figure 4. Co-occurrence map of emerging themes.
Sustainability 15 15530 g004

4.3.1. Service Design and Value Co-Creation

The bibliometric analysis findings show that service design is often geared toward social change [6] and organizational change [57] via stakeholder collaboration [58,59]. Yin et al. [60] reported that designers have co-created innovative services with stakeholders that can facilitate social innovation in public health. This indicates that designers have collaborated with wider participants beyond an initial user group and are therefore engaged in service design within a specific transdisciplinary group; the result is that such activity can stimulate social innovation via the design of projects and practices. In general, it is evident that when design communities engage in collaboration or co-design that involves multiple design methodologies and multiple stakeholders, in most cases, it generates positive design outcomes [61]. Service design is a complicated domain due to the involvement of multiple disciplines [62], and the interaction between designers and stakeholders in relation to social innovation has demonstrated a positive effect on service design practice [60].
The analysis also revealed that service design in higher education can enable multiple value flows between learners, educators, participants, and stakeholders that might collaborate on or co-create within projects. From the perspective of service design in social innovation practice, service design involves social change [13] and service ecosystem development [6]. Yu [63] (p. 908) defined service implementation as “the process of transitioning from designing a service concept, structure, and delivery process to putting the intended service experience into action and its operation”. Numerous experiments have established that service design plays a key role in social design and social innovation via the building of frameworks within participating communities [64,65].
Some scholars recognize that the field of service design has faced specific challenges in recent decades. Morelli and Götzen [11] (p. 803) suggest that the service design discipline is shifting from a methodological approach to value co-creation by designers and producers with their stakeholders, drawing on co-creation and co-design practices. Co-creation as a mindset and approach is closely related to, even inherent within, service design, meaning its benefits can also be of value to product design. Both service design and product design emphasize the participation of users in the design process; however, in service design, co-creation often implies participation beyond a sole customer [66]. An analysis of service design and value co-creation learning in higher education shows that in service design and social innovation pedagogy, stakeholders tackling more complex, systemic issues benefit from co-creation as it enables value co-creation.

4.3.2. Product Design and Methodology

Product design has been highlighted as a crucial factor in the circular economy. Many scholars are interested in the role of the product life cycle as a driver of sustainability. Some scholars tend to interpret the product within the realm of product management, with a focus on sustainability and the circular economy [32,38]. Recent definitions of product design imply a relationship between service design and product innovation. Product design plays an important role in the transformation from selling products to offering products in circular business models. Another study [67] (p. 12) discussed the impact of digital technologies on sustainable product management and the application of digital technologies, finding that digital technologies can influence and improve a variety of sustainability matters.
In the context of higher education, design methodology had a significant impact on product innovation. The introduction or injection of CE principles into product design and product innovation teaching demonstrates the benefits to learners of a wider understanding of product production and lifecycles, and this kind of thinking is now leaning toward the inherent characteristics of service design (i.e., considerations of wider stakeholder involvement and value co-creation across a complete service experience to which a product is usually one touchpoint).

4.3.3. Service Innovation and Participatory Design

Service innovation has influenced the learning of sustainable development in higher education. The literature has emphasized that students’ innovation ability in design activity could stimulate service innovation in higher education, leading to more sustainable design [38]. Due to the awareness of sustainable development in higher education on the part of participants in design education, service learning in higher education plays an important role in service innovation and product innovation. The co-occurrence analysis reveals that studies depict service innovation as an essential aspect of service design via collaboration between multidisciplinary participants across a design process.
It appears that service innovation is associated with multidisciplinary co-creation, digitalization, and design methods. Joly, Teixeira, and Patrício [68] support the idea that service design represents a multidisciplinary approach that fosters service innovation. Similarly, Sinni [69] explored collaborative models for public benefit via participants’ communication in different countries. Thus, we believe the influence of service innovation in higher education facilitates the participants in design pedagogy.
Participatory design approaches have become key elements in product design innovation. Research on service design and service innovation puts emphasis not only on co-creation among participants [63] but also on the value of co-creation [58,59] between designers and wider stakeholders. Moreover, service innovation often appears to be based on technology and digitalization [70,71,72]. We therefore argue that service design and innovation pedagogy can benefit product innovation, especially when it depends on participants from multiple disciplines.

4.3.4. Service Learning and Higher Education

As discussed previously, service design is applied in higher education following a specific pedagogy. Based on a co-occurrence analysis of service learning and higher education, the topic of product service systems (PSS) and education for sustainability in design education was highlighted. Specifically, for one thing, scholars suggest that design education in PSS demonstrates that PSS design education was developed via the implementation of service design projects [73] and that it includes service design thinking [74]. For example, Bowie and Cassim [75] explored the relationship between service learning and community collaboration in higher education. For another, several researchers have explored how service learning can contribute to sustainable development goals or sustainable human-community development goals via teaching and learning practices.
To respond to the research questions, we first examined the current research related to service design pedagogy in higher education. Our study not only focused on the service design curriculum and on projects in undergraduate design courses but also on collaborations between higher education and communities for the co-creation of value. The pedagogy of service design teaching in higher education can be characterized by four categories: courses and assignments, pedagogical methods or models, pedagogical applications for specific groups, and pedagogy outside of formal education [53] (p. 241).
Second, it is known from the literature that pedagogy research in higher education embeds collaboration and multidisciplinary approaches [76]. It is evident that service design education, as a discipline in higher education, is multidisciplinary.

