Klaudia Balagová

Humans love telling stories. Whether it's the last chapter of a novel, the climax of a movie, or the goodnight stories from our childhood, endings bring meaning and resolution. However, in the consumer world, the thrill of the new often overshadows the final chapter.

Imagine your printer runs out of ink. You buy a new cartridge, maybe even get an email with installation instructions.The printer resets happily and works again, but now you're left with the old cartridge, unsure what to do next. It’s not as simple as tossing a banana peel.

To address these challenges, an expert in consumer lifecycle endings Joe Macleod proposes “endineering”. It promotes the integration of emotional triggers and actionable steps into the offboarding process, in order to make the end of a consumer journey as engaging and meaningful as was the beginning.

“Businesses have become experts at beginning the consumer journey but often falter at its conclusion.”

With decades of experience in product and CX leadership, among others with the Ustwo design studio, Joe’s work brought him to a realization that the design industry has a serious problem of neglecting consumer journey endings. In 2018, he founded the andEnd studio, the world’s first customer-ending business, and wrote a book called Endineering: Designing consumption lifecycles that end as well as they begin, aiming to redefine the industry standards of how we intentionally conclude consumer journeys.

Having Joe in Slovakia for the final ByDesign conference, we seized the opportunity and booked a private half-day training. Together with a dozen of our clients and partners, we explored how to rethink and redesign consumer journey endings consciously to boost customers’ engagement and satisfaction, brand perception and ecological sustainability.


From circularity to linearity

In the pre-industrial era, the lifecycle of products was naturally circular. Waste was repurposed or reintegrated into the ecosystem. Industrialization, however, shifted this circularity into a linear process. We became adept at quickly buying new items and detached from the consequences of their disposal.

We’ve mastered the art of onboarding with the latest gadgets, services, and experiences. But what happens when their appeal fades? Offboarding – the process of ending our relationship with a product or a service – often falls short, leading to environmental and emotional repercussions. Every product or service promises a better future but the end of this journey is inconvenient and detached from the rest of the experience.


4 key challenges of modern offboarding


1. The emotional disconnect

In modern consumerism, the emotional bond between the product and the consumer often breaks apart during offboarding. Where once there was excitement and engagement, there's now confusion and detachment. This disconnect is mirrored in how we dispose of products—whether it’s the old phone that ends up in a drawer or the plastic packaging tossed without a second thought.


2. Loss of identity

The specific identity of the product or service we buy vanishes at the end. When it comes to shoes, you are not buying “just” shoes. It’s the specific brand you like, a specific type with a suede dark red stripe on the sides, ideally buying them in a retail store where the staff knows you. However, when you are throwing them out, they become just another piece of trash, stripped of their individuality.


3. Anonymity of actions

As consumers, we’re seldom aware of what happens to products once they leave our hands. The actions of disposal are anonymized, leading to a lack of accountability and engagement. This anonymity contributes to this cycle where we’re excellent at acquiring new things but lack responsibility when throwing away the old ones.


4. Complexity of neutralization

The process of neutralizing waste – whether it’s recycling or disposal – is often complex and unclear. For instance, while we know an apple core will rot naturally, what about the myriad materials in an electronic device? The complexity of these products makes their disposal challenging and confusing for the average consumer.


Designing for continuity

To create a more cohesive and responsible consumer experience, we need to reintegrate emotional and practical aspects into offboarding. Create a meaning and continuation in the end. Here’s how some companies address this challenge:

 * Creating emotional connections: Companies like IKEA are starting to design coherent end-to-end experiences like second-hand stores and take-back programs to make the end of the product lifecycle as thoughtful as the beginning.
 * Promoting empowerment through design: Fairphone empowers users to replace parts like batteries and cameras by themselves at home, fostering a sense of ownership and continuity. By making the end phase an integral and engaging part of the product life cycle, companies can help consumers feel more connected and responsible.
 * Leveraging technology and transparency: Doconomy offers a credit card that enables the cardholder to track and measure their carbon footprint, making consumers aware of the environmental costs of their purchases. This kind of transparency can drive more mindful consumption and disposal practices.

As environmental awareness increases, the way we end our relationships with products and services becomes more and more significant. Effective offboarding should be as straightforward and satisfying as onboarding, addressing customer needs and reducing frustration. Making the end of consumer journey equally engaging as its beginning not only supports mindful consumption but also fosters a sustainable and pleasant consumer journey, which directly increases customer satisfaction and loyalty.


Become an endineer yourself

Any expertise isn't built by reading one article. If you are hungry for more insights about endineering, definitely start with Joe Macleod's books Engineering or Ends for an in-depth and comprehensive outlook on this issue.

If you feel you'd appreciate assistance with ending an existing customer journey, don't hesitate to reach out to us. We will gladly share our knowledge and look for a solution to your problem as certified endineers.

