Service-dominant logic in the spatial design of a school

Page 1

Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture Department of design


Master’s thesis Natalia Vladykina 2016

Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture Department of design

SERVICE-DOMINANT LOGIC IN THE SPATIAL DESIGN OF A SCHOOL Spatial concept for School as a Service project in Espoo

Master’s thesis Natalia Vladykina 2016

Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture Department of design

SERVICE-DOMINANT LOGIC IN THE SPATIAL DESIGN OF A SCHOOL Spatial concept for School as a Service project in Espoo

Master’s thesis Natalia Vladykina 2016


Foreword I am glad to graduate from Aalto University with new knowledge and understanding of great opportunities of application design thinking in a diverse spheres of life. I am grateful to my thesis supervisor Jarmo Suominen for inspiration and support, to Antti Pirinen for help and to all instructors, professionals and course mates with whom I was lucky to meet during development of the School as a Service project for their positive attitude. A warm thank you to my family and friends for support.


0.0. ABSTRACT In the last decades with the evolving new economy, rapid development of information technologies and technology-based learning, educational goals and the ways of learning have been changed and challenged spatial solutions. Usually when we say: “school�, we imagine a single building with classrooms, hosting formal teaching activities, mostly listening to teachers, from nine to of school education. Presently, education process, following the demands of new economy and as the result of evolution of information technology and communication, changes to a wide range of activities, learning atmosphere, performed individually and in groups, and even with fun. Whereas current static school architecture acts rather as a barrier to agile learning experience, limiting imagination of what environment. It investigates the relations between learning and spatial design, formulates the new requirements that we need for spatial arrangement, that will maximize learning experience, and suggests strategy for creating architectural concept and new identity of learning process. To better understanding the demand for the learning experience and its environment, a school is observed and studied from the perspectives of service-dominant logic, which suggests to zoom-out from school building and classroom teaching to whole education thesis is a new paradigm in school organization and architecture.


of the educational process, including pupils, teachers, and authorities, and involvement of community, for developing an engaging

focuses on creating the architectural condition and identity for a new school. It suggests a service platform to facilitate co-creation of learning and a customization strategy to enhance user’s experi-

new requirements for architecture in a service economy resulted in formulating the term service architecture. Finland has already gained experience and a bright

to the process of setting up the pilot project of the new “school challenging; the innovation possibilities, through presented concept, new norms and requirements. environment” ( JOT) project in between city planning developers, architects, and experts in education in the City of Espoo, and “Labs

Keywords: service architecture, learning environment, service design, school architecture


0.1. TABLE OF CONTENT 0.0. Abstract 0.1. Table of content 1.0. Introduction 1.1. Evolving of the new economies; goods-dominant and service-dominant logic models Value co-creation Users as active participants Staging and orchestrating an experience Branding of services and experiences 1.2. Education system challenges and approach

2.1. Evolution of architectural concepts. Values of architecture 2.2. Absolute value of architecture. Goods-dominant logic 2.3. Experience architecture staging. Service-dominant logic view Developing platforms 2.4. Architecture and brand of educational institutions

3.1. Role of school built environment 3.2. Resource activating Engaging in learning Participation in design Social aspect in learning process 3.3. Summarizing discoveries of existing organizational pattern at schools


4 6 8 10 11 12 12 13 14 15 20 21 21 24 26 31 34 35 36 36 37 38 40

Teaching at Tapiola school School life Spatial arrangement for teaching 4.2. Conclusion 5.1. School as a Service 5.2. Principles of School as a Service 5.4. Service blueprint 5.5. Elements of built environment 6.0. Spatial concept 6.1. Challenge. Design of space and identity for School as a Service 6.2. Approach Architecture for dynamic functions 6.3 Method Space and identity design service tool-kit and strategy Concept of time and space Space 6.4. Applying to the context 6.5. Results 7.0. Conclusion and 7.1. Conclusion 7.2.Perspectives of the approach

42 43 44 45 50 52 53 53 54 57 61 62 68 66 67 68 68 68 69 69 76

76 80 81

83 86



– goods are units of output, usually tangible, represented as an “end-product” (Lusch, & Vargo, 2014); at the same time «goods are appliances that act as intermediaries in service delivery» (Lusch & Vargo, 2014).


– «When goods are involved, they are tools for the delivery and application of resources - that is, service» (Lusch & Vargo, 2014).

Service (Lusch, Vargo, 2014). Goods-dominant logic (G-D)– logic based on the exchange of “goods,” which usually are manufactured output; industrial economy. Service-dominant logic sees service exchange; goods are mechanisms for service provision; value and value



particular actor» (Lusch, & Vargo, 2014). Value has no a nominal price; it is rather a contribution to the well-being.

Experience economy – next economy following the agrarian economy, the industrial economy, and service economy; focused on

thought that human value experience over tangible goods. Stakeholder concern in an organization” (Post, Preston, Sachs, 2002). Brand – the collective and dynamic processes that underlie brand consumption within society. Brand value is co-created

brands, and brand value is dynamically constructed through Vargo, 2009).


1.0. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Evolving of the new economies; Goods-Dominant and Service-Dominant logics models Co-creation of value Users as active participants Staging and orchestrating an experience Branding of services and experiences 1.2. Education system challenges and approach


goods-dominant logic to service-dominant logic. Goods-dominant (G-D) logic is based on developing, production and exchanging of tangible goods. Service-dominant (S-D) logic foundation means of service, where service


In this model goods have became vehicles for service provision and resource for certain experiences. In other words the value is not added during production, it is created during experience of using it. opportunities of applying resources for value proposition. “S-D logic can suggest a perspective for the approach to and the consideration of possibilities� (Lusch & Vargo, 2014). It suggests zoom-out to will provide better understanding of their interconnectivity, and

economies and creation of sustainable value proposition is the way to balance dynamic needs. -


dated and not appropriate”, so authors highlight the importance of advantage in terms of helping actors to solve tomorrow’s problems or doing tomorrow’s jobs» (Lusch & Vargo, 2014).