5. Discussion

Our study focused on how service design pedagogy can enhance product design innovation in higher education toward promoting more sustainable product development. This section provides insight into the following aspects based on the literature review: exploring the motivations of teaching product innovation in higher education, service design pedagogy in higher education involving multidisciplinary collaboration, and sustainability in PSS in design and PSS design education.

5.1. Key Factors Motivating Product Innovation Teaching in Higher Education

To illustrate the motivations for introducing product innovation into higher education, we explored the motivating factors behind product innovation. The circular economy as a principle/approach has influenced product design in higher education, where some academic literature has explored how the circular economy facilitates design students’ learning via collaboration with manufacturing firms, providing new value-generative products [77]. Similarly, according to [78,79], the consideration of wider environmental factors has been shown to have a positive impact on students’ product innovation performance, such as via considerations of sustainable development and cultural sustainability.
Some scholars have put forward the notion that product design education focuses primarily on material knowledge [79] and material selection and manufacturing methods [46]. Conversely, other studies suggest that wider sustainability factors are beginning to be considered. For example, several studies have identified topics such as green product innovation and customer demand [80,81,82,83,84,85], which are becoming of increasing importance in the realm of the product innovation manufacturing industry.
In higher education, it is clear that product design in higher education increasingly focuses on sustainability. Examples include Souza, Almendra, and Krucken [46], who integrated materials and manufacturing methods into product design curricula toward the achievement of sustainability, whilst evidence of multidisciplinary-oriented complex product systems is coming to the fore [86]. Watkins, Casamayor, and Ramirez [37] (p. 12) have also begun to identify the skills and knowledge required in sustainable product design education, whilst Kim has provided insight into the integration of sustainable development goals in a product innovation course [87].
The integration of service design with product innovation in PSS systems can benefit product design and product innovation. Ki Moon, Seung, et al. [29] proposed that services are essential considerations during product design and development. Szwejczewski, Goffin, and Anagnostopoulos [88] believe that wider service requirements should be considered and evaluated during new product design. Further, circular economy-based design curricula in higher education can help to identify the increasing diversity of designers’ roles [89]. Product design in higher education has been shown to include collaboration with external stakeholders such as local governments, but this often remains outside the scope of the sustainability agenda [36].

5.2. Service Design Pedagogy/Service Learning in Higher Education toward Sustainable Multidisciplinary Communication

Our results suggest that service learning or service design pedagogy advocates for multidisciplinary collaboration and communication via different learning approaches. We believe that service design in higher education plays an important role. For learners and practitioners, service design in higher education enables consideration, understanding, and tackling of more complex societal problems, whilst in design practice, often enhances collaboration.
Service learning has influenced higher education on sustainability due to its promising strategies for design education [90]. Service learning (SL) is a teaching innovation method that combines learning and social service objectives to improve educational quality and graduate employability [91] (p. 1). Service learning impacts curricular development, professional skills, and civic and social responsibility [91] (p. 3), which are essential elements for product design education. Service learning in higher education helps to cultivate competencies such as social responsibility and personal responsibility [90,92].
Furthermore, a comprehensive approach to service innovation enables a better understanding of the complexity of often intangible complex systems. Innovation in service ecosystems can therefore lead to new products, services, and processes, as well as social and environmental practices [93], i.e., wider value outcomes. At the same time, incorporating service learning into higher education (contexts helps to empower cooperative teamwork to support community service sustainability [94] (p. 4550). When considering the emerging topics in service design and service design pedagogy, it becomes clear that multidisciplinary workshops and design methods represent new approaches to service pedagogy.
Firstly, pedagogy research has generated considerable research interest. Vernez Moudon [95] analyzed traditional and new pedagogic models. Numerous experiments have been employed to investigate the strategies of design pedagogy in art and design higher education that make use of service design and the tools and methods it uses. Ali, Grimaldi, and Biagioli [8] pointed out that generative design tools in service design education have a robust pedagogical role in the creation of efficient knowledge and student engagement; yet they are still underexplored academically. Previous work has focused on the wider pedagogical context of service design and that it is associated with social innovation [65] and service design problems [1].
Secondly, multidisciplinary collaboration within higher education not only leads to pedagogical innovations [96] but also facilitates collaborative knowledge construction [8]. In addition, different stakeholders co-create value within communities, facilitating sustainable futures. A study by Van et al. [97] shows the impact of co-creation on the design of circular product service systems. Sánchez de la Guía and Puyuelo Cazorla [66] defined the terms and meanings of participation in product design. The study argues that the mention of participants in product design refers to co-design. Similarly, Trischler and Dietrich [4] explain the role of stakeholders in public service design. Another study, by Mazzarella, Mitchell, and Escobar-Tello [65], clarified the value of service designers in the context of artisan textile communities. Efilti and Gelmez [54] analyzed the design of teachers’ pedagogical roles in the learning processes. Grocott et al. [98] concentrated on pedagogical approaches, with a focus on how risk plays a role in learning mindsets.
Various studies identify the role of students’ innovation capacity via learning methods, such as problem-based learning, project-based learning, experiential learning, and inquiry learning in higher education for sustainable development [99]. Further, methodologies such as focus group discussions also facilitate sustainability education and enhance the teaching of this subject [100].
We believe that integrating service design within product design education will have positive effects on product design because it enables wider collaboration between different or diverse groups. Service value is co-created in many ways between them. If we apply service design principles and approaches in product design, there are wider benefits, like mutual learning between stakeholders specifically involved in the design and production of new product innovations across their lifecycles from inception to repair/reuse/recycling.

