- Author: Lianyi Wang
- Year: 2025
- Institution: Turku University of Applied Sciences, Finland (MBA, Service Design)
- https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/909206/Wang_Lianyi.pdf
1. Introduction to the thesis
I picked this thesis because it is very close to what I am working on: immigration and service design. Wang looks at the Marhaban Center, a meeting place for immigrants in Tampere, and asks what experience clients have there and how the services can be improved through service design. The thesis has five chapters: introduction, theory, methods, findings, and discussion. The practical outcome is a service blueprint for the centre.
2. Evaluation of the academic quality
Quality of design and execution:
The process is solid and well thought out. She combined a survey, interviews with clients and staff, and a co-design workshop, so the topic is looked at from several sides. What bothers me is who is missing. Refugees are one of the main groups at the centre, but most of them could not take part because of the language barrier. The people who need the service most are the ones we hear from least.
Degree of innovation:
The methods are not very innovative. Personas, a journey map, and a blueprint are the standard service design tools. What I found new is that she connects psychology with service design. You can see it in the blueprint, for example in a stage called “Retention & Empowerment”, where clients can become peer supporters or ambassadors. That goes further than the usual ideas like a website or flyers.
Independence:
This is the strongest part of the thesis. She organised everything herself and ran a long workshop with staff and immigrants together, in two languages. You can feel that she really cares about the place. The only thing I missed is some reflection on her own role, because she was a volunteer at the centre while researching it.
Organisation and structure:
The thesis is easy to follow because the findings go step by step through the design process. I always knew where I was. The balance is a bit off, though. Theory and research take up most of the pages, while the part that explains the actual result is only about five pages long.
Quality of communication:
The writing is clear and simple, which I liked a lot. The three personas make the users feel like real people and not just data. Sometimes the text describes more than it analyses, and a few sentences sound more emotional than academic.
Scope of the thesis:
With 109 pages plus appendices, the length is fine for a Master’s thesis. The theory chapter tries to cover many different fields in a short space, so each one stays on the surface. I would have preferred fewer theories with more depth.
Spelling, care, and accuracy:
Overall it is written carefully and reads well. I noticed a few small inconsistencies, but nothing that disturbs the reading. A final proofread would have fixed them.
Use of literature:
The sources about integration are good and scientific, and she also uses current data from Finland. The design sources are weaker, since they are mostly practical handbooks. I missed research about service design in the public sector, which would have fit the topic well.
3. Evaluation of the practical project
The research questions, the theory, and the blueprint fit together well. The blueprint is detailed and covers the whole journey, from the first time someone hears about the centre to the point where they recommend it to others. It also shows what staff need to do behind the scenes. The workshop is documented nicely with photos and results. What is missing is who is responsible for each action and what should be done first, and the blueprint was never tested with staff or clients. For a business-oriented service design degree I think the level is right. For a design programme like ours I would expect at least one round of testing.
4. Final conclusion
The strengths are the real organisation and real users, the mix of methods, the amount of independent work, the clear writing, and a detailed blueprint. She is also honest about the limitations of her study. The weaknesses are that the most vulnerable users are under-represented, the theory is shallow, and the result is not tested. Overall I think it is a solid, practical thesis that meets the requirements. Its biggest gap is that it stops before checking if the solution actually works.
5. Relevance to my own final thesis
What I want to do similarly: I want to talk to both sides, not only the students but also the people working inside the system. I also like how the blueprint shows the front and the back of the service together, which is what my residence permit topic needs. And I want to be just as honest about my limitations.
What I would do differently: I want to test my prototype with real applicants and not only with my classmates. I need to plan for language barriers from the beginning, because the people who struggle most are the easiest to miss. And since I went through this process myself and even had to go to court, I have to be open about my own bias.