Subscribe with your e-mail: www.lbstudio.sk/newsletter

Offboarding: How to end your customer’s journey meaningfully

Samuel Švec

When paying taxes, we often feel like we are the state's last priority. We have to study legal paragraphs and use a calculator to figure out what to fill in boxes we don’t fully understand. A few people at the Bratislava City Hall took on this challenge and tried to redesign the tax payment process.

We are starting the fifth season of the Minimum Viable Podcast with Slavo Oslej, who used the service design method to propose a new way for Bratislava residents to pay taxes. Michal Blažej discusses with him what the work of a service designer entails and how to design services that put the customer first.


Do you know your organization's CX maturity level? Find out in few seconds by answering these 6 questions.




Minimum Viable Podcast is brought to you by the CX design studio Lighting Beetle*. It's usually recorded in the Slovak language, however, you can read an English transcription of this episode below. For more English content, including case studies and handouts, visit our Journal.

To begin, I’d like to talk to you about the redesign of the tax payment system. Not everyone may be familiar with the project you worked on, so what was the outcome of your work?

Essentially, we looked at the service overall, starting from the first moment—filing a tax return or the real estate tax declaration and then the actual tax payment—so the entire service process. What we delivered was a new form that’s more intuitive and a payment method, so now you can pay the tax directly from an email or from a Bratislava account using Apple Pay. Now, people don’t have to go to the post office to make a payment.

What was wrong before? Why did you take on this project?

It was part of a larger initiative for digital transformation. When I joined the city administration, it was around April 2020, and we got a program from Bloomberg, called Think Big Start Small. We had to choose one service to try and transform gradually from start to finish. We picked the real estate tax because at the time it was the largest transactional service, generating the second-largest revenue for the city. It also had the greatest impact on users. The process was very cumbersome for users; people were paying in ways that were no longer suitable for the modern age.

Whose initiative was this digital transformation within the city administration?

We had electronic services similar to the Slovensko.sk with high-cost development and very few users. We needed to make these services more efficient. Bloomberg helped us organize everything. They encouraged us to start with one service and gradually learn from it, applying those lessons to further transform other services the city offers electronically.

How did you approach this? How was it different from how things were done before?

We started collaborating with Bloomberg right after I joined. What was great was the very broad Discovery phase. For me, it was an amazing moment since it coincided with my onboarding. When you think about it, Bratislava is essentially the largest service provider, from public transport to street lighting to paying for municipal services like pools, sports facilities, etc.

The portfolio of services is huge, and during the Discovery phase, we looked at basic things—what services actually mean to people, what the city provides them, and if they even realize it. We did exit interviews after people completed tasks at the contact center, conducted observations, and ad-hoc surveys in parks. We combined various research methods.

You really focused on understanding who the citizens of Bratislava are and how they interact with the city.

Exactly. We took a broad approach and used a 'Double Diamond' framework. We focused on one service, real estate tax, but the 4-month Discovery phase provided insights that helped us with other projects as well.

For instance, it led us to start working on a new Bratislava.sk website because we noticed people were calling the contact center mainly because they couldn’t find information online. So, these insights directed us to further projects.

This is fascinating, especially the Discovery phase. Balancing the scope of research to avoid becoming too abstract and ensure the research remains valuable. Sometimes research can be too broad, revealing strategic insights that aren’t necessarily actionable. How did you select the takeaways, and how did you present them?

From day one, Bloomberg guided us towards high standards, like making research transparent within the organization. After each stage, we presented our findings to about 300 people, showing them what we discovered.

"The findings from the Discovery phase were that it is very difficult for city residents to handle anything with the local government."

The key findings were that it’s really difficult for city residents to handle tasks with the city administration. Most processes are manual, and people usually have to come in person. Just obtaining information or completing a task online is impossible for many because they don’t have an electronic ID card. Ninety percent of the processes are offline, which causes frustration and bad user experiences.

So, the Discovery phase confirmed that digital services were failing, which led you to work on the city’s digital transformation.

Yes, that was the core issue, but we also explored other areas. After identifying these problems, we moved into a targeted Discovery phase and focused specifically on real estate tax services, from filing the declaration to paying the tax.

So, after the broad Discovery phase, you narrowed it down and selected real estate tax as the service to target. What happened next?

We started working closely with the local taxes and fees department in Petržalka. We conducted interviews with users to understand how the current tax declaration works or doesn’t work for them and what issues they encounter. We also mapped out the current state and tested the existing offline and online forms. When it came to payments, we identified several pain points.

You even observed the back-office operations?

Yes, I spent time in the front-line tax offices and saw that when users didn’t pay their tax, the city would sometimes call them six or seven times to follow up. For example, when the invoices were generated in April and May, they had to be physically sent to the post office and signed. Thankfully, that’s no longer the case. Another issue was that during December and January, when tax declarations are filed, there were 300-400 people daily needing help with the form. The city police even had to manage the crowd.