5.3. Sustainability in PSS in Design and Sustainability in PSS in Design Education

Some studies provide evidence that product service systems are a response to resource scarcity and consumption behavior in design processes [101]. Similarly, Van Dam, Sleeswijk Visser, and Bakker [97] explored co-creation in practice and the impact it has had on developing circular product service systems. Apart from environmental issues, examples of product service integration can provide service solutions that facilitate value co-creation between designers and stakeholders [102] and socially responsible design [103]. Furthermore, Teles and Gomes Magri [104] highlighted the sustainability measurements in product–service systems.
Co-creation not only implies the participation of customers or users in various phases of its lifecycle, such as ideation, design, development, implementation (i.e., use), etc. [105] (p. 4) but also refers to co-design, co-development, co-delivery, or co-learning within service ecosystems [93] (p. 1). Co-creation (as adopted in the service design industry and particularly in PSS) often refers to the integration of wider and more diverse stakeholders aiming to benefit production and innovation [105] (p. 4). There is a growing body of literature on the relationship between co-creation and sustainability. Co-creation, for instance, has the potential to enhance the role of sustainable development via better energy services, which facilitate multiple stakeholders [106].
Much of the research in recent years has focused on sustainability in product service systems (PSS), such as product–service system innovation and product–service systems design methodology [107,108]. There are many research studies that argue that product–service systems represent a promising approach to sustainability [109,110]. Sustainability in PSS establishes relationships among different stakeholders [109]. Furthermore, sustainability in PSS in design has the potential value to limit environmental impact.
Our study suggests that PSS in design education can support value co-creation both in service design education and therefore product innovation/design education. The literature review demonstrates that the product–service systems research field operates within an integrated system that includes products, services, and business models [111]. The approach or strategy of combining product and service holistically has been extensively studied [112]. A report by Matschewsky and Kambanou [113] showed that PSS design as a design method has been applied in companies. Moreover, some studies provide a framework for PSS research strategies and PSS design methodologies [114,115].
PSS inherently considers sustainability, as shown by these studies. We encourage learners in product design or product innovation to think ‘beyond the product’ as a single point of engagement with a customer, consumer, and end user. Therefore, we consider it as one of many touchpoints in an end-to-end experience or journey; we highlight a broader consideration of its complete lifecycle (from inception to its death), and therefore via this level of exposure of the learner to the complexity of the production of a product within a service, service design has value to product design or product innovation.

5.4. How Does Service Design Better Facilitate Sustainability Considerations by Product Designers during Their Education

Interweaving service design and product innovation may raise conflicts between social design objectives and the more traditional pursuit of aesthetics (or product beauty) in the industrial design world [43]. This study shows the contributions of service design pedagogy in universities that are faced with social transformation challenges toward sustainability. Some researchers have explored how service design integrates community service learning into higher education courses to encourage students to improve their competencies, which not only facilitates product innovation but also benefits the wider public [116]. Numerous experiments have established that, over the past ten years, service design education has focused on the identification of multiple levels of society. A study by Morelli and Götzen [11] highlighted the importance of social transformations in service design education. Further work is needed to investigate PSS design in education and teaching practices. Sangiorgi and Junginger [117] (p. 165) confirmed that the study of “service implementation not only relates to academic frameworks, definitions, and fundamental procedures but also to how it influences businesses and society”. Similarly, Costa Junior and Diehl [118] revealed that a design approach in design education needs to adopt sustainable product service systems to solve complex social problems. PSS inherently considers sustainability, as shown by these studies. We encourage learners in product innovation to think ‘beyond the product’ as a single point of engagement with a customer/consumer/end user, and therefore consider it as one of many touchpoints in an end-to-end experience/journey. This would foreground broader consideration of a product’s complete lifecycle and sustainability. Service design can add value to product design and product innovation by exposing the learner to the complexity of the production of a product within a broader service, and how that product exists within a broader ecosystem. Wider value considerations can be explored, such as the risks and unintended consequences of a new product, to enhance sustainability considerations.
As discussed previously, education on sustainable development is widely applied, for instance, in applications related to the development of sustainable tourism [119], the teaching of engineering [120], and tourism education in higher education [121]. Versteijlen and Wals [122] conducted a blended learning method to reduce HEI’s climate impact by reducing student travel to and from campus and students’ sustainability competencies. Komenda and Monroe [123] mentioned that smart technology could help people practice more sustainable behaviors. Furthermore, service learning and service design in universities have influenced curriculum development and professional skills. For instance, some service-learning projects geared toward sustainable development made use of recycled materials [124]. Thus, service learning and service design teaching facilitate product innovation via the exploration of recycled materials.

6. Conclusions

6.1. Research Conclusions

The development of service design in higher education has gained increasing attention as a potential strategy to enhance the teaching of design for sustainability and the circular economy. This article focused on how service design can add new value to product innovation education with the goal of enhancing sustainability considerations within this design area.
The study’s findings confirmed that service design and service design pedagogy have potential value for product innovation education, in particular around enhancing sustainability and social innovation considerations. Building on the previous literature, this study not only focuses on how service design and how it is taught can enhance product innovation teaching within higher education product design degrees but also concentrates on comprehensive social innovation and value co-creation. Previous studies proposed that service design approaches and applications in higher education are not limited to service learning and teaching practice. Service design and service learning as higher education pedagogies expand the concept of teaching and learning and foster critical social values [125]. We propose that if service design has a positive impact on social innovation via the collaboration between multi-disciplinary stakeholders, thereby contributing to sustainable futures, the same can be said if service design is integrated with product innovation education.
In conclusion, we believe that service design can enrich product design education by encouraging students to develop a more systemic understanding of sustainability considerations (e.g., CE principles and unintended consequences) and thereby improve sustainable outcomes in product innovation. Hence, the literature review explored the transformation from a product-centered practice to a multidisciplinary communication practice within service design pedagogies. Although product innovation plays an important role in design education, the potential of service design methods for such innovations has not yet been broadly recognized.
The research results show the potential value of service design in higher education via value co-creation. The results reveal that service design pedagogy in design education offers a broader understanding of product design innovation and that service design in higher education tends to facilitate collaboration between stakeholders and participants. Service design and service design innovation can incorporate the needs, wishes, and expertise of multiple stakeholders from different disciplines. Service design can therefore propel product innovation into the realm of wider value co-creation by encouraging product innovation learners to take a more holistic, systemic, and comprehensive view of the wider value outcomes of any single product being designed instead of encouraging a sole focus on user issues and aesthetic concerns, such as product beauty. The literature demonstrates that service design pedagogy implemented in multiple disciplines is associated with social context, value co-creation, and sustainability.

