ServDes.2020 – Tensions, Paradoxes, Plurality
RMIT University, Melbourne Australia

Designing for behavioural andinstitutional changes
Masanao Takeyama1, Kahoru Tsukui1, Hiroshi Yamaguchi2,
Akihiro Sasaki2, Satoshi Miyashita2
takeyama@econ.keio.ac.jp
1 Keio University, 2Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd.

Abstract
Although the popularizing approach of behaviour design and the recentlyintroduced perspective of service ecosystem design (Vink et al., 2017;
Vink, 2019) differ significantly in their purpose, focus, and theoreticalbackgrounds, these differences actually indicate an opportunity tointegrate the two, to complement each other and facilitate behaviour andinstitutional changes simultaneously. To clarify the benefits anddemonstrate the procedure of such an integration, this paper introduces apilot study to implement the integrative design approach for a corporate
project which aims at applying design thinking to their sales activities. The
results show that the proposed approach helps designers andstakeholders to understand entangled relations between behaviour of
employees and organizational social structures and also to uncover wider
opportunities and more impactful strategies for change.

Keywords: behaviour design, behaviour change, service ecosystemdesign, institutional change341

Introduction
It is a known fact that service designers always influence on users’
behaviour, as introducing a new service necessarily solicits and causes
behavioural changes. It is especially important for the designers tonavigate and support intentionally the expected behaviour of users forcocreating values in use. Moreover, in recent times the human race copewith social and economic issues requiring behaviour changes in various
domains including healthcare, energy saving, finance, education, safety,
and corporate human resources (OECD, 2017; Afif et al, 2018). Growing
concerns about those issues increase the demand in services, of which
behaviour change is their primary value proposition (Risdon, 2013;
Niedderer et al., 2017). Furthermore, the high penetration of smart phones
and wearable devices with the capability to sense, analyse, and intervenein human behaviour as well as the popularization of knowledge andtechniques for applying behaviour science provide designers with
opportunities and more credibility to improve user behaviour and develop
behaviour changing products and services (Wendel, 2013).
In a typical service design project which resorts to a behavioural approach,designers first set a specific behavioural outcome and an expected target
behaviour to promote or inhibit achieving the outcome. Usually a certain
gap between expected and actual behaviours is defined as a problem tosolve. Then designers utilize knowledge of behavioural science such as
cognitive biases and heuristics in order to understand the nature of
barriers against the expected action and explore effective strategies toovercome them (Datta & Mullainathan, 2014; Tanita, 2017). This approachis basically founded on the idea of a cause-and-effect relationshipbetween human cognition and behaviour, which support designers well insolving behavioural problems. Designers and organizations welcome such
scientific rigor expecting to prove the effect of design interventions(Mahamuni, 2018; Risdon, 2017). However, this approach also invites
some risk of understanding the problem too narrowly in terms of
behavioural and psychological conditions without consideringorganizational, social and cultural contexts (Lambe et al., 2020). In
addition, it tends to limit the means of intervention and solution tocommunication and interaction at specific touchpoints (Van Lieren et al.,2019).
From the perspective of service ecosystems (Lusch & Vargo, 2014), some
service design scholars focus on the influence of social structures on

Masanao Takeyama, Kahoru Tsukui, Hiroshi Yamaguchi,
Akihiro Sasaki, Satoshi Miyashita
Designing for behavioural and institutional changes
Linköping University Electronic Press342

behaviour of the actors (Vink et al., 2017; Vink et al., 2019, Vink 2019).
Following the concepts of service-dominant logic and systemic design,
Vink (2019) emphasizes the role of institutions within a service ecosystemsuch as rules, roles, norms, and beliefs to restrict and enable thepossibility of actors’ behaviours within the system. Such social structures
or institutions help to maintain the actors’ behavioural routines in theservice ecosystem, which assure taken-for-granted patterns of service
exchanges among them by reducing the uncertainties and their conscious
efforts to perform those exchanges (Kleinaltenkamp, 2018). As theseroutinized problem-solving behaviours reproduce the social structures ofservice ecosystem, micro-scale human behaviours and macro-scale social
structures reinforce each other, increasing their viabilities reciprocally(Giddens, 1984).
Based on the understanding of these characteristics of service
ecosystems, the preceding research proposes the perspective of service
ecosystem design (Vink et al., 2017; Vink 2019). Service ecosystemdesign engages and empowers various stakeholders to reflect critically on
the existing institutions to reshape their mental models, creating conditions
for altering the service ecosystem along with their behavioural routines
toward preferred futures. In this perspective, design too is regarded as anactivity of actors embedded in the service ecosystem not being free fromthe influences of its institutions. This is the reason why service ecosystemdesign has a strong focus on the reflexivity of actors (including
professional designers) who participate collectively in a design process torecognize and reshape the institutional arrangements intentionally (Vink,
2019; Mutch, 2007; Suddaby et al., 2016). However, to implement thereformation of a service ecosystem, the design practice also needs toconsider and resort to actors’ unconscious and intuitive decision-making
for helping the actors change their behaviour and supporting the modified
behaviours become routinized once again.
The arguments above on behaviour design and service ecosystem designindicate an opportunity to integrate these different design approaches tocomplement each other for facilitating both behaviour and institutionalchanges simultaneously. To explore the benefits and demonstrate theprocedure of such an integration, this paper introduces a pilot study to
examine the integrative design approach for a corporate project whichaims at applying design thinking to their sales activities. Based on thisstudy, it summarises the complementary relationships between the two

