A useful way to see a service is as a system of interconnected parts: the research that builds understanding, the governance that sets scope and resource, the channels that deliver the service, the data and back-office rules that process it, and the supply chain that resources it. Villari (2022) argues that sustainable outcomes depend on treating a service this way, working across individual, organisational and policy levels rather than fixing isolated touchpoints. Barriers to inclusion or sustainability can take root at any one of these levels, and a barrier introduced early tends to shape everything built on top of it.
Barriers often begin in research and insight. If recruitment for user research favours people who are easiest to reach, whole groups are represented by proxy or left out entirely, and the personas and needs statements built from that research carry the gap forward. CABE’s (2006) principles of inclusive design call for genuinely acknowledging the diversity of who will use a service, while Kim (2018) frames this as recognising exclusion: people can be excluded permanently, temporarily or only in certain situations, and a design built around one narrow picture of the user will miss all three.
Barriers also form in governance and the design brief itself. If inclusion and sustainability are not named as outcomes with measures attached when scope and budget are agreed, they have no formal claim on resource once delivery pressure builds, and they are pushed into a ‘nice-to-have’ backlog. Who has the authority to challenge a brief on these grounds, and at what point, often decides whether they are addressed at all. This is why the occupational standard for the role expects service designers to question and challenge the design brief itself, and to work ethically and sustainably throughout research and design activity, rather than treating these as later add-ons (Skills England, 2023).
Delivery channels and back-office processes create further barriers. A single digital channel excludes people without reliable access, confidence or the right device; eligibility rules and legacy IT systems encode assumptions about a ‘typical’ user that do not hold for everyone. On the sustainability side, the same early architecture and procurement decisions fix resource use for years: printing defaults, travel patterns, data storage and single-use materials are far easier to specify once than to remove later.
These two kinds of barriers frequently reinforce each other rather than sitting in separate parts of the system. A channel strategy built to cut resource use, such as closing local offices in favour of a single digital route, can exclude users who need in-person or paper support; adding accessible formats or extra channels without reviewing their footprint can, in turn, raise materials, energy or travel. Treating inclusion and sustainability as one system-level question, rather than two separate checks, avoids solving one barrier by quietly creating another.
This is precisely why timing matters so much. Tan, Otto and Wood (2017) found that decisions made before a design is frozen account for the large majority of a system’s downstream cost and performance, and that problems traced back to that early stage take roughly 13 times more rework to fix once discovered later. Meadows (1999) makes a related point about systems generally: structure, not individual fixes, determines behaviour, so changing rules, information flows or goals early reshapes the whole system, while adjustments made after the structure is set only manage the symptoms it produces.
For service designers, this means inclusion and sustainability work best as design constraints from the first questioning of the brief, not as checks applied once a solution is built. Addressing them from the outset costs less, reaches further into the system, and reflects the ethical and sustainable practice expected of the role, rather than treating equity and environmental impact as problems to solve once the design is already fixed.
Action Point
Pick one service you lead or influence, current or planned. Sketch it as a system: research, governance, channels, data and back-office rules, and supply chain. At each stage, ask who could be excluded and what resources or waste become locked in. Identify one point where an assumption was set before anyone checked it and raise it as a change to the brief or success measures now, rather than a fix for later.