That sounds familiar. In 2016, we started observing back-office processes and call centers, and the insights we gained were often far more useful than customer interviews.

I completely agree. That’s when we first started using Journey Mapping. We mapped the entire process from filing the declaration to making the payment, identified pain points, and created five concepts ranging from small improvements to full transformation.

One of the first concepts was simplifying real estate tax payments. The second was finding a new way to authenticate users into a digital environment without relying on Slovensko.sk, as only about 6-7% of individuals had access to it. Another concept was helping people fill out the tax declaration through tooltips and nudges. We also considered involving third parties like notaries, lawyers, and real estate agents in helping users complete the form. The final concept was removing the user from the declaration process altogether.

In the end, we decided to focus solely on the payment aspect because it had the greatest impact, and we found a legal loophole that allowed us to test digital tax payments.

What team was behind this whole process?

Back then, it was two or three of us. Mainly our internal team, plus we worked with a service design agency, and they expanded our team with a service designer and an IT architect. Of course, we also had the local tax department involved, and to the extent possible, our IT department, lawyers, and others.

You mentioned you created a service blueprint. It’s not a commonly used tool here, and people often don’t know what it is. What is it, and how did it help you?

We used it to map the as-is state and also to map out an ideal state. What helped me was being able to visualize and fully understand how the service operates.

Another thing was that I could get different groups and stakeholders around one table so that everyone could see on one screen, in one Miro, what impacts the user and their experience. I could see everything holistically — how it works versus how it should work — and thanks to that, I discovered some potential inefficiencies.

What did your service blueprint look like?

If you imagine a customer journey, it shows what the user does to meet their goal or fulfill their need. Above that, we had some evidence or a visual reference of what the user actually sees. Then we had the front-end interactions they might have with our staff or some interface. There was also a technology section, linked to some form.

Below that was the entire backstage. And then there was the technology part that, for instance, sends you a one-time code for logging in, etc. We also had KPI tracking, showing how the user progressed through the service. Thanks to that, we could see where and what we could measure. For example, how quickly payments were made, whether the user chose a QR code or a payment gateway, and how many people clicked on feedback… So, we had the entire service described. Since we all understood how the service worked, we could review everything that might go wrong before and after its launch.

You mentioned that you first launched a closed beta for the payment. What happened next?

Back then, we realized that we could display the tax in a digital environment, but you still had to receive the decision in paper form. That’s how the closed beta unfortunately worked. However, we were able to verify that this method was correct. What else did we need?

The result was that within fifteen days, 72% of payments were made. Previously, over 90% of people had to go to the post office to pay their taxes. Let’s say it was at the post office for 18 days, you had 30 days to make the payment, and then 15 days to finalize it. Altogether, it could take two months. Often, people would stick the paper on their fridge and then forget about it or lose it.

We introduced the payment email, which included a QR code and a payment gateway. If you wanted to see the details, due to tax secrecy, you received a one-time code. You accessed a secure zone where you logged in via a code sent to your phone, and there you could view your tax.

The results showed that people have no issue paying taxes if you make the process easier, and everything moves faster. It’s just another bill to pay.

How long did it take to go from the initial discovery to this point?

One year.

It’s important to recognize how much work goes into creating a simple QR code. Citizens might think, "It’s just a QR code," but it took a year of work.

What’s interesting is that we had 72% of payments within fifteen days. Guess what the percentage was when we told people that if they paid within 15 days, we wouldn’t send them a paper letter?

85%?

94%. So, notice how much value we created for people just by eliminating the need to go to the post office.

By 2022-2023, we had better transactional measurements. We found that 4% of people still wanted to receive paper. In 2023, I understood that there was a willingness on the side of the Ministry of Finance to change the law to allow electronic payments.

We realized that we could change the way taxes were levied. We introduced a notification system, where if you paid by a certain date, you wouldn’t receive anything by mail. It’s similar to paying a fine — once you pay it immediately, you only get a receipt and that’s it.

This year was the first time we applied this, and it’s great to see that it’s working, for instance, in Petržalka and other cities. Petržalka, for example, gave a €5 discount if you paid digitally. After the first year, 50% of people were using it. This applies to property taxes, municipal waste fees, dog taxes, and other smaller fees.

What makes the role of a service designer unique, and what does a service designer bring to the table? Why should organizations have service designers?

I think it’s a very important role. Service designers connect different roles and create multidisciplinarity. They’re also advocates for the user and work to deliver the best possible experience to the user.

But it’s not just about the user experience; it’s also about ensuring that the organization can deliver services as efficiently as possible in terms of time and money. So, it’s a crucial role that puts the user first while managing all the assets together.

What skill set do you think a service designer should have? What would you look for on their CV?

