Journey Mapping and Experience Design

Last Updated June 4, 2026

Journey mapping and experience design examine how individuals and stakeholders interact with systems over time, focusing on the sequence of touchpoints, decisions, emotions, constraints, delays, handoffs, feedback, and accumulated burdens that shape real-world experience. In strategic ideation, journey mapping is not merely a visualization tool or customer-experience artifact. It is a disciplined method for understanding how systems are actually encountered, interpreted, and navigated by the people who must move through them.

Experience design builds on that understanding. It translates journey evidence into better sequences, clearer communication, reduced friction, stronger decision support, more coherent touchpoints, and more humane system performance. Where journey mapping makes lived experience visible, experience design asks how the system should be reorganized so that people can act with greater clarity, confidence, dignity, access, and effectiveness.

This matters because organizations often design systems as static architectures: process diagrams, workflows, operating procedures, technical infrastructures, service models, governance routines, and platform requirements. Users do not experience systems as diagrams. They experience them as journeys: fragmented, emotional, time-bound, sometimes confusing, often inconsistent, and shaped by prior expectations, trust, access, memory, context, and constraint. A system may be internally logical and still be externally burdensome. A process may be operationally complete and still feel incoherent in use. A platform may appear intuitive to its designers while remaining opaque to first-time users.

At its deepest level, journey mapping changes how strategy understands performance. It asks not only whether the system technically functions, but whether the sequence through which people encounter it is intelligible, trustworthy, accessible, and actionable. It shows that failure often occurs not at one isolated touchpoint but across transitions: between channels, departments, decisions, documents, interfaces, teams, policies, and moments of uncertainty. Experience design then intervenes in those transitions, reducing the cumulative cost of moving through the system.

This article examines journey mapping and experience design as foundations of strategic ideation. It explains why experiences must be understood as sequences rather than isolated interactions, how journeys are structured, why friction accumulates across time, how journey mapping reframes strategic problems, how multi-channel and multi-stakeholder journeys complicate design, why behavioral decision pathways matter, how measurement and continuous refinement improve experience quality, where journey mapping can mislead, and how ethical and accessibility considerations must shape experience design from the beginning.

Why Journey Mapping Matters in Strategic Ideation

Journey mapping matters because many strategic failures are sequential failures. The issue is not always that one touchpoint is broken, one interface is confusing, one form is poorly written, or one service agent is unhelpful. More often, the experience deteriorates across a sequence: the entry point is unclear, the next step is ambiguous, the handoff loses context, the user must repeat information, the status is invisible, the support channel does not know the prior interaction, the policy language creates anxiety, and the outcome arrives without explanation. Each element may appear minor in isolation. Together, they create abandonment, mistrust, frustration, error, delay, and disengagement.

Traditional strategy often privileges the internal view of a system. It asks whether the process exists, whether the workflow is documented, whether the platform performs, whether the policy is implemented, or whether the service meets operational requirements. Journey mapping adds another question: what does the system become when lived over time by the person who must navigate it? That question changes strategic ideation because it reveals failure modes that process maps and dashboards often miss.

In strategic ideation, journey mapping is especially valuable when the organization faces low adoption, high abandonment, repeated support requests, weak trust, poor completion, uneven access, service fragmentation, user confusion, or unexplained dissatisfaction. These are rarely solved by adding more features alone. They require understanding how people move through the system, where meaning breaks down, and where the organization’s structure imposes hidden work on the user.

Journey mapping improves strategic ideation because it shows where systems succeed or fail as lived sequences, not merely as designed structures.

Back to top ↑

From Systems to Experiences

Traditional strategy often prioritizes system structure: organizational charts, process flows, technical architectures, governance routines, staffing models, and operational efficiency. These perspectives are necessary, but incomplete. They describe how systems are intended to function rather than how they are actually experienced. Journey mapping shifts the analytical lens from internal system design to experiential reality.

This distinction is critical. A process that appears efficient on paper may feel confusing, fragmented, or burdensome in practice. A service that appears comprehensive may create cognitive overload across multiple steps. A platform that appears intuitive to its creators may be opaque to first-time users. A public process may satisfy internal compliance while leaving residents uncertain, anxious, or repeatedly responsible for connecting pieces that the institution itself has failed to connect.