6.2. Future Research

It is clear that service design education appears within a comprehensive context, and our study considered both bachelor’s and master’s degree curriculums within higher education. Although the participants in service learning come from different disciplines, they mainly cooperate via groups and projects. We suggest that further studies focus on exploring how service design pedagogy and product innovation can be better integrated into higher education. New digital technologies, such as those offered via AI, may provide new inroads for obtaining multi-stakeholder perspectives and for interdisciplinary collaboration. Further pursuit of this aim would make it possible for students in product innovation to take full advantage of the many benefits inherent to service design.

Author Contributions

S.D. and C.J.P.M.d.B. designed the study. S.D., C.J.P.M.d.B., S.C. and Q.Z. collected and analyzed the data. S.D., C.J.P.M.d.B. and S.C. wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This work has been approved by the Departmental Ethics Committee and the Institutional Review Board of the Guangdong University of Technology (No. GDUTXS2023001).

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent has been obtained from the participants to publish this paper.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Suoheimo, M.; Vasques, R.; Rytilahti, P. Deep diving into service design problems: Visualizing the iceberg model of design problems through a literature review on the relation and role of service design with wicked problems. Des. J. 2020, 24, 231–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Antonietta Sbordone, M.; Morelli, N. Service design as the ground for alternative social and economic scenarios. Des. J. 2017, 20, S614–S621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Griffioen, I.; Melles, M.; Stiggelbout, A.; Snelders, D. The potential of service design for improving the implementation of shared decision-making. Des. Health 2017, 1, 194–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Trischler, J.; Dietrich, T. Co-design: From expert-to user-driven ideas in public service design. Public Manag. Rev. 2019, 21, 1595–1619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Trischler, J.; Westman Trischler, J. Design for experience–a public service design approach in the age of digitalization. Public Manag. Rev. 2021, 24, 1251–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ballantyne-Brodie, E.; Telalbasic, I. Designing local food systems in everyday life through service design strategies. Des. J. 2017, 20, S3079–S3095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wang, S.M. Public service space remodeling based on service design and behavioral maps. J. Ind. Prod. Eng. 2014, 31, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ali, H.; Grimaldi, S.; Biagioli, M. Service Design pedagogy and effective student engagement: Generative Tools and Methods. Des. J. 2017, 20, S1304–S1322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Patrício, L.; Fisk, R.P.; Falcão e Cunha, J. Multilevel service design: From customer value constellation to service experience blueprinting. J. Serv. Res. 2011, 14, 180–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lim, C.; Kim, K.H.; Kim, M.J.; Kim, K.J. Multi-factor service design: Identification and consideration of multiple factors of the service in its design process. Serv. Bus. 2019, 13, 51–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Morelli, N.; Götzen, A.D. A Multilevel Approach for Social Transformations and its Implications on Service Design Education. Des. J. 2017, 20, S803–S813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chen, C.L. Strategic sustainable service design for creative-cultural hotels: A multi-level and multi-domain view. Local Environ. 2022, 27, 46–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Gao, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Xu, X.; Jia, F.; Lin, Z. Service design for the destination tourism service ecosystem: A review and extension. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2022, 27, 225–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wetter-Edman, K.; Vink, J.; Blomkvist, J. Staging aesthetic disruption through design methods for service innovation. Des. Stud. 2018, 55, 5–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Aldoy, N.; Evans, M. A review of digital industrial and product design methods in UK higher education. Des. J. 2011, 14, 343–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ackermann, L. Design for product care: Enhancing consumers’ repair and maintenance activities. Des. J. 2018, 21, 543–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hara, T.; Arai, T.; Shimomura, Y. A CAD system for service innovation: Integrated representation of function, service activity, and product behaviour. J. Eng. Des. 2009, 20, 367–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Vargo, S.L.; Lusch, R.F. Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. J. Mark. 2004, 68, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sun, J.; Chu, J. A new method of product-service system design: Product-based, participatory service design method. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Luoyang, China, 17–19 May 2019. [Google Scholar]
  20. Wang, Y.H.; Lee, C.H.; Trappey, A.J.C. Modularized design-oriented systematic inventive thinking approach supporting collaborative service innovations. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2017, 33, 300–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Vink, J.; Koskela-Huotari, K.; Tronvoll, B. Service ecosystem design: Propositions, process model, and future research agenda. J. Serv. Res. 2021, 24, 168–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Goldstein, S.M.; Johnston, R.; Duffy, J.A.; Rao, J. The service concept: The missing link in service design research? J. Oper. Manag. 2002, 20, 121–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Dennington, C. Service design as a cultural intermediary. Translating cultural phenomena into services. Des. J. 2017, 20, S600–S613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Duan, Z.; Vink, J.; Clatworthy, S.D. Narrating service design to account for cultural plurality. Int. J. Des. 2021, 15, 11. [Google Scholar]