They should have a bit of a researcher in them, to be able to ask the right questions and listen. Visual thinking is also key—being able to draw some synthesis from what they hear during facilitation and collaboration. I’d also look for some project management skills so that they can organize resources and options. And definitely, the ability to think outside the box. It also helps to know what the front end is, and what the back end is, and understand infrastructures.

You had a brief internship in New York and got a glimpse of how not just service design but also innovation teams work. What did you see in New York?

It lasted four days, and every day I was with a different department. What was interesting was that the city had an external team hired from an agency, and they were doing six-month behavioral projects for various New York departments. They focused a lot on communication, and I noticed that using plain language was very important. Using simple language is crucial for services, especially municipal ones.

"It is not only about the experience but also about ensuring that the organization can deliver services as efficiently as possible in terms of time and money."

I also liked that they didn’t work individually but always in teams of three, which ensured good coverage and information sharing. Another day I was with an internal service design team. They had a sister product team, which was relatively small, just three to four people.

It certainly wasn’t for all of New York, but I liked that despite being only three or four people, they had "office hours." That meant every Friday, government employees could sign up with their problems, and they would mentor them. This allowed them to increase their impact. I found that very inspiring.

But what impressed me most was their co-design project, where they hired 12 residents over six months and turned them into designers. They passed on their design skills to the residents, allowing them to go through the design process and create a service for their community that was missing. The result was a multi-generational center focused on digital skills, as many groups in New York only have basic education.

Another thing that comes to mind is when I visited 311, which is a non-emergency call center. They don’t have any front offices where you have to go in person; you just call for everything. They handle 35 million interactions a year, and what’s amazing is that they have a knowledge base of 2,000 questions and can answer in the top 11-12 languages anytime. They even guarantee responses in all world languages within a certain time, which made me think, "Wow!" It’s incredible that they have one place where you can call and solve your issues.

In Bratislava, we managed to create one such service. How could we achieve standard thinking like this in local government or public administration?

This is a very complicated challenge. After these four years, I see the biggest barrier as the ability to not only pass on the know-how but also transfer the operation of existing services to the original owners. Because I only had the role of product owner on loan, and in local government, there’s no such thing as a service owner or product owner.

I’d like to get to the point where one day, we are not just tax administrators, road administrators, or sidewalk administrators, but service providers. Not just bureaucrats, but civic servants.

"Using plain language is crucial, especially for municipal services."

But this is gradually happening. Departments are slowly hiring stakeholders who are also part of the innovation department, meaning they are full-time employees. The same approach is being used for the Bratislava transport company or other city organizations, and it’s spreading.

So people from the innovation team are being sent to other city enterprises?

Yes, or hired. But it’s still centralized in one office. The challenge is to move this forward. In the case of local governments, a large percentage of their effort goes into just keeping things running, leaving little room for development and streamlining. We definitely need more people to gradually transform this.

If someone wanted to become a service designer, what would you recommend?

I had a very broad path, but my first impulse came from design thinking, which kickstarted my journey toward service design. Then I tried it out in practice in telecom, where I had an amazing mentor. After that, I took a course through the Butterfly Effect as a UX researcher, and Bloomberg also helped a lot—it was all learning by doing.

But you can also get close to service design if you’ve been a product owner or anyone who has worked in design, like UX or UI. These are very similar professions that can lead to service design. Fortunately, more and more schools focus on this now as well.

One final question I ask all guests. What is your biggest design challenge that you’d like to solve?

I have two. The first is that this morning, as I was unplugging my phone from the charger, I thought, "We’re soon going to Mars, but our phones still only last one day." The second is scaling the design mindset and approach within organizations.


The full interview with Slavo Oslej in Slovak:

Minimum Viable Podcast is brought to you every two months by the design studio Lighting Beetle*, which focuses on creating an exceptional customer experience.

Design is all around us. Minimum Viable Podcast explores design with a small “d” – the one that looks for solutions to people's problems. In it, together with our guests, we address topics that are related to design, but we normally do not associate with it. Thanks to our production manager Mojmír Procházka for the cooperation.

We are looking forward to every listen, follow, share, and suggestion for improvement. You can send us your tips for interesting personalities with whom we can talk about design to podcast@lbstudio.sk.

Enjoy!

Customer experience
that drives your business

Our services create true business value

Service
Design

Digital
Product Design

CX Transformation

We are Lighting Beetle

Journal

Offboarding: How to end your customer’s journey meaningfully

Minimum Viable Podcast #27: Creating better cities

Customer experiencethat drives your business

Our services create true business value

ServiceDesign

DigitalProduct Design

CX Transformation

We are Lighting Beetle﻿

Journal﻿

Offboarding: How to end your customer’s journey meaningfully

Minimum Viable Podcast #27: Creating better cities

Customer experience
that drives your business

Service
Design

Digital
Product Design

We are Lighting Beetle

Journal