Value co-creation cient with the understanding of interests, possibilities and issues of is complicated to serve. Lusch & Vargo (2014) associate value creation with a collaborative process of communication and dialogue to enhance learning by parties. Learning, as they explain, reduces detection of resources and ways of its integration. Collaboration


the resources are not applied to production of products that does not meet the real needs more precisely.

value is in identifying a customer as a strong and active participant. In the G-D logic model a customer is treated as passive receiver of products, created by industries; S-D logic means to view a customer to serve for his needs. Customer is the source of information, inspi-



customer allows the company to provide exactly what the customer wants (Pine & Gilmore, 1999) and engage users with the service. Pine & Gilmore (1999) name collaboration as the right approach in integrating the large number of resources in order to menting with the possibilities is an experience itself.”

personally, through the series of memorable and enjoyable events. Lusch & Vargo (2014) say, that in the time of wide choice in as a “manufactured quality” to personal perception of “quality” as a

services alone but the resulting experience, rich with sensations, cretangibility, people value it higher than tangible goods, because of the the production quality to “sensorializing” and ability to enable memories. Not only tactile sensations and objective design are important. Human interactions, sound and lightning, and, most important, Involved tangible artefacts are associated with en experience and additional value a good obtain in the service economy. as a model to stage experience: “with theatre as a model, even mun-


staging each small element (good) from names of actors, to scenario and every action, design of the stage can contribute to the whole rising imagination and highlighting the importance of each element.

needs that brand is a promise of satisfaction (Roth, 1995, cited by

collaborative dynamic and interactive process of co-creating brand

by creating a common ground and a sense of community (Hatch & process of brand evolving is open-ended: “brand value co-creation process is a continuous, social, and highly dynamic and interactive ander et al., 2002). Customer obtains through brand a sense of belonging to stronger feeling of membership. It helps to distribute values to the tain brand community, sharing certain values and principles, helps selves. Social navigation is a strong tool to distribute values, attract


Pine & Gilmore (1999) speculate about “memorabilia� (ide-

the experience, to transmit parts of it to others� (Giussani, cited by Lusch & Vargo, 2014). Developing such artefact is a part of a munity. Branding enhances attractiveness of goods and elevates their value through creating the story and experience of using them.


tion for the new generation to expand learning experience and to be prepared to solve problems of the future. development and high rate of applicability of communication and

schools, alongside with traditional academic disciplines. Technol-

teaching activities, communication and sharing, and widens learning resources and opportunities. only in formal teaching, in a certain place and time. Besides tradi-


tutions, and communities. Current school organizational paradigm embraces only part of mentioned activities.

economies for transforming educational area appears to become the right approach. Education is one of the major service-systems

tion as a service ecosystem will help to better understand its actors,

learning process at school, focus on value of the service, research on user’s needs lead to restructure of classical school environment and opens new possibilities. It is time to formulate new educational

Illustrations: 1 Education beyond schools. 2 Stakeholders map.


Organizations Business Community




Learning Materials Extra curricular hobbies




School Education 1

Authorities: Administrative staff

Government Educationalists Developers Urban planners


Teachers Pupils



Society: Community Competitors Potential pupils Business Enterprises 2


Lusch & Vargo (2014) warning, that innovation requires boldness to change current models, “just because we are comfortable with our institutional logics does not suggest these logics are always correct or appropriate or do not need to change or evolve. In fact, some institutional logics become strongly held across individuals innovation happens it leads to institutionalization of approach. need to experiment to move to the new economy successfully. In this regard, both successful and unsuccessful value propositions allow the institution to learn (Lusch & Vargo, 2014).

Building architecture has the power to shape people’s activ-

& Preiser (1994) describing the power of architecture, notices that space is not neutral: “ it decides what could happen, implies an order, tool in a service provision. Lusch and Vargo (2014) name architec-

its integration in service system.



2.0. GOODS-DOMINANT AND SERVICE -DOMINANT LOGIC VIEWS IN ARCHITECTURE 2.1. Evolution of architectural concepts. Values of architecture 2.2. Absolute value of architecture. Goods-Dominant logic Brand architecture 2.3. Experience architecture staging. Service-Dominant logic view Architecture as a recourse in service provision Developing platforms 2.4. Architecture of educational institutions


building as a dominant. Building design and construction have always required high investments, thus through its location, bright appearance, engineering, and signature architects the owner could way to impress public by appearance, therefore decoration of the facade and interiors and inventing the new materials and construction modes leveraged architectural solutions. Lately symbolic value of architecture emerged in brand architecture, contributing to the switched to the inner organization of the building and the funcof architecture being involved into complex service systems as a resource, as well as considering a space as a stage for user experience, led to developing the concept of service architecture.

with construction novelties. the future, it serves their communities with models of reality, manHubert (2007) in a companion to Heidegger mentioned, ÂŤHegel, Nietzsche, and Wagner had already discussed the function of the

a brand image and contributes to creation of brand community. Kirbi


Absolute/ symbolic value of architecture (G-D logic)

Architecture and design powered by function

Instrumental value in a service provision (S-D logic)




Academic School, Wien Architect Friedrich von Schmidt

Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo Architect Alvar Aalto

Impact Hub Kings Cross, London

Service Architecture

Brand Architecture

Dynamic architecture Developing platforms


An evolution of spatial concepts.