  25. Sierra-Pérez, J.; Teixeira, J.G.; Romero-Piqueras, C. Designing sustainable services with the ECO-Service design method: Bridging user experience with environmental performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 305, 127228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kim, M.J.; Lim, C.H.; Lee, C.H.; Kim, K.J.; Park, Y.; Choi, S. Approach to service design based on customer behavior data: A case study on eco-driving service design using bus drivers’ behavior data. Serv. Bus. 2018, 12, 203–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Villari, B. Designing Sustainable Services for Cities: Adopting a Systemic Perspective in Service Design Experiments. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Holopainen, M. Exploring service design in the context of architecture. Serv. Ind. J. 2010, 30, 597–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ki Moon, S.; Simpson, T.W.; Shu, J.; Kumara, S.R. Service representation for capturing and reusing design knowledge in product and service families using object-oriented concepts and an ontology. J. Eng. Des. 2009, 20, 413–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kankainen, A.; Vaajakallio, K.; Kantola, V.; Mattelmäki, T. Storytelling Group–a co-design method for service design. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2012, 31, 221–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mestre, A.; Cooper, T. Circular product design. A multiple loops life cycle design approach for the circular economy. Des. J. 2017, 20, S1620–S1635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Burke, H.; Zhang, A.; Wang, J.X. Integrating product design and supply chain management for a circular economy. Prod. Plan. Control 2023, 34, 1097–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. He, B.; Wang, J.; Huang, S.; Wang, Y. Low-carbon product design for product life cycle. J. Eng. Des. 2015, 26, 321–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Han, Y.; Shevchenko, T.; Yannou, B.; Ranjbari, M. Exploring How Digital Technologies Enable a Circular Economy of Products. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Adilah, M.; Rau, H.; Procopio, K.M. Using an Axiomatic Design Approach to Develop a Product Innovation Process with Circular and Smart Design Aspects. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Peng, F.; Altieri, B.; Hutchinson, T.; Harris, A.J.; McLean, D. Design for Social Innovation: A Systemic Design Approach in Creative Higher Education toward Sustainability. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Watkins, M.; Casamayor, J.L.; Ramirez, M. Sustainable product design education: Current practice. She Ji J. Des. Econ. Innov. 2021, 7, 611–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Muñoz López, N.; Valero Martín, J.I.; Biedermann, A. Projecting More Sustainable Product and Service Designs. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mancini, M. A contemporary didactics of innovation in product design. Grip Factors identification and evaluation. Des. J. 2017, 20, S732–S744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. The Circular Design Guide. Available online: https://www.circulardesignguide.com/ (accessed on 22 August 2023).
  41. Botchway, E.; Verpooten, J.; van der Beken, I.; Baršytė, J.; Dewitte, S. The Endowment Effect in the Circular Economy: Do Broken Products Face Less of a Trading Barrier Than Intact or Repaired Ones? Sustainability 2023, 15, 11813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Çakmakçıoğlu, B.A. Effect of digital age on the transmission of cultural values in product design. Des. J. 2017, 20, S3824–S3836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Liguori, M.d. Returning the aesthetics to the heart of the design process. On the conflict between social design and product beauty. Des. J. 2017, 20, S304–S316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ramoğlu, M.; Coşkun, A. Scientific Craftsmanship: The changing role of product designers in the digital era. Des. J. 2017, 20, S4497–S4508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Temeltaş, H. Collaboration and exchange between “Craftsman” and “Designer”: Symbiosis towards Product Innovation. Des. J. 2017, 20, S3713–S3723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Souza, A.; Almendra, R.; Krucken, L. Materials & Manufacturing Methods selection in product design: Experiences in undergraduate programs. Des. J. 2017, 20, S1185–S1196. [Google Scholar]
  47. Chen, C.-W. New product styles and concepts in the bicultural context. Des. J. 2018, 21, 771–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Liu, W.; Moultrie, J.; Ye, S. The customer-dominated innovation process: Involving customers as designers and decision-makers in developing new product. Des. J. 2019, 22, 299–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Temeltas, H.; Kaya, C. Transfer of craft knowledge to new product development through collaboration between craftsmen and designers. Des. J. 2021, 24, 865–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Donthu, N.; Kumar, S.; Mukherjee, D.; Pandey, N.; Lim, W.M. How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 133, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Galvin, P.; Klarin, A.; Nyuur, R.; Burton, N. A bibliometric content analysis of do-it-yourself (DIY) science: Where to from here for management research? Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2021, 33, 1255–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Song, M.; Zhang, J.; Liu, X.; Zhang, L.; Hao, X.; Li, M. Developments and Trends in Energy Poverty Research—Literature Visualization Analysis Based on CiteSpace. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Joshi, M.; Alavaikko, M. Service design approaches and applications in higher education: A thematic literature review. Art Des. Commun. High. Educ. 2020, 19, 241–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Efilti, P.; Gelmez, K. Celebrating the variety, fighting the confusion: An integrative review of the design teacher’s pedagogical roles. Art Des. Commun. High. Educ. 2021, 20, 243–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Huang, S.; Ali, N.A.M.; Noor, M.S.M. Bibliometric analysis of review on curriculum reform of design history using CNKI database. Art Des. Commun. High. Educ. 2022, 21, 7–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ellegaard, O.; Wallin, J.A. The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics 2015, 105, 1809–1831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Iriarte, I.; Alberdi, A.; Urrutia, E.; Justel, D. Beyond customer satisfaction. Supporting organisational change through Service Design. A case study in the insurance industry. Des. J. 2017, 20, S424–S434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Andreassen, T.W.; Kristensson, P. Linking service design to value creation and service research. J. Serv. Manag. 