Experience is not a soft add-on to performance. It is a form of system performance. If the experience is unintelligible, inaccessible, emotionally costly, overly fragmented, or burdensome, the system is not functioning well from the standpoint of the person who must use it. Journey mapping helps make that gap visible.

Strategy improves when it stops treating experience as a side effect of process and starts treating it as a core dimension of system performance.

Back to top ↑

The Structure of a Journey

A journey is not a single interaction but a sequence of moments connected over time. These moments typically include entry points, transitions, decision nodes, delays, status checks, feedback loops, support requests, handoffs, breakdowns, and outcomes. Each stage is shaped by context, expectations, prior experience, available information, emotional state, trust, access, and the user’s capacity to act.

Journey mapping makes this structure explicit. It allows teams to trace what a person must do, think, feel, decide, remember, repeat, interpret, and recover from across the full experience. This layered view reveals that performance is not determined solely by individual components but by how those components connect. The overall journey may fail even if each local part appears acceptable in isolation.

What matters is not only the quality of each touchpoint, but the coherence of the sequence that connects them.

Back to top ↑

Temporal Dynamics and Accumulated Friction

One of the most important contributions of journey mapping is its attention to temporal dynamics. Many systems fail not because of a single catastrophic flaw but because of accumulated friction. Small inefficiencies compound across stages. Minor uncertainties become significant barriers when repeated. Cognitive load increases as users must remember, interpret, and reconcile information across multiple steps. Emotional strain grows when people repeatedly feel lost, delayed, judged, or unsure whether they are doing the right thing.

Experience design must therefore account for accumulation. A journey that is manageable in isolation may become overwhelming when experienced as a sequence. A form may be acceptable by itself, but not after three prior forms. A wait may be tolerable if status is clear, but not if the person has no visibility. A repeated explanation may be manageable once, but degrading when required across channels. A small accessibility barrier may become exclusionary when layered with time pressure, unfamiliar language, weak support, or high stakes.

This insight shifts strategic focus from optimizing isolated steps to designing continuity. The question is not simply “Is this touchpoint usable?” but “What burden has the person already carried by the time they arrive here?” Journey mapping makes cumulative burden visible.

Experience breaks down less often through one major rupture than through the cumulative weight of many small burdens.

Back to top ↑

Experience Design as System Intervention

Experience design translates journey insight into intervention. It focuses on improving how systems are encountered rather than only how they are structured. This may involve simplifying interfaces, clarifying communication, reducing unnecessary steps, aligning expectations with outcomes, restructuring the sequence of interactions, improving support pathways, reducing ambiguity, or strengthening cross-channel continuity.

Importantly, experience design is not limited to aesthetics, interface polish, or customer satisfaction. It includes information architecture, role clarity, decision design, process sequencing, behavioral cues, trust signals, handoff quality, service blueprinting, accessibility, feedback mechanisms, governance connections, and institutional accountability. In complex systems, small changes in experience can produce disproportionate improvements in outcomes. Reducing uncertainty at a key decision point, for example, may increase completion rates, lower abandonment, improve trust, and reduce support demand.

Experience design is strategic because it changes how the system is interpreted at the moment action is required.

Back to top ↑

Journey Mapping and Problem Reframing

Journey mapping often reveals that the problem an organization believes it is solving is not the problem users are experiencing. A perceived issue of low adoption may actually reflect confusion at entry points. A perceived issue of inefficiency may stem from redundant steps introduced by institutional silos. A perceived issue of user error may reflect unclear instructions, poor sequencing, weak interface cues, or fear of making an irreversible mistake.

This reframing is strategically valuable because it redirects ideation away from symptoms and toward the sources of friction. Many organizations respond to journey breakdown by adding more communication, more training, more reminders, more documentation, or more features. Journey mapping may reveal that the real issue is sequence, trust, timing, handoff, role ambiguity, or hidden burden. In many cases, the most effective solution is not additional complexity but better alignment between system design and lived experience.

Journey mapping is valuable not only because it visualizes experience, but because it helps reveal where the organization has framed the wrong problem.

Back to top ↑

Multi-Channel and Multi-Context Journeys

Modern journeys rarely occur within a single channel. Users move across digital platforms, physical environments, human interactions, automated workflows, email, chat, phone, forms, notifications, documentation, support systems, and organizational boundaries. This creates fragmentation. Information may not transfer cleanly between stages. Context may be lost. Users may be required to repeat actions, re-enter data, reconstruct explanations, or reconcile conflicting instructions.