Illustration: Museum Guggenheim in Bilbao. Architect: Frank Gehry. Photo: Michael Reeve

ture contributes to its visual communicative power, and engages with Designing of buildings contributes to the processes of dif-

(Glendinning, 2004, in Kirbi & Kent, 2010). Numerous companies use buildings as “three-dimensional advertisements” (Kirby, Kent, 2010) to symbolize the power and status, and transmit it to public. To intensify the impression, the attention is paid to signature archicompanies recognizable and create memorable experiences. that may perhaps best be described by the idea of Corporate Idenprocess of “brandism”, warning that process of creating images for

Klingmann (2007) emphasizes that architecture is a catalyst for eco-


nomical and social transformation, however its integration should be the result of the empathic understanding of needs and expectations of the local community. Identity thus cannot be drawn and given; it values. Designing of iconic building is part of a cultural or economical programming.

In the era of information and communication technologies meaning of physical spaces is changing. We can do business; receive informaan experience or to be involved into co-creation of value to seduce people to come. To understand the role of architecture, S-D logic suggests observing it not as an end product but rather an appliance in the service ecosystem. Lusch & Vargo (2014) asset, “it is strongly involved

Illustrations: 1 Simmons Hall, MIT housing, Cambridge, MA, USA. Architect S. Holl. Photo: Dale Winling 2 The Globe, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland. Designed for Swiss Expo.02. Architects: T. Büchi, H. Dessimoz. Photo: 3 Rolex Learning Center, campus of EPFL (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne), Designed by K. Sejima and R. Nishizawa / S A N A A. Photo: Hisao Suzuki 4 The Chau Chack Wind building, University of Technology (UTS), Sydney, Australia. Architect F. Gehry. Photo: Andrew Worssam 5 The Ray and Maria Stata Center or Building 32, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA. Architect F. Gehry. Photo: wasi ferdus








1994), “architecture impacts upon the production.” To apply this ability purposefully understanding of its service context is essential.

economy, what you need is inside people’s heads” and that the aim

an instrument in a service provision and explain which processes it can facilitate, the recent phenomenon of successful development of services and spaces is described further.

vices has recently evolved in the concept of a platform. Platform is a pre-designed environment, usually represented as physical and digital interface and concept of using its facilities. Platforms are united with common goal or spirit and aim to develop and share projects regularly organized by runners of the platforms, jointed with relative persons. Following section describes some bright examples of platforms. Design Factory


for enhancing collaboration between students and professionals in design, business, and engineering. Now, 5 years later, this project still attracts students and developers from all over the world. It has philosophy and spatial design. Spaces of Design Factories play an


open communication and spontaneous encounters� (

Hosting a variety of events, Design Factory provides great opportunity to learn methods of successful development.

for entrepreneurship in Northern Europe. Startup Sauna Foundafor students and graduates, and provides grants for successful ideas. Startup sauna is a home for Startup Life internship programmes in connection to startup hubs all over the world. vations focused on built environment, urban services and urban life transformations with the participation of City of Espoo. It is a space with a platform concept that brings together professionals from the Urban Ecosystems), it is a home for research programmes in sustainable urban development and innovations in regional service ecosystem. Social businesses are united at the Impact Hub platform in -

active space for robust conferences, which can be transferred to the-


has white walls to write on them. Glasshouse or Innovation Cube is for creators of something special. Short-term architectural concepts become attractive with the feeling of temporality. One of the brightest examples is the exhibition venue Temporäre Kunsthalle Berlin that never intended for

a free space, erected on one of the most prominent sites at the heart the space hosted 17 shows, more than a hundred events, attracting over 200 000 visitors. Even though it existed only for a short period of time, it became a “unique location spanning the art scene and its ence a unique and direct experience of contemporary art.” Besides facade, but the impact of the project was highly wide and appreciated. temporal but became permanent because of the actuality and value

Illustrations: 1-2 Aalto University Design Factory is a 3000 square meters working environment, consisting of big stage, working rooms, workshops, library, kitchen. Photo: author; 3-4 Startup Sauna has a 1,500 square meter hall in its use. And a real sauna is the heart of it. Photo: author. 5-6 Urban Mill has a 1300 square meters space. Photo: author;


29 1







Illustration: Spaces in Impact Hub, London. Photo:

Illustration: Tempor채re Kunsthalle Berlin (2008-2010). Architect Adolf Krischanitz. Photo:

here is an active resource in staging the experience, allows changes

opportunities to collaborate, communicating physically in the space connections.


By architecture the society measure the prestige and academic excellence of the educational institutions. Even when users or commuby signature architects attract media. ‘’Unimpressed locals initially paper bag. But at its opening this month, it wowed the assembled politicians, press and public’’ reported the reaction on the new tecture correspondent Edwin Heathcote in London Financial times architecture masterpiece with impressive design is not a compulsory

states correspondent, describing spaces, where meaningful discoveries have been done. innovative ideas, is bright example. It was constructed for short– term use during the Wold War the Second, but its occupants conpossibilities to change space according to needs: the walls could had been punctured, used for writing on it or even demolished (Hughes, 2008). It was planned to be demolished, there was nothing to care about in the environment and it gave complete freedom to its occupants. Rapidly evolving IT companies in Silicon Value in the

were started in same space. Traditional architecture had northing


Research) had no over ground building at all until 2002, when they relocated the pavilion, designed initially for Swiss Expo and made it a visitor centre, which everybody can recognize now. Previously, struction process of the Hadrone Collider itself that decided not to spend time and budget on non-functional architecture.