2016, 27, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wetter-Edman, K.; Sangiorgi, D.; Edvardsson, B. Design for value co-creation: Exploring synergies between design for service and service logic. Serv. Sci. 2014, 6, 106–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Yin, L.; Fassi, D.; Cheng, H.; Han, H.; He, S. Health Co-Creation in social innovation: Design service for health-empowered society in China. Des. J. 2017, 20, S2293–S2303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Anderson, S.; Nasr, L.; Rayburn, S.W. Transformative service research and service design: Synergistic effects in healthcare. Serv. Ind. J. 2018, 38, 99–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lammi, M. Emotional service experience toolkit for servitization. Des. J. 2017, 20, S2667–S2678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Yu, E.; Sangiorgi, D. Service design as an approach to implement the value cocreation perspective in new service development. J. Serv. Res. 2018, 21, 40–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Kuure, E.; Miettinen, S. Social Design for Service. Building a Framework for Designers Working in the Development Context. Des. J. 2017, 20, S3464–S3474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mazzarella, F.; Mitchell, V.; Escobar-Tello, C. Crafting sustainable futures. The value of the service designer in activating meaningful social innovation from within textile artisan communities. Des. J. 2017, 20, S2935–S2950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Sánchez de la Guía, L.; Puyuelo Cazorla, M.; de-Miguel-Molina, B. Terms and meanings of “participation” in product design: From “user involvement” to “co-design”. Des. J. 2017, 20, S4539–S4551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Rusch, M.; Schöggl, J.P. Application of digital technologies for sustainable product management in a circular economy: A review. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 32, 1159–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Prestes Joly, M.; Teixeira, J.G.; Patrício, L. Leveraging service design as a multidisciplinary approach to service innovation. J. Serv. Manag. 2019, 30, 681–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Sinni, G. Participatory Design for Public Services. Innovation in Public Administration. Des. J. 2017, 20, S3368–S3379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Karwatzki, S.; Trenz, M.; Veit, D. The multidimensional nature of privacy risks: Conceptualisation, measurement and implications for digital services. Inf. Syst. J. 2022, 32, 1126–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Bantau, G.; Rayburn, S.W. Advanced information technology: Transforming service innovation and design. Serv. Ind. J. 2016, 36, 699–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Herterich, M.M. On the design of digitized industrial products as key resources of service platforms for industrial service innovation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Design Science Research in Information System and Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany, 30 May–1 June 2017; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  73. Kim, Y.S.; Lee, S.W.; Lee, S.I.; Kim, K.O.; Kim, M. Product-Service systems design education and a new interdisciplinary service design graduate program. In Proceedings of the DS 75-8: 19th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED13), Design for Harmonies, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 19–22 August 2013; Volume 8, pp. 19–22. [Google Scholar]
  74. Luca, E.J.; Ulyannikova, Y. Towards a user-centred systematic review service: The transformative power of service design thinking. J. Aust. Libr. Inf. Assoc. 2020, 69, 357–374. [Google Scholar]
  75. Bowie, A.; Cassim, F. Linking classroom and community: A theoretical alignment of service learning and a human-centered design methodology in contemporary communication design education. Educ. Change 2016, 20, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Roughley, M.; Smith, K.; Wilkinson, C. Investigating new areas of art-science practice-based research with the MA Art in Science programme at Liverpool School of Art and Design. High. Educ. Pedagog. 2019, 4, 226–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Whitehill, S.; Hayles, C.S.; Jenkins, S.; Taylour, J. Engagement with Higher Education Surface Pattern Design Students as a Catalyst for Circular Economy Action. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Sun, C.; Liu, J.A.; Razmerita, L.; Xu, Y.; Qi, J. Higher Education to Support Sustainable Development: The Influence of Information Literacy and Online Learning Process on Chinese Postgraduates’ Innovation Performance. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Parisi, S.; Rognoli, V.; Sonneveld, M. Material Tinkering. An inspirational approach for experiential learning and envisioning in product design education. Des. J. 2017, 20, S1167–S1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Chang, C.H. How to enhance green service and green product innovation performance? The roles of inward and outward capabilities. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2018, 25, 411–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Moon, H.; Miller, D.R.; Kim, S.H. Product Design Innovation and Customer Value: Cross-Cultural Research in the United States and Korea. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2013, 30, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Peters, K.; Buijs, P. Strategic ambidexterity in green product innovation: Obstacles and implications. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 31, 173–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Heredia, J.; Yang, X.; Flores, A.; Rubiños, C. What drives new product innovation in China? An integrative strategy tripod approach. Thunderbird Int. Bus. Rev. 2020, 62, 393–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Gerstlberger, W.; Praest Knudsen, M. Sustainable development strategies for product innovation and energy efficiency. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2014, 23, 131–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Dangelico, R.M.; Pujari, D. Green product innovation in manufacturing firms: A sustainability-oriented dynamic capability perspective. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2017, 26, 490–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Zhang, H.; Han, X.; Li, R.; Qin, S.; Ding, G.; Yan, K. A new conceptual design method to support rapid and effective mapping from product design specification to concept design. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2016, 87, 2375–2389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Kim, E. Sustainable New Product Development for Ten Thousand Villages, a Fair-Trade Social Enterprise: Empowering Women and Economic Development through Problem-Based Service Learning. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Szwejczewski, M.; Goffin, K.; Anagnostopoulos, Z. Product service systems, after-sales service and new product development. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2015, 53, 5334–5353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Sumter, D.; Bakker, C.; Balkenende, R. The role of product design in creating circular business models: A case study on the lease and refurbishment of baby strollers. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Mangas, S.L.; Marbán, J.M.; Cuesta, M.C.U.; Argüelles, M.