Journey mapping helps identify these discontinuities. It highlights where transitions break down and where integration is needed. Experience design then focuses on continuity, ensuring that users can move across channels without losing progress, understanding, confidence, or agency. In multi-channel systems, the journey often fails not because each channel is poor, but because the transition between channels has not been designed.

In multi-channel systems, the transition between touchpoints is often more decisive than the touchpoint itself.

Back to top ↑

Stakeholder Complexity and System-Wide Experience

In many strategic contexts, journeys are not limited to individual end users. They involve multiple stakeholders with different roles, incentives, constraints, and vulnerabilities. A healthcare journey may involve patients, providers, administrators, insurers, caregivers, and regulators. A hiring journey may involve candidates, recruiters, hiring managers, legal reviewers, and internal approvers. A civic-service journey may involve residents, agencies, caseworkers, community organizations, contractors, and public systems.

Experience design must therefore operate at multiple levels. It must consider how individual journeys intersect, where coordination fails, and how system design can better align these perspectives. This expands journey mapping from a user-centric tool into a system-wide analytical framework. A user’s experience often depends on whether the workflows of other actors connect effectively behind the scenes.

This matters because improving one journey can worsen another. A self-service portal may reduce institutional cost while increasing user burden. A faster approval process may increase pressure on frontline workers. A compliance requirement may improve auditability while making access harder for vulnerable users. Experience design must therefore account for system-wide consequences.

The lived quality of one person’s journey is often shaped by how well several other actors’ workflows connect behind the scenes.

Back to top ↑

Behavioral Insights and Decision Pathways

Journeys are also decision pathways. At each stage, users interpret information, evaluate options, manage uncertainty, and choose actions under constraints. Behavioral factors such as cognitive load, framing effects, default options, perceived risk, trust signals, timing pressure, social norms, loss aversion, ambiguity, and limited attention all influence journey outcomes.

Integrating behavioral insights into journey mapping allows for more precise intervention. Simplifying choice architecture, reducing ambiguity, clarifying next steps, providing timely feedback, sequencing information around decisions, and making consequences visible can significantly improve decision quality and system outcomes. The key is not to treat users as ideal decision-makers, but as human actors navigating limited attention, imperfect information, uncertainty, and time-bound pressures.

Many journey failures are not failures of motivation. They are failures of decision design.

Back to top ↑

A strong journey map does not merely illustrate a path. It explains how experience is produced across time, context, touchpoints, and system structure.

Back to top ↑

Experience design is strongest when it improves the conditions under which people interpret, decide, act, recover, and complete the journey.

Back to top ↑

Measurement and Continuous Refinement

Journey mapping is not a one-time exercise. Systems evolve, user expectations change, technology shifts, policies change, and new constraints emerge. Experience design must therefore be iterative. Organizations should continuously collect data, observe behavior, review support signals, and refine journeys based on evidence.

This creates a feedback loop between design and reality. Metrics may include completion rates, abandonment, wait times, error frequency, support volume, satisfaction, trust, accessibility outcomes, cross-channel continuity, complaint patterns, repeat contact, and outcome quality. Qualitative observation remains equally important because aggregate metrics often hide where meaningful friction actually occurs. A dashboard may show an average completion rate while masking disproportionate burden for particular groups.

A strong journey map is not only descriptive. It becomes an ongoing instrument for learning and redesign.

Back to top ↑

Journey mapping is most valuable when it clarifies experience without pretending that experience is the only level of analysis that matters.

Back to top ↑

Ethical and Accessibility Considerations

Experience design always carries ethical implications. Decisions about defaults, visibility, timing, authentication, language, evidence requirements, support availability, information burden, error recovery, and process structure can advantage some users while excluding or exhausting others. Accessibility is not a peripheral concern but a central design condition, especially when systems are public-facing, high-stakes, or used across diverse populations.

Ethical experience design asks not only whether a journey is smooth, but for whom. It examines whether burdens are hidden, whether choice is manipulated, whether vulnerable users are disproportionately strained, whether disabled users can complete the journey, whether language access is adequate, whether privacy is protected, whether users can recover from error, and whether efficiency for the institution has been achieved by shifting cost onto users.