facilitate learning, architecture should be understood and designed as a condition for learning experience. Professor Stephan Heppel at noticed, “branding of learning is an exhibition and celebration of tution is not in signature architecture rather in values of community and process. Numerous examples of great university buildings attract attention, though learning and creating may occur in a non-de-

the characteristics, that the environment has to feature to facilitate productive educational process. Illustrations: 1-2 Building 20, MIT, Boston, USA (1943-1998). Photo:; 3 Steve Jobs, photographed in 1996 in front of the garage where - along with Steve Wozniack in the late 1970s- they invented the Apple computer in Los Altos, California, USA. Photo: Diane Cook and Len Jenshel 4 Inside the Apple computer garage, CA, USA. Photo: Diane Cook and Len Jenshel 5 Classrooms of school in Tapiola, Espoo, Finland (2011-will be demolished 2016). Photo: author.









3.0. RESEARCH. SCHOOL BUILT ENVIRONMENT 3.1. Role of school built environment 3.2. Resource activating Engaging in learning Participation in design Social aspect in learning process 3.3. Summarizing discoveries of existing organizational pattern at schools


can do more for education process than just appear aesthetically ( Jamieson et al., 2010), initiated numerous researchers. design of physical environment on student’s achievement is an open question. No recent studies provide an evidence of the impact of building design on cognitive growth 2011); (Herzog, 2007). However beautiful and renovated spaces and structuring and forming activities at school. “Traditionally, on-campus university teaching In this context, the physical environment is integral to the process, describes traditional classrooms as lecture theatres with rows of because teachers organize classroom activities adapting them to design professor Peter Jamieson et al. (2010) also pointed out, that lecture theatre is focused on the teacher’s presentation and that the able, because learning is limited with the possibilities of particular space. Traditional paradigm is based on the facilities and positions a teacher as a leader. Teachers manage the process, space, decorate it with related study materials or personal objects; they mentally own the space. Passive acceptation of this manner by students does not leave room for their own expression and lower tiate education from entertainment: “education and learning lies in active participation and absorption by learners, when learners passively absorb the performance that is entertainment.” Existing solu-


tions are designed for teaching and do not support active learning. It is evident that being and adaptable spaces can assist to broaden the learning experience. Psychologist, teacher and researcher of learning environment Pamela Woolner et al. (2007) believes the most successful solutions are those with the elements of adaptability to new challenges, curriculum demands, and cohorts of learners and teachers. Professor Jamieson et al. (2010) proposes the “shell’ concept of physical facilities, “the concept of a «shell» draws on the practices of theatrical stage and set design that enable mobility of features and maximum adaptability within a limited spatial enviPine and Gilmore (1999), in their interpretation of space, as a stage for experience. healthy learning (Higgins et al. 2004). Professor in learning innovations light levels, the wrong temperatures, inappropriate sound volumes and rhythms, humidity, air pollution, Co2, and air pressure can all impair learning.” Higgins at al. (2004) provides evidence of negaoverall well-being at school. Interesting, researchers state with the evidence, that once these factors are attained on the comfortable level, the minimum standards of positive learning environment are 2004).

states, «architecture, through engaging with educational aims, could connection with the space can involve and inspire further learning.


Higgins et al. 2004 emphasizes the importance of sense of “ownership” of space and equipment by both teachers and stupositively on students and their parents, allowing them to “increase feelings of ownership and involvement, leading to empowered motiwhich directly prologues the exposure of learning process. Jamieson et al. (2010) mentioned the responsibility for the facilities, as well as maintenance of spaces of regular use as another method of connecdescribe the importance of holding a project space, even simply a wall, where learning material could be stored. Firstly, shared visual

2012). Professor Heppel (2013) describes writing on surfaces practices, because of its “collaborative nature” and ability to initiate conversation and discussion.

sense of ownership of the resulting environment. Higgins et al. (2004) provides consistent evidence of importance of user engageconsequences of this processes are individualized and local solutions.

to shape their places of teaching and learning, in much the same way as they shape the curriculum.» Participation in design is one of

tions. Jamieson et al. (2010) also mentioned that professionals,


designing physical environment, can suggest special strategies to initiate future experimentation and adaptation. In addition, collaborative design is an educational activity

experience is enhanced when students participate in appropriate educational activities inside and outside the classroom.�


belonging to the process. Jamieson (2003) stresses the necessity to embed social learning spaces into educational institutions. He explains the role of social learning spaces in providing interactions between students

learning spaces students identify themselves as part of the commu2011). (2011), even considered social spaces for learning to be the straight way to promote the image of the institution among the competitors and to attract potential students

One of the brightest examples of recently designed school environment that responds to changes in curricular and promotes active


Illustration: Mobile furniture in the classrooms in Opinm채en koulu in Espoo. Photos: author.

to allow interactions, combining standard classroom organization practiced collaborative design approach with teachers, reported high impression of their enthusiasm and input (Peters, 2009) and highly Generally the process of formalization of new norms in environment construction and renovation and hardly regulated allows changes in reaction to the dynamic context. architectural solution has to frame. Higgins et al. (2004) presents


Illustration: The Ørestad school in Denmark. Photo: Adam Mørk

critical arguments of Cooper (1981) ‘systematically exaggerating the move towards ‘progressive’ educational practices, the educationalists who advised the architects misled them into believing that a particular style of teaching had become the norm and required appro-

turn heavily depends on population grows and reductions, as well as people migrations. want to be sure that the new norms of teaching styles have been time to change architectural concept and modify school buildings according to the needs. socio-economical and political. Woolner et al. (2004), is arguing: “a major impetus for the current building is political”. Since politicians


“school building comes about as political and economic transformations force change and modernization in roughly 35-year cycles.� uously, with the political, social, industrial contexts. To summarize the discoveries several points are concluded. Yet professionals have no certainty about how strong is the power of absolute value of architectural environment, presented in shapes, growth and achievement. However, irritating factors of basic phystectural solution shapes user’s activities and behaviour and dictates

engage users at emotional level. Space can provide mental connection between users and enhance user experience in learning. Collaboration in design process facilitates learning and promises satisfacestablished. In addition, built environment and educational system

political reasons and formalism. During this time new changes may occur.