Á.M.; Martínez, J.R. The Role Personal Responsibility Norms Play in Sustainable Development for University Students: The Impact of Service-Learning Projects. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Martínez-Campillo, A.; Sierra-Fernández, M.D.P.; Fernández-Santos, Y. Service-learning for sustainability entrepreneurship in rural areas: What is its global impact on business university students? Sustainability 2019, 11, 5296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Cabedo, L.; Royo, M.; Moliner, L.; Guraya, T. University social responsibility towards engineering undergraduates: The effect of methodology on a service-learning experience. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Barile, S.; Grimaldi, M.; Loia, F.; Sirianni, C.A. Technology, value co-creation and innovation in service ecosystems: Toward sustainable co-innovation. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Zainuri, A.; Huda, M. Empowering Cooperative Teamwork for Community Service Sustainability: Insights from Service Learning. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Vernez Moudon, A. An alternative pedagogic model for doctoral research in urban design. J. Urban Des. 2016, 21, 690–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. McAra, M.; Ross, K. Expanding studio boundaries: Navigating tensions in multidisciplinary collaboration within and beyond the higher education design studio. Int. J. Art Des. Educ. 2020, 39, 795–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. van Dam, S.; Sleeswijk Visser, F.; Bakker, C. The impact of co-creation on the design of circular product-service systems: Learnings from a case study with washing machines. Des. J. 2021, 24, 25–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Grocott, L.; McEntee, K.; Coleman, K. The becoming of a designer: An affective pedagogical approach to modelling and scaffolding risk-taking. Art Des. Commun. High. Educ. 2019, 18, 99–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Braßler, M.; Schultze, M. Students’ innovation in education for sustainable development—A longitudinal study on interdisciplinary vs. Monodisciplinary learning. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Busquets, P.; Segalas, J.; Gomera, A.; Antúnez, M.; Ruiz-Morales, J.; Albareda-Tiana, S.; Miñano, R. Sustainability education in the Spanish higher education system: Faculty practice, concerns and needs. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Dewberry, E.; Cook, M.; Angus, A.; Gottberg, A. Critical reflections on designing product service systems. Des. J. 2013, 16, 408–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Ryu, H.; Song, H.; Seo, K.; Kim, J. Servicizing solutions for manufacturing firms: Categorizing service ideas from product-service integrated examples. Des. J. 2018, 21, 267–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Melles, G.; de Vere, I.; Misic, V. Socially responsible design: Thinking beyond the triple bottom line to socially responsive and sustainable product design. CoDesign 2011, 7, 143–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Teles, F.; Gomes Magri, R.T. Sustainability measurement of product-service systems: Brazilian case studies about electric car-sharing. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2018, 25, 722–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Tran, T.; Park, J.Y. Development of a novel co-creative framework for redesigning product service systems. Sustainability 2016, 8, 434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Shafqat, O.; Malakhtka, E.; Chrobot, N.; Lundqvist, P. End Use Energy Services Framework Co-Creation with Multiple Stakeholders—A Living Lab-Based Case Study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Agher, J.R.; Dubois, P.; Aoussat, A. A Bibliometric Analysis of Product-Service Systems’ Design Methodologies: Potential Root-Cause Identification of PSS’Failures. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. de la Calle, A.; Freije, I.; Oyarbide, A. Digital Product–Service Innovation and Sustainability: A Multiple-Case Study in the Capital Goods Industry. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Petrulaityte, A.; Ceschin, F.; Pei, E.; Harrison, D. Applying distributed manufacturing to product-service system design: A set of near-future scenarios and a design tool. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Liu, C.; Jia, G.; Kong, J. Requirement-oriented engineering characteristic identification for a sustainable product–service system: A multi-method approach. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Baxter, D.; Roy, R.; Doultsinou, A.; Gao, J. A knowledge management framework to support product-service systems design. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2009, 22, 1073–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Gurtu, A. The strategy of combining products and services: A literature review. Serv. Mark. Q. 2019, 40, 82–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Matschewsky, J.; Kambanou, M.L. Designing and providing integrated product-service systems–challenges, opportunities and solutions resulting from prescriptive approaches in two industrial companies. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2018, 56, 2150–2168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Vasanthaz, G.V.A.; Roy, R.; Lelah, A. A review of product–service systems design methodologies. J. Eng. Des. 2012, 23, 635–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Wang, P.P.; Ming, X.G.; Li, D.; Kong, F.B. Status review and research strategies on product-service systems. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2011, 49, 6863–6883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Tijsma, G.; Hilverda, F.; Scheffelaar, A.; Alders, S.; Schoonmade, L.; Blignaut, N.; Zweekhorst, M. Becoming productive 21st century citizens: A systematic review uncovering design principles for integrating community service learning into higher education courses. Educ. Res. 2020, 62, 390–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Sangiorgi, D.; Junginger, S. Emerging issues in service design. Des. J. 2015, 18, 165–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Costa Junior, J.; Diehl, J.C. Educating for a systems design approach to complex societal problems. J. Eng. Des. 2018, 29, 65–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Su, P.Y.; Hsiao, P.W.; Fan, K.K. Investigating the Relationship between Users’ Behavioral Intentions and Learning Effects of VR System for Sustainable Tourism Development. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. To, T.T.; Al Mahmud, A.; Ranscombe, C. Teaching Sustainability Using 3D Printing in Engineering Education: An Observational Study. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Lampoltshammer, T.J.; Wallinger, S.; Scholz, J. Bridging Disciplinary Divides through Computational Social Sciences and Transdisciplinarity in Tourism Education in Higher Educational Institutions: An Austrian Case Study. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Versteijlen, M.; Wals, A.E. Developing Design Principles for Sustainability-Oriented Blended Learning in Higher Education. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Komenda, S.; Monroe, M.C. Clues in the Data: The Role of Education in Adopting Technology That Enhances Sustainable Lifestyle Choices. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Castro, P.M.; Ares-Pernas, A.; Dapena, A. Service-learning projects in university degrees based on sustainable development goals: Proposals and results. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Mtawa, N.N.; Nkhoma, N.M. Service-learning as a higher education pedagogy for advancing citizenship, conscientization and civic agency: A capability informed view. High. Educ. Pedagog. 2020, 5, 110–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 15530 g001