This matters especially in healthcare, education, public benefits, employment, financial services, civic participation, justice systems, technology platforms, sustainability programs, and high-stakes administrative processes. In these settings, a poorly designed journey can affect dignity, rights, access, trust, and life outcomes.

A well-designed journey should reduce friction without reducing dignity, agency, or equitable access.

Back to top ↑

A serious journey-mapping process should leave behind not only a visual map, but a traceable record of evidence, friction, reframing, redesign decisions, ethical review, and learning loops.

Back to top ↑

Mathematical Lens: Journeys, Friction, and Experience Quality

A stylized journey can be represented as a sequence of stages:

Accumulated friction can be expressed conceptually as:

Overall experience quality can be represented as:

A transition-risk model can be expressed as:

The mathematical lens clarifies the strategic function of journey mapping: make sequence visible, identify accumulated friction, assess transition risk, and redesign the experience so value can actually be realized.

Back to top ↑

Advanced R Workflow: Comparing Journey Performance Across Stages

The R workflow below compares stylized journeys across clarity, emotional confidence, friction, transition quality, accessibility, trust, and completion support. It is designed as an evergreen illustration of how journeys can be assessed as sequences rather than isolated touchpoints.

# Install packages if needed.
# install.packages(c("tidyverse"))

library(tidyverse)

# ------------------------------------------------------------
# R Workflow: Comparing Journey Performance Across Stages
# Purpose:
#   Build stylized profiles across journeys using clarity,
#   emotional confidence, friction, transition quality,
#   accessibility, trust, and completion support.
# ------------------------------------------------------------

journeys <- tibble(
  journey = c(
    "Fragmented Institutional Journey",
    "Balanced Guided Journey",
    "High-Touch Human-Supported Journey",
    "Efficient but Brittle Digital Journey",
    "Accessible Trust-Centered Journey"
  ),
  clarity = c(0.36, 0.77, 0.72, 0.69, 0.81),
  emotional_confidence = c(0.31, 0.74, 0.83, 0.48, 0.79),
  friction = c(0.82, 0.39, 0.33, 0.61, 0.28),
  transition_quality = c(0.28, 0.79, 0.71, 0.44, 0.82),
  accessibility = c(0.34, 0.70, 0.68, 0.52, 0.88),
  trust = c(0.30, 0.73, 0.78, 0.50, 0.84),
  completion_support = c(0.34, 0.76, 0.82, 0.57, 0.86)
)

journeys <- journeys %>%
  mutate(
    journey_profile =
      0.18 * clarity +
      0.15 * emotional_confidence -
      0.20 * friction +
      0.15 * transition_quality +
      0.12 * accessibility +
      0.10 * trust +
      0.10 * completion_support,
    redesign_priority =
      0.24 * friction +
      0.18 * (1 - transition_quality) +
      0.16 * (1 - accessibility) +
      0.14 * (1 - trust) +
      0.14 * (1 - clarity) +
      0.14 * (1 - completion_support)
  )

print(journeys)

journeys_long <- journeys %>%
  pivot_longer(
    cols = c(
      clarity,
      emotional_confidence,
      friction,
      transition_quality,
      accessibility,
      trust,
      completion_support
    ),
    names_to = "dimension",
    values_to = "value"
  )

ggplot(journeys_long, aes(x = dimension, y = value, fill = journey)) +
  geom_col(position = "dodge") +
  labs(
    title = "Stylized Journey-Performance Dimensions",
    x = "Dimension",
    y = "Value",
    fill = "Journey"
  ) +
  theme_minimal(base_size = 12) +
  coord_flip()

ggplot(journeys, aes(x = reorder(journey, journey_profile), y = journey_profile)) +
  geom_col() +
  coord_flip() +
  labs(
    title = "Stylized Journey Experience Profile",
    x = "Journey",
    y = "Profile Score"
  ) +
  theme_minimal(base_size = 12)

ggplot(journeys, aes(x = reorder(journey, redesign_priority), y = redesign_priority)) +
  geom_col() +
  coord_flip() +
  labs(
    title = "Journey Redesign Priority",
    x = "Journey",
    y = "Priority Score"
  ) +
  theme_minimal(base_size = 12)

write_csv(journeys, "journey_mapping_profiles.csv")

This workflow is not a universal scoring system. Its value is conceptual and methodological: it helps teams compare journeys across dimensions that matter for strategic experience design, including clarity, emotional confidence, accumulated friction, transitions, accessibility, trust, and completion support.