4.0. RESEARCH. CASE STUDY IN TAPIOLA SCHOOL 4.1. Research workshops in Tapiola Teaching School life Spatial arrangement 4.2. Conclusion


Illustration: School site. Photo: Markus S채ynevirta

of Espoo ( JOT (Flexible learning environment) project ). Students

who participated in all three projects, summarized the following features.

School is an active participant in national anti-bullying programme.

the right to get instruction and guidance counselling in accordance

learning, depending on the possibilities and personal achievement.


Teachers demonstrate boldness in applying and developing new tator of learning process. POP method enables to choose suitable

switched from sage on the stage to guide on the side, while students learn the new theory themselves before the class, using materials prepared by teachers. Teachers complain about the absence of space for them to collaborate and also there is no digital platform for sharing materials, which they prepare for the classes. It appearance will simplify the process of distributing videos and lessons among children and parents, sharing experience in between professionals and form the learning community faster.

respect teachers, they express their thoughts openly. Even though school atmosphere is calm and peaceful, it does not cause student’s self-organization and responsibility, they demonstrated good results in standard school subjects and have passion for extra curricular activities. Students prepare musical concerts, annual gala, design bies. Traditional subjects are taught in engaging and evolving way, and hobbies are integrated into day timetable. Students demonstrate strong interest in the world outside school walls, they are curious to jobs, business, companies, science, and so forth. Students perceive highest value of school as a place for communication with classmates and getting support and motivation from teachers. Evidently, they feel the importance of being identi-


School has been experimenting with the spatial design experiment. Permanent property is located in the centre of Tapiola neighbourhood, Espoo. With the growth of number of students it expanded.

are located in the industrial containers.

Illustration: Single school building – redistributed school spaces.

Container town functions well to accommodate daily teaching activities, the equipment is simple, just meets basic needs. dents feel free to occupy the outdoor space, as teachers do not conwant, leave bicycles. Students participate in organizing this space

fortable and easy. -






Illustration: Site of the rental Police building and blocks of containers.

er-town organization, is the absence of a large space to accommodate

but new containers. Currently school uses by agreement the neighable use of resources because the event hall is not needed for the

Illustrations: Outdoor space. Photos: author.


Furniture 3 month later Furniture 47

Map of Tapiola, Espoo M

Otaniemi Ń ampus


Police building Tapiolan keskus M



500 m

Illustration: Tapiola neighbourhood. Tapiola school temporal Police building, PUU2, Tapiola keskus (center), Aalto University Otaniemi campus, Keilanimemi (business area), future metro stations.

tion of the temporary school facilities is expensive. Students use the

when students move in groups with friends. However some pieces of furniture brought from old school their attitude towards new environment. Simple wooden shelf for since the time when some of current students parents studied there. a bright example of real value of goods, raised over nominal price by enabling positive feelings.


Illustration: Tiski. Photo: author.

During the research projects throughout the 2014-2015 year, we also noticed how proud pupils and teachers became of their environment. Initially they felt shy showing the group their temporary facilities, explaining problems, but our excitement about posi-

ising and interesting for future development of learning, shaped Tapiola school community. rience was positive and containers are beloved by students and teachers. Progressive school, open to changes, adapted easily to constrained container town and its challenges. It is planned to soon


demolish containers and relocate the school of Tapiola to permanent renovated premises, but gained experiences are valuable for development of future learning environments.

4.2. Conclusion

possible in the informal spaces. Education in Tapiola school calls not to pay to much attention to design. Students enjoy place they can manage, as they need social scene for their school experience. such unusual school. School life is happening not at school site only and Tapiola

has started and can result in closer collaboration. learning experience, supporting student’s initiatives. Unfortunately, the awareness of the community and the city, opened for collaboration is low, and there is question of integrating them into process. bility to follow national curricula, being under control of the government. Changes need approval of the authorities and there is no place and practice to exchange thoughts between teachers, students, community and authorities.

case school is seen as a product, and is designed for limited activities meant for teaching -


Illustrations: School site. Photo: author.