Masanao Takeyama, Kahoru Tsukui, Hiroshi Yamaguchi,
Akihiro Sasaki, Satoshi Miyashita
Designing for behavioural and institutional changes
Linköping University Electronic Press343

approaches more precisely, in order to clarify the advantage of theintegration.

The pilot case study
BackgroundWe implemented an integrative design approach for behavioural andinstitutional changes into a corporate environment, with the aim ofencouraging their salespersons to learn design thinking skills and practicethese in their work. This company, which has thirty-eight thousand
employees, manufactures and sells digital printing and information
technology solutions. The goal of this project is to transform their current
sales approach of solving customers’ known problems into more creative
approach of finding and realizing customers’ unknown opportunities.
Through such a transformation, they expect to avert price competition andincrease their revenue thanks to a value co-creation with customers. The
company’s internal service design lab, named as SDL, has been leading
this project by introducing design thinking methods to around fourthousand salespersons from selected divisions. As those salespersons areworking at a large number of business hubs distributed over 7 regions of
the nation, the SDL, located in the capital city, trained 125 salespersons
as “design thinking ambassadors (DTAs)” and assigned them to promote
the practice of design thinking at each local hub. Specifically, each DTA is
expected to provide current and prospective customers with moreinnovative and competitive business proposals, by applying design
thinking themselves or holding design thinking workshops with thosecustomers. At the same time, several service designers of SDL wereassigned as the “design thinking mentors (DTMs)” to assist the activities of
DTAs.
Two years after the launch of the project, however, the director of SDL,
who is a co-author of this paper, realized many of DTAs were not
implementing design thinking workshops with customers as frequently as
expected. More surprisingly, the director noticed some DTMs were notactive enough to assist DTAs, instead waiting just for questions orrequests from DTAs. Thus, recognizing the necessity to change
behaviours of both the underperforming DTAs and DTMs, we decided toapply an integrated design approach for behavioural and institutionalchanges to this problem.

Masanao Takeyama, Kahoru Tsukui, Hiroshi Yamaguchi,
Akihiro Sasaki, Satoshi Miyashita
Designing for behavioural and institutional changes
Linköping University Electronic Press

344

Procedure and findings
In order to implement the integrative design approach in a small threemonths pilot study, the director and five designers of SDL collaborated
with two external service design researchers who facilitated the research
process. We targeted on the primary actors of behaviour change, namely
the DTMs who were not active in monitoring and assisting DTAs. The
research project proceeded in the following three stages.
Stage 1: Behavioural diagnosis and intervention strategy design
The designers who participated in the project first drew an ideal journey
map of the DTA’s activity, which proposed and provided design thinking
workshops to a customer. The journey map included the information about
expected mentoring actions from the primary target actor (i.e., the DTM)
and the gaps between the expected and actual actions. After drawing thejourney map, the designers observed the following three critical gaps.
1. The DTM does not have regular discussions with DTAs to findopportunities to propose design thinking workshops to theircustomers.
2. The DTM does not check if a DTA has prepared an appropriate
design brief for a design thinking workshop.
3. The DTM does not confirm if a DTA formulates a clear businessstrategy for providing a customer with design thinking workshops.
The designers then interviewed several DTMs to uncover the factors
causing the gaps. To analyse the interview records, they applied theframework of CREATE action funnels introduced by Wendel (2013) to
identify such factors in terms of six cognitive preconditions for a person to
make a decision to act: Cue, Reaction, Evaluation, Ability, Timing, andExperience. This analysis revealed the following four key mental barriers
preventing the target actor from performing the expected actions
mentioned above.
•

Reaction (to the requirement to support DTAs in finding
opportunities to propose and make a design brief for a DT
workshop):
These DTMs are afraid of disturbing the work of DTAs who arebusy increasing orders for ready-made solutions rather thancreating a new business opportunities. The DTM thus becomes
reluctant to intervene into the work of DTAs.

