Note: this note includes references to ideas from Majid Iqbal's book, "Thinking in Services". I've provided hopefully enough detail to get my main points across. If you are interested in the design and implementation of services (of all kinds, not just digital), I highly recommend the book.

During a conversation about service patterns a while back, the example of "car wash" came up. Specifically the question of whether or not the patterns used to describe the service would differ based on the implementation of the car wash. I thought this would be a good example to use to explore the concept of "concepts" as discussed by Hofstadter and Sander in Surfaces and Essences and in the context of framing of a car wash service.

The phrase "car wash" embodies the concept of "a place you take your car where it will be washed". Within that concept, there are many ways it may actually manifest, many analogies of the prototypical car wash. The two primary examples of a car wash mentioned during the conversation were:

The general consensus during the conversation was that the affordance pattern in these situations would be CH-6 (Contain-Hold), even though it may be tempting to use CC-5 (Conduct-Connect) for the case where the vehicle is being transported through the car wash facility. The movement of the car is not the affordance being promised as part of the service, it is merely a component of how the service is provided.

At the 2x level (stereotype) and 4x level (promises), the service description will be essentially the same for both of these offerings. The narrative threads, on the other hand, will diverge as the elements of the service are further refined. This, in turn, will drive the actual design of the service to be provided.

Another type of car wash that was mentioned during the conversation was a variation on the second option above:

How, if at all, does this change the framing of the service? Is the affordance provided by the car wash still CH-6? Or would it be CC-5?

From the car's perspective, it is still "stationary" with respect to the wash bay in the same way it is if the driver remains in the car. From the driver's perspective, however, the car is now being transported from the entrance to the exit. Is the affordance enabling the performance by moving the car along the track through the "wash tunnel"? Or is it still essentially being "held" in the wash area, even though the customer is no longer sitting in the car?

I would say that we are still looking at CH-6, though we may also need to expand the service offering in this case to provide for the driver while they wait for the car to be washed. More on that later.

So far we have only addressed the washing of the exterior of the car. And while that makes sense from a literal reading of the words that make up the phrase "car wash", it doesn't capture what is actually offered at most car washes.

In addition to the actual washing of the car, for example, car washes may include options to

Even though these don't flow literally from the word "wash", they are in fact offerings at what we commonly think of as a "car wash". With that in mind we can expand the concept embodied in the phrase "car wash" to a more general concept, "a place you take your car where it will be cleaned".

So then, how do we frame the affordance for the part of the service related to cleaning the interior of the car? At most car washes, the actual work of cleaning the interior of the car is done by the driver (or their kids whom they've dragged along for just that purpose). So, LR-7 (Lease-Rent), since the affordance is use of the vacuum cleaner and other equipment, not the holding of your car? (Whether or not a facility that provides only a capability to clean the interior of your car can be called a "car wash" is left for another day.)

Now when we look at the concept, and service, embodied in the phrase "car wash" we are looking at a service not specific to just washing the exterior of the car, but rather a service that affords the cleaning of your car inside and out. Hofstadter and Sander might describe this as expanding the concept to allow for a broader set of valid analogies (which is true), we can also look at this as the combination of microservices ("washing car exterior" and "cleaning car interior") into a macroservice ("car wash").

There are some car washes that provide more than just the services covered under the concept of "a place you take your car where it will be cleaned".

A full service car wash, for example, the kind where you leave your vehicle at the beginning of the process and retrieve it when it has been cleaned inside and out, will often have a lounge or other waiting area where you are offered food and/or drink, perhaps complimentary or perhaps for a separate charge. Is this still a "car wash"?

I would say yes, albeit one with some extra services available that lies a bit further out from the prototypical "car wash". And we would still frame it as a "car wash", in this case a macroservice with the microservices "cleaning cars" and "hosting drivers while their cars are being cleaned".

In many cases, though, the "place you take your car where it will be cleaned" is not the primary concept underpinning the place where the service of cleaning your car is offered. A good example of this are the numerous gas stations that offer what they call a "car wash" as an additional service to accompany the "gas station" for which the place is actually labeled. ("Gas station" is another phrase that represents a well known, wide ranging concept that could easily be its own conversation like this one.)

Do the following statements mean the same thing? Do they even make sense?

Is this "car wash at the gas station" still a valid representation of a "car wash"? Would it be equivalent to call it a "car wash with a gas station"? For that matter, is a "gas station with a car wash" a valid example of a "gas station"? Would you ever say "the gas station at the car wash"? How does all of this impact the design of a "car wash" service?

Cheers,