5.0. FORMULATING VISION OF FUTURE SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT; DESIGN DRIVERS 5.1. School as a Service 5.2. Principles of School as a Service 5.4. Service blueprint 5.5. Elements of built environment


Present classroom organization

School as a Service organization


Study project

School Interest Passion rooms

process is fitted in available building

based on activities; framed with necessary spaces

Illustration: Organization principles of spaces in traditional school and in School as a Service.

ment, indicated in the literature review, research in educational envitern. Future school is meant to open new horizons, help students to orientate themselves in the world of possibilities, inspire, motivate and service-dominant logic views on school organization and architecture seem to become the right strategy to facilitate this processes.


learning; to create right emotional, social, spatial and digital environment for learning. It is suggested to approach school as “School as a Service” ecosystem, school recourses are seen in the context of complex learning ecostanding the advantages of “School as a Service” the following principles were summarized.

value of learning is co-created with the students are not passive recipients of education, conversely, they are active participants,

organization of the service system. engagement in the process of co-creation of learning plays critical role, because when learning is inspiring and motivating for the participants, all the other factors as organization, design of used physical spaces and objects, diversity of available digital devices education are helpful for inspiration, organizing a school life in such a way, that learning becomes more playful and comfortable. However required investments in these resources may mislead the developing of school, hiding the bigger picture. Teaching methods, are instruments in service delivery. To support its users and broad learning experience, School as a Service organize a pool for learning. vice is vital in the context where it exists; the school service concept is meant for indicating available resources in the environment and


managing ways of its possible integration. delivery is considered. Built environment is an instrument to engage and deliver learning opportunities. In contrasts to traditional static for learning activities. emotionally unite participants becoming primarily a social place for school life.

Traditional school School as a product

knowledge through teaching. recipients of education. is to deliver knowledge. and symbol; teaching activities take place within it.

School as a Service

learning, to navigate and motivate to learn. valuable participants of learning motivate, provide connection to resources, to psychologically approach each student. to deliver learning opportunities; learning happens from different resources.

Based on facilities for teaching

Based on resources and

activities for learning. Promotes active learning

Table: The difference between traditional school and School as a Service.


In contrast to traditional pattern School as a Service is based on learning activities

materials for learning academic subjects through regular classroom activities and project-based learning in the communities as part of the curricular. Following the needs of new economy and the desire of pupils to learn from the external world, the suggestion is to broad learning nity. Students, by learning in external facilities with its communities, will receive access to new informaexploration.


in collaboration with community partners. architectural frame of School as a Service is distributed learning facilities could be permanent and owned by school as well as temporary spaces from the neighbourhood used under agreement.

Illustrations: 1 Gardenia, Vikki, joint project of Helsinki University and the city of Helsinki. Photo: Matti-Pekka Pulkkinen 2 Kaisaniemi Library, library of Helsinki University, Helsinki 3 Heureka, the centre and museum of science, Helsinki. Photo: Markus Leppiniemi 4 Musiikkitalo, Helsinki. Photo:







Each neighbourhood has a variety of spaces that are not perma-

Construction of a new school building is a highly expensive needs. System of using space recourses of the community is more . Firstly, system of renting does not require big investment in design and construction at the initial stage (lately system will be able to adopt as much students more as more spaces of partners will be available). Secondly, it serves the dynamic needs Important characteristic of school environment is safety. teachers placing school in single building is an easy way to control students. Obviously system of allocated spaces needs solution for easy navigation in-between spaces and events. Development of digital environment should unite existing digital resources as well as navigation tools Brand for its vitality, facilitation of of integrated resources, scaling of service model by promoting its values. In a classic model school participants are physically united by built environment. In School as a Service model building is not dominant and therefore other visual identity is required to replace the single building vision and bring together and emotionally unite the brand community.

spatial arrangement and professionals to facilitate transition to new


The learning services: The digital platform for internal (students-students, students-teachers, teachers-teachers) and external (school-communities) communication. Connection to communities and resources. The digital resource for open sharing of study materials. The tools-shop for co-designing and re-designing. Physical materials for learning and inspiration. Organizational purposes. (Timetables, participants, information). Connection to authorities and control organizations.

The environment: Flexible physical environment to support different activities. Strategy to facilitate desired changes in spatial arrangement. The digital and physical navigation in-between spaces. Social navigation - the approach that will help participants to reach places and got to know about new places.

The human resources: Stakeholders (communities, authorities, parents, etc.). Teachers. Facilitator/manager.

Illustration: Recourses for learning: building, equipment, learning materials, communication channels, community, and human resources.


of innovation has to be controlled by the authorities for comments organized as the learning pool. Its elements are learning services, environment, represented as an interconnected digital and physical service interface and human resources.

points of interaction. and have to be designed to dispose students and teachers minds for receiving a fruit and meeting your friends and mentors, obtaining necessary tools and instructions: timetables, navigation help, and projects updates. Participation at this stage will identify students as -

physical centre of communication and storage of project informa-

home space, completed with regular classrooms, and places of the partner communities, which are used for projects. and could be organized in the home space or in the surrounding cafeterias. sonal projects in evening time. Home space should have long access according to needs. the necessary information.


Physical environment home space

The HEART Identification

Morning 7-9 a.m. Welcome energy fruit-bar, say “hello!�, meeting and info point

Digital environment

regular classrooms 9 a.m.-12 p.m. Lectures, classes, new material

spaces of the partner communities

12-2 p.m. Lunch time

24/7 Communication and learning

12-14 p.m. Group-work time. long hours of access for: homework, personal projects, private learning, sports, events

Illustration: Customer journey in a study day. Points of interaction.


the heart component is an emotion facilitator.

information about study programme, facilities, timetables and orgafeel members of exciting learning process. is a core social space with the function of

for teachers and be managed my students (coordinated by facilitator, used upon request with the approval). It should be pre-designed to lightened, comfortably heated and air-conditioned; the space has to be refreshed and at the same time it should leave room for students for events, exhibitions and other diverse needs of school life and shelter studies with traditional model. spaces are spaces of the partner communities,

recourses for special occasions. is a physical and wireless connection Satellites could be used for interactive learning game via IT-base

digital tools.