Masanao Takeyama, Kahoru Tsukui, Hiroshi Yamaguchi,
Akihiro Sasaki, Satoshi Miyashita
Designing for behavioural and institutional changes
Linköping University Electronic Press

345

•

Evaluation 1 (of the cost/benefit of helping DTAs make a design
brief or a business strategy for a DT workshop):Some DTMs feel that helping DTAs to prepare design briefs andformulate business strategies is beyond their responsibility. The
DTMs believe that their support should focus on how to implement
DT but not on why it is done with what.

•

Evaluation 2 (of the cost/benefit of helping DTAs make a design
brief or a business strategy for a DT workshop):Because DTMs do not properly understand the purpose andimportance of these support actions, they feel they are not worth
doing.

•

Ability (to assist DTAs in making a business strategy for a DT
workshop):Some DTMs are not confident in their ability to provide support.

The causal relations between the behaviour gaps and their correspondent
psychological barriers are represented by the boxes and linking lines in
the upper half of Figure 1, below.
As is common in a traditional behaviour design project, the participants
brainstormed possible design strategies to overcome the four key
obstacles in order to promote the expected actions of the target actor. The
derived solutions include a strategy to provide DTMs with more specific
KPIs for supporting DTAs and a strategy to prompt the DTM to make acommitment for performing the expected actions.
Stage 2: Psychological-institutional analysis
After concluding behaviour intervention strategies, the project moved on to
the institutional analysis stage. First, the researchers held a workshop withthe director and the designers to reflect on the organizational institutional
factors which reinforce existing behavioural routines of both the DTAs andthe DTMs. In the workshop, the researcher asked the participants toreview the interview with the DTMs and grasp the DTMs’ mental models
and mindsets, by looking at the statements which typically represented the
DTMs’ beliefs and values and the perception of their duties and role insupporting DTAs. Those statements include expressions such as “We areoften begging of DTAs to apply design thinking to their work”, “We should
serve DTAs as their advisers to design thinking”, and “That goal is not for
us but for the DTAs (Figure 1)”. The researchers then facilitated a

Masanao Takeyama, Kahoru Tsukui, Hiroshi Yamaguchi,
Akihiro Sasaki, Satoshi Miyashita
Designing for behavioural and institutional changes
Linköping University Electronic Press346

discussion among participants urging them to analyse how rules andnorms such as divisional and individual KPIs, sales strategies, and training
programs for design thinking skills for SDL staff are linked, and how theyaffect the DTMs’ mental models and behaviours. Such reflective analyses
finally uncovered institutional conflicts and contradictions among the sales
division, the KPIs for assessing the performance of a DTA, and the SDL’s
KPI for the organizational design thinking promotion activities. Specifically,
the sales division’s current norm and culture prioritize short-term orderincrease for ready-made solutions over the creation of new business
opportunities and customer-relationships, which contribute the DTA’s
KPIs. Moreover, the KPIs for the design thinking promotion activities of
SDL are considered to be achieved if there is an increase in orders
generated by any employee who attended the introductory seminar on
design thinking held by SDL in contrast to an order increase resulting from
DTAs' design thinking practices. As DTMs recognize that the share of theformer (i.e., the order increase produced by the all seminar attendants) islarger than that of the latter (i.e., the order increase created by DTAs) andalso that supporting DTAs demands more effort than holding the seminar,
they do not have strong motivation for spending their time to assist DTAs’
activities. Some of these findings were very illuminating to the participantsof the workshop and made them realize that their perspective before doing
this analysis was too narrow to recognize the influence of contradicting
rules and norms. One of the participating designers expressed this insightby saying that “Although I might have known these contradictions
unconsciously, this kind of visual representation gave me much clearer
understanding of how such contradictions cause unexpected behaviour of
employees.”
Stage 3: Designing behaviour and institutional change strategy
All the derived information and insights depicted in Figure 1 helped theparticipants of this study to understand behavioural problems in thecontext of psychological barriers and institutional arrangements including
mental models, norms, and rules. One of the participants emphasized thebenefit of this way of representation by mentioning,“It is not easy for us
to realize institutional problems by just looking at institutions. But this kindof mapping facilitates us to discover them from the perspective of
behavioural failures and pains.” Based on such enriched understanding of
the problems, the participants brainstormed again on the possible
behavioural interventions and institutional reformations to encourage more
active support activities of DTMs to DTAs.