Back to top ↑

Advanced Python Workflow: Simulating Accumulated Friction

The Python workflow below simulates stylized journeys over multiple stages, showing how small increments of friction can compound and reduce overall journey quality if transitions, accessibility, trust, and support are weak.

# Install packages if needed:
# pip install pandas numpy matplotlib

import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

# ------------------------------------------------------------
# Python Workflow: Simulating Accumulated Friction
# Purpose:
#   Compare journeys whose quality depends on stage clarity,
#   friction, transition support, accessibility, trust,
#   and cumulative burden.
# ------------------------------------------------------------

stages = np.arange(1, 11)

def simulate_journey(
    clarity,
    friction,
    transition,
    support,
    accessibility,
    trust,
    initial_state=0.80
):
    state = np.zeros(len(stages))
    state[0] = initial_state

    for t in range(1, len(stages)):
        gain = (
            0.10 * clarity +
            0.08 * transition +
            0.08 * support +
            0.07 * accessibility +
            0.07 * trust
        )

        burden = 0.12 * friction
        transition_penalty = 0.05 * (1 - transition)
        access_penalty = 0.04 * (1 - accessibility)

        state[t] = state[t - 1] + gain / 5 - burden / 5 - transition_penalty / 5 - access_penalty / 5
        state[t] = np.clip(state[t], 0, 1.5)

    return state

fragmented = simulate_journey(
    clarity=0.36,
    friction=0.82,
    transition=0.28,
    support=0.34,
    accessibility=0.34,
    trust=0.30
)

balanced = simulate_journey(
    clarity=0.77,
    friction=0.39,
    transition=0.79,
    support=0.76,
    accessibility=0.70,
    trust=0.73
)

human_supported = simulate_journey(
    clarity=0.72,
    friction=0.33,
    transition=0.71,
    support=0.82,
    accessibility=0.68,
    trust=0.78
)

brittle_digital = simulate_journey(
    clarity=0.69,
    friction=0.61,
    transition=0.44,
    support=0.57,
    accessibility=0.52,
    trust=0.50
)

accessible_trust_centered = simulate_journey(
    clarity=0.81,
    friction=0.28,
    transition=0.82,
    support=0.86,
    accessibility=0.88,
    trust=0.84
)

df = pd.DataFrame({
    "stage": stages,
    "Fragmented Institutional Journey": fragmented,
    "Balanced Guided Journey": balanced,
    "High-Touch Human-Supported Journey": human_supported,
    "Efficient but Brittle Digital Journey": brittle_digital,
    "Accessible Trust-Centered Journey": accessible_trust_centered
})

print(df.head())

plt.figure(figsize=(10, 6))
for col in df.columns[1:]:
    plt.plot(df["stage"], df[col], marker="o", label=col)

plt.xlabel("Journey Stage")
plt.ylabel("Experience Quality")
plt.title("Accumulated Friction Across Journey Stages")
plt.legend()
plt.tight_layout()
plt.show()

final_scores = df.drop(columns=["stage"]).iloc[-1].sort_values(ascending=False)
print(final_scores)

df.to_csv("journey_mapping_simulation.csv", index=False)

This simulation is intentionally stylized. Its value is conceptual: journey quality is shaped by how clarity, friction, transition quality, accessibility, trust, and completion support interact over time. Experience design should therefore focus not only on improving individual stages, but on preventing cumulative breakdown across the sequence.

Back to top ↑

GitHub Repository

The companion repository for this article will provide advanced strategist-facing workflows for journey mapping diagnostics, accumulated-friction scoring, touchpoint analysis, transition-risk review, service blueprinting, multi-channel continuity assessment, stakeholder journey comparison, accessibility and dignity review, behavioral decision-pathway modeling, journey redesign prioritization, measurement design, and institutional experience-learning records.

The repository structure is designed to support professional strategic analysis rather than generic coding demonstrations. The python/ folder can model accumulated friction, transition risk, stage-level burden, journey quality, accessibility risk, trust signals, behavioral decision points, support demand, and redesign priorities. The r/ folder can compare journey-performance profiles and visualize experience-design patterns across contexts. The julia/ folder can support sensitivity analysis for friction accumulation and transition quality. The sql/ folder can define schemas for journeys, stages, touchpoints, transitions, actors, pain points, friction signals, accessibility issues, emotional states, backstage dependencies, interventions, metrics, and learning records.