“School as a Service” elements


Emotional value



Operational value

Illustration: Elements of spatial arrangement of School as a Service. Architectural representation.


reputation of a leading education provider and continues improvetiatives for improvement of well-being. happen, supporting the development of the pilot School as a Service

appreciates interest of the project developers and will be integrated into school life. Government already made a rental agreement for the building in Otaniemi campus (PUU2) to become the starting point of developing the project. University’s premises are diverse in operational purposes, size, atmosphere, most of the spaces are not permanently in use and could host the co-learning system, becoming tive event.


large groups of students. During the discussion of the project with teachers (in Tapiola school) it was discovered that teachers see the advantages of the new concept but do not want to use their time on facilitating facilitator or manager of the new school becomes obvious.

are complicated to measure. Currently there are projects initiated


2012), for now it is suggested to experiment in close collaboration with the control authorities. Several critical comments were received regarding safety and the distance to allocated spaces. In respond several moments have to be mentioned. First, the system is targeting high-school students, who are highly responsible and already have an experience of travelling to sport facilities and hobby studios. Students classmates. Second, the system targets to collaborate with commuorabilia� can be represented by a personal object with smart technology, for example a bracelet with the function of navigation or access.

Illustration: Single school building – redistributed school spaces – branded school facilities.


Aalto University Library 8 min walk

The Platform

Sport center 13 min walk

Design Factory 6 min walk

Urban Mill

66 Department of Architecture 5 min walk

Startup Sauna

The satellite spaces of the communities Lunch cafeterias The learning path

Illustrations: Applying concept to the context of Otaniemi Campus. Photos: author.


6.0. SPATIAL CONCEPT 6.1. Challenge. Design of space and identity for School as a Service 6.2. Method Space and identity design service tool-kit and strategy Concept of time and space Space for dynamic functions 6.3. Applying to the context 6.4. Results


Concept suggests to pay attention to social aspect of learning and design school around open social learning space - the platform. In its atmosphere learners should feel engaged in learning community. co-learning, the process of brand creation and application of it in the PUU2 building, available for the School as a Service project in Espoo. Spatial conditions of the platform have to be designed as a ible and adaptable to the varying individual and team based learning activities at School as a Service as well as to the needs that will be used to orchestrate situations to encourage people to start a dialogue and exchange of ideas. School architecture should support the social process of co-creation of brand values by the users of School as a Service, allowing the brand community to emotionally unite, grow and shape tural solution. In order to enhance physical and mental connection of users with the space it is important to involve students in designing is crucial for successful design. While creating private interiors pro- that have special emotional values for its owner and search for materials, shapes and colours that represent customers’ personality and build the concept around these elements. Personality of community is more complicated because of individual perception of each -

systems the process of co-creation of value itself forms the service identity. 69

Space and identity design Service tool-kit: Pre-designed space, which allows change according to demands + artefacts as outcomes of learning process and personal projects Persuasive strategy + professional designer Co-designed core space and brand identity

received not as an obligation, conversely in engaging and memorable way, received through the series of memorable events; it can give a possibility to enjoy the process and leave good memories co-learning and careful support in it. Concept suggests co-creation of platform space and identity by teachers, students and facilitator, through semesters of co-learning and co-designing learning services at School as a Service and its community culture will be evolved and emerged in the brand image. School will receive suitable spaces with strong feeling of ownership of the environment doesn’t suggest designing identity and spacing before the personality

To explain the process of co-learning and designing at School as a


Service the strategy is presented through the events on the time line. Currently the project is in the preparation phase, while

is in progress.

It is needed to facilitate easier transition to new system and prostudy programmes will be distributed, followed possibly by the new

semester the school pops-up, organizing presentations of learning outcomes, followed by re-designing and improvement of the system.

environment arranged during the process could be stored or redesigned as permanent during holidays. New ideas could be embodied.

conferences, exhibitions, live musical and drama performances, is a versatile space that allows rearrangements. them with minor investments at the beginning. Before the study year and co-learning process begin, the platform has to be refreshed to use space creatively for learning activities and their own needs,


semester 2015

June 2016

Preparation phase IDEATION


Study programme and projects preparation by teachers, stakeholders, coordinator




TOOLS-SHOP opens. Orientation for students and teachers, groups and timetables set-up, co-designing the programme and space

Projects time, co-learning, organizing the space

Pop-up, exhibitions, discussing results, co-creation workshops, redesign of system and spaces



Illustration: Semester in the School as a Service


Plan guidelines

Illustration: Time line and Platform space.



Inspiration illustrations: S. Jobs and the Next board of directors meet in the company’s Fremont factory in 1987 (photo: and space of MIT Media Lab (photo: Adolfo Plasencia).


December Result of co-learning and co-desiging



Persuasive strategy to facilitate active use of space:


Heart of the space:

Visual reminders:


Illustration: The gate to the Platform space. Photo: author.

Espoo for the project. It is a 3200 square metres three-level venue. PUU2 planned to become a home space hosting the platform along with section of regular classrooms, morning meeting point and teacher’s space. It features a 600 square metres room with high

of stairs and entrances) and redesigning the existing gate into large window to allow more daylight in, the room is ideal for placing experimenting platform.

6.4. Result community to evolve, to form its brand values and ideals, which later could contribute to architectural brand identity construction.

attracts to participate. Users are involved into design process under supervision users and elevates sense of ownership of the resulted environment


+ 18.50 m + 15.25 m



FIRST FLOOR + 18.50 m

storages/service spaces

17 x 0,191 = 3,250

Illustration: Circulation in PUU2 to the Platform space.

teacher’s space


front desk

welcome point

GROUND FLOOR + 15.25 m 10 m


Illustration: The Platform space.


