How Service Design Transformed a Home‑Cleaning Platform’s Quality and Revenue

Achieving Team Consensus

Service design is a systematic design thinking method that involves all stakeholders to improve user experience, service quality, effectiveness, and efficiency. Before starting the project, the internal team (product, operations, data, technology, design, customer service) reached consensus on two goals: synchronizing project information and confirming the project’s value points. The cleaning service was in the transition from introduction to growth stage, facing pressure to refine the service model while increasing traffic, conversion, order value, and reducing refunds.

Determining the Service‑Design Plan

Many service‑design tools exist (user journey maps, service blueprints, expectation maps, emotion curves, workshops, stakeholder mapping, desktop walkthroughs, etc.). After defining the value points, three research tools were selected: Expectation Maps, Service Blueprints, and Co‑Creation.

Stakeholder Mapping

The cleaning service involves a large number of stakeholders (users, cleaning companies, cleaners, company customer service, supervisors, 58.com customer service, product, operations, technology, data, design, etc.). Stakeholders with low relevance to the project goal, low decision‑making power, or indirect impact were excluded.

Adding Personas

To understand different user needs, typical personas were created for both C‑end users and B‑end merchants. C‑end users were divided into three types based on cleaning frequency (repurchase rate) and price sensitivity (order value). B‑end merchants were categorized into three groups based on order volume and service area.

Expectation Map and Service Blueprint Creation

The project was conducted during the pandemic, so phone interviews were used to gather information from users, merchants, and internal teams. The work was divided into three parts:

User side : Analyze conversion paths, conduct eye‑tracking tests, perform qualitative interviews, and supplement with behavior‑log analysis.

Merchant side : Interview merchant managers and service staff to understand order support and service behavior.

Internal product/operations/design side : Interview internal departments to learn their support and management actions.

Difference Analysis Between Expectation Map and Service Blueprint

The focus was on gaps between the user’s ideal service (Expectation Map) and the actual service (Service Blueprint). For example, after payment, users often experience at least two phone calls, during which order cancellations may occur, contradicting users’ expectation of a simple, convenient service.

Four main communication categories were identified:

Service inquiry – users ask questions because the platform lacks an online客服入口.

Specific service demand confirmation – both users and merchants confirm details such as service time, location, and type.

Order confirmation – both sides verify order correctness.

Service expectation management – merchants manage user expectations, especially for new users unfamiliar with cleaning services.

Co‑Creation (CO‑CREATION)

After mapping and identifying differences, core project members were invited to co‑create solutions. The process involved confirming problem areas (low conversion points, large gaps between expectation map and blueprint), sharing background and causes, collaboratively brainstorming solutions, iterating discussions until consensus, and outlining next steps.

The co‑creation emphasized considering all stakeholder concerns—users, merchants, and the platform—to achieve the most effective overall solution.

Conclusion

The practical experience of this service‑design research highlights the importance of a holistic, stakeholder‑centric approach. Future work will continue to share outcomes and promote full‑service‑system design as a key direction for improving service quality and business performance.