Additional folders can support command-line diagnostics, lower-level scoring utilities, and reproducible documentation. The rust/ folder can provide a command-line journey diagnostics scaffold. The go/ folder can provide experience-quality evaluation utilities. The cpp, fortran, and c folders can provide efficient scoring examples and low-level utilities. The docs, data, outputs, and notebooks folders can support article notes, modeling principles, synthetic datasets, generated outputs, and notebook placeholders.

This code should be understood as a transparent learning and modeling scaffold. It is intended for synthetic-data research, methods demonstration, institutional learning, strategic analysis, and reproducible workflow development. It is not a substitute for user research, accessibility testing, ethical review, domain expertise, accountable governance, service design practice, or participatory judgment.

Back to top ↑

Conclusion

Journey mapping and experience design provide a critical bridge between system structure and human experience. They help strategists understand not only what a system is supposed to do, but how it is actually lived, navigated, interpreted, and endured over time. By making the temporal and experiential dimensions of systems visible, journey mapping enables more accurate problem framing and more effective ideation.

In strategic work, this perspective is indispensable. It reveals how friction accumulates, how transitions fail, how trust is built or damaged, how accessibility barriers compound, how users absorb hidden labor, and how internal structures produce external experience. It also shows why many strategic problems cannot be solved through isolated touchpoint improvement. They require redesigning the sequence, handoffs, information architecture, decision pathways, feedback loops, and backstage dependencies that shape the journey as a whole.

Used superficially, journey mapping becomes a decorative diagram: a neat sequence of stages that confirms what the organization already believes. Used rigorously, it becomes a method of strategic intelligence. It helps institutions see where their internal logic diverges from lived reality, where the real problem has been misframed, and where experience design can reduce burden without reducing dignity, agency, or equitable access.

Better strategies emerge not from designing systems in isolation, but from understanding how those systems are lived, navigated, and experienced over time.

Back to top ↑

Related Articles

• Strategic Ideation
• Design Thinking Foundations
• Empathy and User-Centered Ideation
• Prototyping and Rapid Experimentation
• Feedback Loops in Design Thinking
• Participatory Ideation and Co-Design
• Prototype Evidence and Strategic Learning
• Problem Framing and Problem Definition
• Systems Thinking in Ideation
• Second-Order Effects and Unintended Consequences

Further Reading

• Kalbach, J. (2016) Mapping Experiences: A Complete Guide to Creating Value Through Journeys, Blueprints, and Diagrams. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
• Nielsen Norman Group (2016) ‘When and how to create customer journey maps’. Available at: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/customer-journey-mapping/
• Nielsen Norman Group (2017) ‘Journey mapping 101’. Available at: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/journey-mapping-101/
• Nielsen Norman Group (2018) ‘Service blueprints: Definition’. Available at: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/service-blueprints-definition/
• Norman, D.A. (2013) The Design of Everyday Things. Revised and expanded edn. New York: Basic Books.
• Stickdorn, M. and Schneider, J. (2011) This Is Service Design Thinking. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers.
• Stickdorn, M., Hormess, M., Lawrence, A. and Schneider, J. (2018) This Is Service Design Doing. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
• Interaction Design Foundation (no date) Customer Journey Maps. Available at: https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/customer-journey-map

Back to top ↑

References

• Kalbach, J. (2016) Mapping Experiences: A Complete Guide to Creating Value Through Journeys, Blueprints, and Diagrams. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
• Nielsen Norman Group (2016) ‘When and how to create customer journey maps’. Available at: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/customer-journey-mapping/
• Nielsen Norman Group (2017) ‘Journey mapping 101’. Available at: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/journey-mapping-101/
• Nielsen Norman Group (2018) ‘Service blueprints: Definition’. Available at: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/service-blueprints-definition/
• Norman, D.A. (2013) The Design of Everyday Things. Revised and expanded edn. New York: Basic Books.
• Stickdorn, M. and Schneider, J. (2011) This Is Service Design Thinking. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers.
• Stickdorn, M., Hormess, M., Lawrence, A. and Schneider, J. (2018) This Is Service Design Doing. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
• Interaction Design Foundation (no date) Customer Journey Maps. Available at: https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/customer-journey-map

Back to top ↑