Masanao Takeyama, Kahoru Tsukui, Hiroshi Yamaguchi,
Akihiro Sasaki, Satoshi Miyashita
Designing for behavioural and institutional changes
Linköping University Electronic Press347

Figure1: Psychological-Institutional Analysis for Behaviour Change

While the ideas for intervention created in the behaviour design stage
aimed at promoting the expected target actions by directly overcoming
their barriers, the ideas generated after the institutional analysis were
derived more from attention payed to the institutional factors causing thebarriers. For example, regarding barrier (a), a designer of SDL concerned
about the norm and the mindset of sales hubs which prioritizes short-termorder increase over the creation of more future-oriented business
opportunities. This designer proposed the idea of pairing a DTM and a
DTA to work together in creating a new proposal for a target customer byapplying design thinking so that the DTM demonstrates practically thevalues of design thinking for the DTA and the sales hub, motivating themto learn more and use it. Relating to barriers (b) and (c), the director of
SDL, noticing the belief of the DTMs that the performance of DTAs isbeyond their responsibility, also proposed changing the role of a DTM froma mentor to a partner who achieve same goals (with some appropriate
KPIs) with DTAs. As for barrier (d), another designer suggested supportinga DTA with a team of both experienced and less-experienced SDL
designers instead of doing it by individual DTM. In discussing these ideas,
which demand the changes in the role, activity and goals of the target
actor, the participants realized that it is more essential for such change
strategies to enhance the contribution of SDL to the sales hubs and thecompany than to encourage the target actions independently (Proposition
2). The SDL director actually expressed this learning by saying:

Masanao Takeyama, Kahoru Tsukui, Hiroshi Yamaguchi,
Akihiro Sasaki, Satoshi Miyashita
Designing for behavioural and institutional changes
Linköping University Electronic Press

348

Once we grasp the whole picture, we could uncover what should be
essentially changed. This is similar to when we have a wellresearched stakeholder map. If we see the problem as some local
and individual scale trouble, we tend to patch over it. But when we
understand its relation to a whole organizational issue, we look for atrue solution.

In the next workshop, the participants further developed tactical ideas
applying their knowledges of behavioural science to enhance thepracticability of the proposed strategies above. They paid attention inparticular to possible negative reaction from some DTAs who were afraidof failing to persuade their customers, who were not necessarily familiar
with design approach, of the effectiveness of design thinking workshops.
One of the tactical ideas proposed to overcome this barrier is to not let
DTAs propose design thinking straight away to their customers. Rather it
first suggests that DTAs apply sales tools such as business case study touser-centered solutions in order to trigger conversations, so as to discover
the customers’ real interests from their perspective of end-users. Once thecustomers identify such interests, it becomes easier for DTAs to propose adesign approach to them. The tactic here is to frame design thinking in thecontext of ordinary sales activity. The knowledge of behavioural sciencebehind this tactic is called familiarity or availability heuristic, which meansthat people show a stronger preference to something more familiar or
easier to imagine over those unfamiliar or hard to imagine. This idea also
follows the well-known finding in this field that the consistency of the
expected action and the target actor’s desired self-image encourages that
action.

Benefits of the integrative design approach
Assuming the complementary relationship between behaviour design andservice ecosystem design, we experimented with the integration of these
two approaches in a pilot study and derived the following propositions tosummarise the benefits of integration.
(1) The integrative design approach promotes deeper
understanding of target behaviour.
•

In the pilot study, the workshop to implement the psychologicalinstitutional analysis helped the participants to widen their perspective
and confidently recognize the influence of contradicting rules and norms

Masanao Takeyama, Kahoru Tsukui, Hiroshi Yamaguchi,
Akihiro Sasaki, Satoshi Miyashita
Designing for behavioural and institutional changes
Linköping University Electronic Press349

on the behaviour of target actors. It is often the case that a designing for
behaviour change project focuses too narrowly on the psychologicalbarriers against the target behavior, without being aware of invisible
institutional conflicts evoking psychological reactions. However, as thedesigner who participated in the workshop mentioned, it is not always
easy for designers and stakeholders to gain a clear picture of suchinstitutional contradictions and also anticipate how they might cause
unexpected behaviour. To assist with understanding, this paper
introduced an effective way of representing behavioural problems in thecomplex contexts of psychological barriers and institutionalarrangements.
(2) The perspective of service ecosystem design prevents
behaviour designers from wasting resources and from losing
opportunities for innovation.
•

As is demonstrated in the pilot study, when people see the behaviouralproblem in a target actor’s local context, they tend to come up withstrategy to intervene with some pinpointed and patch-like solutions. The
integrative approach, however, facilitates designers and actors to grasp
the whole picture and to uncover what should be essentially changed,
considering the possibility of more drastic institutional reformations.
Although such an institutional reformation usually demands moreresources and efforts from actors and organizations, a challenge forsimultaneous behavioural and institutional changes could, in return,bring them chances of innovating existing service ecosystems for more
impactful benefits.
(3) Behaviour perspective guides institutional changes.

•

Service ecosystem design practices empower the reflexivity of theactors to reshape their mental models, catalysing their institutional
work of creating, disrupting, and maintaining social structures for the
preferred future (Vink et al., 2019; Johnson-Laird, 2013). However,examining and deciding which element of institutional arrangements tocreate, disrupt, or maintain becomes difficult without some criteria. As
the participant in the pilot study realized, the psychological-institutional
analysis of the integrative approach enables us to criticize the existing
institutions in relation to some observable and empathizable
behavioural failures and pains. Complementing the vision of a service
ecosystem reformation with some concrete goals of behaviour changes
thus helps the actors to figure out what institutional changes areappropriate and necessary based on whether they enable and sustain
the desirable behaviour changes.

Masanao Takeyama, Kahoru Tsukui, Hiroshi Yamaguchi,
Akihiro Sasaki, Satoshi Miyashita
Designing for behavioural and institutional changes
Linköping University Electronic Press

350

(4) Behaviour design approach enhances the practicability ofservice ecosystem design.
•

Even after the practice of service ecosystem design has succeeded inletting the actors recognize the necessity of changing their mental
models and behavioural routines for reforming institutionalarrangements, those actors might still confront the gap between theirintentions and the actions that need to be taken, due to some
psychological barriers such as status-quo bias or present bias. This
paper shows in the pilot study how the knowledge of behaviour sciencecan support the implementation of institutional changes by nudging
expected behaviour of actors as well as resorting to their reflexivity.

Conclusions
Although the case introduced in this paper is a short pilot study which has
a limited number of participants and has not practically implemented
created strategies at the moment of writing this paper, it has demonstrated
the process and benefits, summarized as the four propositions, of theintegrated design approach for behavioural and institutional changes. In
particular, it has exemplified the effectiveness of visualizing entangled
relations between behaviour, psychological barriers, mental models, andsocial structures not just for understanding the problems in richer contexts
but also for discovering wider opportunities and more impactful strategies
to change.
The proposed approach also contributes to the conceptualization of the
micro-macro relations of innovation in service ecosystems. Previous
design research (Vink et al., 2019) recognizes the limitation of the direct
applicability of research on innovation in service ecosystems forpractitioners, mainly focusing on changing institutional arrangements at a
macro-level aggregation (Vargo & Lusch, 2016). To break through thelimit, the earlier research explains how the actors change their social
context at a macro level by shifting their own mental models at the microlevel (Vink et al., 2019). The integrative design approach for behaviour
and institutional changes advances further the understanding of micromacro linkage of a service ecosystem by emphasizing the behaviour andthe decision-making of actors at the micro-scale.

Masanao Takeyama, Kahoru Tsukui, Hiroshi Yamaguchi,
Akihiro Sasaki, Satoshi Miyashita
Designing for behavioural and institutional changes
Linköping University Electronic Press

351

However, to assure the impact of the four propositions and also theirpractical applicability, it is necessary to test the approach with more casesin real design scenarios, inviting the participation of target actors of
behaviour change in the design process. One of the important issues wehave to consider for future study is the level of complexity we confront
when a design project deals with multiple target actors and organizations
with different institutional arrangements. The question then inevitably
arises as to whether the format of visualization introduced in this paper
could represent appropriately the entangled relations between a large
number of behavioural and institutional factors in a comprehensible anduseful way for the designing actors. In addition, we would need to havesome criteria for deciding who and when to invite in the design practiceboth as the target of behaviour change and as the actors for innovating
service ecosystems.

References
Afif, Z., Islan, W., Calvo-Gonzalez, O., & Dalton, A. G. (2018). Behavioural
Science Around the World: Profiles of 10 Countries. Washington,
D.C.: World Bank Group.
Datta, S., & Mullainathan, S. (2014). Behavioural design: a new approachto development policy. Review of Income and Wealth, 60(1), 7-35.
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory ofStructuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Johnson-Laird, P. (2013). Mental models and cognitive change, Journal of
Cognitive Psychology, 25(2), 131-138.
Kleinaltenkamp, M. (2018). Institutions and institutionalization, in Vargo,
S., & Lusch, R. (Eds.). The SAGE Handbook of Service-Dominant
Logic, London: SAGE. pp.261-264.
Lambe, F., Ran, Y., Jüriso, M., Holmlid, S., Muhoza, C., Johnson, O., &Osborne, M. (2020). Embracing complexity: A transdisciplinary
conceptual framework for understanding behaviour change in thecontext of development-focused interventions. World Development,
126. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104703

Masanao Takeyama, Kahoru Tsukui, Hiroshi Yamaguchi,
Akihiro Sasaki, Satoshi Miyashita
Designing for behavioural and institutional changes
Linköping University Electronic Press

352

Lusch, R., & Vargo, S. (2014). Service- Dominant Logic: Premises,
Perspectives, Possibilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mahamuni, R., Khambete, P., & Mokashi-Punekar, R. (2018). Service
Design for behavioural change - current state of the discipline andpractice in India. Proceedings of the ServDes.2018 Conference,
June 10-12, Milan, Italy: Linköping University Electronic Press.
pp.62-75. Retrieved from http://www.servdes.org/wp/wpcontent/uploads/2018/07/6.pdf
Mutch, A. (2007). Reflexivity and the institu- tional entrepreneur: A
historical exploration. Organization Studies, 28(7), 1123–1140.
Niedderer, C., Clune, S., & Ludden, G. (2017). Design for Behaviour
Change: Theories and Practices of Designing for Change. London:
Routledge.
OECD. (2017). Behavioural Insights and Public Policy: Lessons fromAround the World. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Risdon, C. (2013). The new me generation: behavior change as value
proposition. Presented at UX Week 2013. Retrieved fromhttp://www.slideshare.net/livebysatellite/ux-week-2013-the-new-megeneration
Risdon, C. (2017). Scaling nudges with machine learning. Behavioural
Scientist. Retrieved from https://behaviouralscientist.org/scalingnudges-machine-learning/
Suddaby, R., Viale, T., & Gendron, Y. (2016). Reflexivity: The role ofembedded social posi- tion and entrepreneurial social skill in processes of field level change. Research in Organizational Behaviour,36(1), 225–245.
Tantia, P. (2017). The new science of designing for humans. Stanford
Social Innovation Review (Spring, 2017), 29–33.
Van Lieren, A., Marzia, A., & Flu, M. B. (2019). Experience prototyping forpredictable behavioural outcomes - Where service design andbehavioural science meet. Touchpoint, 11(2), 66-68.
Vargo, S. & Lusch, R. (2016). Service-dominant logic 2025, International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(1), 46-67.

Masanao Takeyama, Kahoru Tsukui, Hiroshi Yamaguchi,
Akihiro Sasaki, Satoshi Miyashita
Designing for behavioural and institutional changes
Linköping University Electronic Press353

Vink, J., Tronvoll, B., Evardsson, B., Wetter-Edman, K., & Aguire, M.
(2017). Service ecosystem design: doing institutional work throughdesign. Proceedings of the Naples Forum on Service. June 6-9,
Sorrento, Italy, pp.1-15. Retrieved fromhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/317901747_Service_Ecosy
stem_Design_Doing_Institutional_Work_through_Design
Vink, J., Evardsson, B., Wetter-Edman, K., & Tronvoll, B. (2019).
Reshaping mental models - enabling innovation through service
design. Journal of Service Management, 30(1), 75-104.
Vink, J. (2019). In/visible- Conceptualizing Service Ecosystem Design.
Doctoral thesis, Karlstad University.
Wendel. S. (2013). Designing for Behaviour Change: Applying Psychology
and Behavioral Economics. Beijing: O'Reilly Media.

Masanao Takeyama, Kahoru Tsukui, Hiroshi Yamaguchi,
Akihiro Sasaki, Satoshi Miyashita
Designing for behavioural and institutional changes
Linköping University Electronic Press

354