7.0. CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVES OF THE APPROACH 7.1. Conclusion 7.2. Perspectives of the approach


School as a Service

co-learning process, expands learning experience offering possibilities to learn from a variety of resources, enhances creative thinking and allows developing a variety of skills. innovate in educational field and quickly respond to changes in socioeconomic context, improving the learning process, its objectives and methods. participate in interactive and memorable process of building the brand. Brand community forms its values and identity itself during the study process. provision, designed to facilitate engaging co-learning. A single school building is redistributed to the system of using permanent and temporal space of the communities that can offer value for learning experience. The system is organizationally and economically more efficient being highly flexible and adoptable to the context. Architectural conditions featured a social space - the platform. It is available for different kinds of events and projects of pupils, facilitating their creative thinking with persuasive strategy and leaving room for personal expression. User experience is enhanced, allowing customization by inviting to participate in co-design, so that the resulted space will meet maximally the desires of users with their needs and increased sense of ownership of the space. School as a Service shows an example of service architecture

7.1. Conclusion School as a Service provides conditions for active co-learning. Oper-


easily the environmental changes, providing up-to-date education. and use maximum possibilities. It features a space for dynamic needs - service platform, where students and teachers experiment co-learning and co-designing learning community grows together, as a Service show an example of service architecture. Despite its positive aspects the project challenges cultural context, university culture, educational system and pedagogy, as well as architectural and organizational programming, real estate manresources, safety, developing of digital platform for sharing learning methods, strategies of facilitation easier transition to new system,

the involved into experiment institutions created a strong interest struction. adapted on other locations to its communities and available spaces.

would be valuable to exchange the experience and learning resources in between schools. Created collaboratively catalogue of learning materials will be available for all partners. Finnish secondary education already honored respectful reputation all around the world. Educational experts from Russia, China and other countries are highly trusted Finnish experience and could potentially be interested of suggested model could be started, for example, on the base of


schools for students from Finnish families living abroad. Viral mareducational system.

Professional architects create building structures and imagine scenarios of interacting within it. In their practices they usually combine personal aesthetic and beauty views, norms of construction and usually and investor’s priorities. Still not always space is observed in the context of complex service systems it is part of. From the service-dominant logic point of view architecture has and instru-

would became a condition for the experience of co-creating of value

primary the service and evolve it in abstract from architectural shape service architecture was formulated:

Service architecture - a spatial, social, emotional and digital conditions, designed to facilitate value co-creation. Service architecture is an interface of a service system that evolves over previous spatial concepts by additional over-physical characteristics values, which enhance user experience, form brand community and support development. To support co-creation of value and evolving of the service the existing of a service platform could facilitate the process. Service an opportunity to evolve service system becoming a social place to share ideas and initiate action. Service platform – pre-existing physical environment of service system with the design strategy to facilitate using of its facilities for co-creation of value. port overall well-being through the process of co-creating of value,


simultaneously evolving brand community, spatial arrangement and identity can be applied possibly for redesigning other social institu-

2015 and is presented in the enclosed illustration.

Illustration: Workshop blueprint.





Dart, Barry, Paul Burnett, Gillian Boulton-Lewis, Jenny CampLearning.” Learning Environments Research 2 (2): 137–56.

Dori, Yehudit J., and Revital T. Tal. 2000. “Formal and Informal Collaborative Projects: Engaging in Industry with Environmental

Fulton, Kathleen P. 2012. “10 Reasons to Flip.” Phi Delta Kappan 94 (2): 20–24.

Heathcote, Edwin. 2013. “Lovely Laboratories.” Financial Times,

New Directions for Institutional Research 2007 (135): 81–106.

Literature Review.” University of Newcastle.


1.11.2015). Stata and Holl’s Simmons.” History and Technology 24 (3): 207–20.

in Students’ Cognitive, Personal, and Professional Development.”

Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

teaching and learning spaces: a role for academic developers.

C. F. Trevitt. 2000. “Place and Space in the Design of New Learning Environments.” Higher Education Research & Development 19

Store Design and Brand Identity.” Journal of Product &


June 1998. -


S0959-4752(98)00025-5. gressive Inquiry Learning for Children — Experiences, Possibilities, Limitations.” European Early Childhood Education Research Lusch, Robert F., and Stephen L. Vargo. 2006. “Service-Dominant

Lusch, Robert F., Vargo, Stephen L., 2014. Service-Dominant Logic: Premises, Perspectives, Possibilities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. -

$10.00 (cloth).” Economics of Education Review 2 (1): 95–101.

“Social Learning Spaces and Student Engagement.” Higher Edu4360.2010.512629.

Planning Research 17 (4): 271–82.



s11747-009-0143-3. Stanford University Press. Scheer, Brenda Case, and Wolfgang F. E. Preiser, eds. 1994.

Suominen, Jarmo. 2015. “School as a Service, concept Idea.” Taylor, Peter G. 1996. “Pedagogical Challenges of Open Learning: 59–77.


Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Fall 2015. -


rience Economy.” Urban Design International 13 (1): 53–54. Woolner, Pamela. 2010. Future Schools : Design of Learning Spaces.

the Impact of Environments on Learning and the Implications for Building Schools for the Future.” Oxford Review of Education 33


Thank you! Helsinki Finland 2016 92


Natalia Vladykina Service and interior architect

+358 403634703

Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture Department of design

SERVICE-DOMINANT LOGIC IN THE SPATIAL DESIGN OF A SCHOOL Spatial concept for School as a Service project in Espoo

Master’s thesis Natalia Vladykina 2016

Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.