Figure 1. Paper selection process.
Figure 1. Paper selection process.
Sustainability 15 15530 g001
Sustainability 15 15530 g002
Figure 2. Network map of the core authors.
Figure 2. Network map of the core authors.
Sustainability 15 15530 g002
Sustainability 15 15530 g003
Figure 3. Institutional cooperation network.
Figure 3. Institutional cooperation network.
Sustainability 15 15530 g003
Table 1. Examples of service design definitions found in the literature.
Table 1. Examples of service design definitions found in the literature.
AuthorDefinition
[11]“The paradigmatic framework for the service design discipline is shifting from a methodological approach that qualified services as “what is not a product” to a new approach that moves the control over the value creation process from designers and producers to the interaction among a constellation of stakeholders”.
[28]“Services consist of numerous components which are often not physical entities, but rather a combination of processes, people skills, and material resources that must be appropriately
integrated to result in the ‘designed’ service”.
[2]“Service design proposes new forms of value creation that cannot always be measured according to the current economic criteria. They are rather introducing new economic factors that contribute to the value creation process, such as experience, time, knowledge, new roles in working and consuming”.
[13]“An experience centered service concept of destination tourism is needed and generally includes the following two levels: (a) tourism destination brands, and (b) value propositions”.
[8]“Service design, as an emerging discipline, draws on multidisciplinary practice to strategically develop innovations”.
[29]“In service design, we should consider service characteristics that can be defined by a set of processes, operations, people, objects, and/or features. We apply object-oriented conceptsto describe services using these service characteristics”.
[30]“Services are often networked in many ways. They are also dynamic, that is, the customer and the service provider both influence the service experience that is co-created and experienced in the interaction. Services are thus flexible in nature and have a great deal of openness that needs to be managed”.
Table 2. Examples of product design definitions found in the literature.
Table 2. Examples of product design definitions found in the literature.
AuthorDefinition
[39]“The contemporary way to “create” innovation in product design gives designers the main responsibility for its success, because of their skills to control and filter many points of view: economical, technical, communicative, social ones… and to summarize them in only one product”.
[31]“() proposes a conceptual framework for circular product design, based on four multiple loops strategies: (I) design to slow the loops, (II) design to close the loops, (III) design for bio-inspired loops, and (IV) design for bio-based Loops”.
[42]“Some products have additional functions or have changed their functions due to new digital possibilities. These are indicated in the function column”.
[43]“The aesthetics of physical products is a value that can no longer be taken for granted in design today and is less obvious than in the past. Nowadays the aesthetics dimension in design has been thrown into crisis because of interdisciplinary nature of design itself, its feathered edges and the continuous critical revisionism about this discipline”.
[44]“The concept of product has changed. Today, designers are not only working with physical artifacts but also services, systems, and experiences”.
Table 3. Examples of product innovation definitions found in the literature.
Table 3. Examples of product innovation definitions found in the literature.
AuthorDefinition
[45]“In the new product development process, the contribution of the industrial design to the product development is more visible than crafts area. This is caused by both education and the connection of product designer with the mass production and industry”.
[46]“Materials selection has great impact on the manufacturing of products and can support more sustainable design”.
[47]“Cross-cultural communication and inquiry learning are important tactics for fostering creativity and product innovation”.
[48]“() explore the mechanism of involving customers as designers and decision-makers in developing new product”.
[49]“New product development (NPD) plays a significant role in maintaining competitive advantage and increasing market share. NPD is highly dependent on the existing knowledge of individuals within the company, which is shared and used to create new knowledge”.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ding, S.; de Bont, C.J.P.M.; Cockbill, S.; Zhou, Q. A Review of Service Design Pedagogy to Identify Potential Added Value to Product Innovation in Higher Education. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15530. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115530

AMA Style

Ding S, de Bont CJPM, Cockbill S, Zhou Q. A Review of Service Design Pedagogy to Identify Potential Added Value to Product Innovation in Higher Education. Sustainability. 2023; 15(21):15530. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115530

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ding, Shiyao, Cees J. P. M. de Bont, Stuart Cockbill, and Qiaozhuang Zhou. 2023. "A Review of Service Design Pedagogy to Identify Potential Added Value to Product Innovation in Higher Education" Sustainability 15, no. 21: 15530. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115530

APA Style

Ding, S., de Bont, C. J. P. M., Cockbill, S., & Zhou, Q. (2023). A Review of Service Design Pedagogy to Identify Potential Added Value to Product Innovation in Higher Education. Sustainability, 15(21), 15530. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115530

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop