Service Design

Early discovery revealed that the issue was not the absence of tools, but how they were positioned and used.

Key challenges included:

• Artefacts existed as isolated documents rather than integrated touchpoints
• Teams lacked clear moments, prompts, or facilitation to use the tools
• Language and examples felt abstract and disconnected from lived experience
• Artefacts assumed linear, predictable use, while early-stage teaming is dynamic

As a result, teams were expected to “team” effectively from day one, without a clear or supportive onboarding experience.

The challenge became clear: design a team onboarding service where artefacts are relevant, embedded, and actionable at each stage of the team journey.

As a Design Intern within a team of three service designers, I supported team members across research, synthesis, design, and testing.

What I supported included:

• Conducting qualitative research with project teams and stakeholders
• Mapping the end-to-end teaming journey and identifying key service moments
• Reframing existing artefacts as service touchpoints aligned to user needs
• Redesigning artefact content using plain language, scenarios, and prompts
• Supporting pilot workshops and synthesising feedback into design improvements

We conducted mixed-method research to understand the current teaming experience:

• Surveys across multiple teams to assess perceived value and adoption barriers
• Shadowing and user testing with three newly formed project teams
• Stakeholder interviews with engagement managers and project leads

Key insights included:

• Teams rarely used artefacts because they did not fit natural workflows
• Touchpoints for artefact use were undefined—teams didn’t know when or how to engage
• Language and examples failed to reflect real project challenges
• Teams valued tools that enabled conversation and alignment, not compliance

One participant captured this succinctly:

“By the time we’re staffed, we’re already in delivery mode. There’s no clear moment where these tools fit.”

These insights reframed the brief: success would come from redesigning the service of teaming, not just the artefacts themselves.

We approached the artefacts as service touchpoints and mapped the full team formation journey, including:

• Joining the team — early interactions and role clarity
• Defining ways of working — norms, expectations, and collaboration patterns
• Starting delivery — hand-offs, rituals, and decision-making

Each artefact was reframed around:

• The problem it solves (user need)
• The desired outcome (alignment, shared understanding)
• The context of use (when and how it fits into the team journey)

This resulted in a service blueprint that positioned artefacts as integrated touchpoints connecting people, processes, and interactions across the teaming experience.

The artefacts were redesigned to support real team interactions:

• Plain, human-centred language, removing corporate jargon
• Embedded scenarios linked to common team challenges
• Conversation prompts to encourage shared sense-making
• Step-by-step guidance to reduce adoption friction
• Flexible sequencing, allowing artefacts to be used dynamically

The goal was to transform static documents into practical tools that supported collaboration from day one.

The redesigned artefacts were piloted with a newly formed engagement team through three facilitated workshops aligned to EY’s pillars: Better Me, Better Us, Better World.

Each workshop:

• Covered 3–4 artefacts
• Included 12 participants across client-facing and internal roles
• Combined guided use with reflective discussion

Findings included:

• Improved team alignment and clearer discussion of ways of working
• Positive feedback on practical relevance and clarity

Participants noted:

“The main thing you’ll get out of it is knowing how your team wants to operate.”

Challenges such as inconsistent attendance and the need for self-facilitation guidance informed further refinement.

Insights from the pilot led to several recommendations:

• Provide clearer guidance on how artefacts should be used in live engagements
• Continue testing and refining artefacts across different team types
• Encourage teams to intentionally allocate time for teaming activities

These recommendations were consolidated into a short project plan outlining next steps for broader rollout and continued refinement of the teaming service.

This project reinforced several key learnings:

• Products must fit seamlessly into existing workflows; heavy policies or rigid guidelines significantly reduce adoption.
• Low adoption is often a symptom of top‑down solution design, where organisational goals override user needs.
• Incorporating lived experience into product explanations dramatically improves clarity and relevance.
• “Speaking the user’s language” may require collaborative sense‑making before design begins.

The project also highlighted the flexibility of the design thinking process. At a macro level, the work represented an iteration phase on existing artefacts. At a micro level, each artefact went through its own full design cycle—research, reframing, prototyping, testing, and iteration—before being presented to senior leaders as a refined solution.