In thinking about service design, perhaps the most forgotten and un-sexy aspect is a company's repair/return policy. How you are treated when you return something or seek to repair a purchased item is very telling. Apple and the antennagate is a good example: Even though Apple stumbled in its initial response, ultimately they offered a simple, easy solution which simultaneously rescued them from a PR nightmare. Steve Jobs might be stubborn, but he is also smart. Although the initial response was not handled well, ultimately people just want to know that the company stands behind the product they purchased. While this is a simple concept, surprisingly few companies execute this well. However, there are a few that do, and we should take the time to learn from them.

Patagonia is a shining example of a company that aligns its values with its actions. They have stellar customer service, and their return/repair policy is equally impressive. Back in the day, you used to be able to exchange an item that you had worn and given a little too much love too for something of similar value. While today, the policy is not as generous, it is still impressive.

I recently returned a fleece jacket that was in fine condition, with the exception of a broken zipper. The zipper had been broken for years, but I had never made it to the store to repair it. When I finally did make it in to a Patagonia store for a repair, the experience was smooth and pleasant. Upon explaining that I wanted to repair the zipper, I was given two options: 1) send it in for repair, or 2) exchange the item for store credit. I asked: "How much will I get for the item?" The associate looked up the serial number and told me that I would get $99. Not bad for a 5 year old purchase. I could also send the jacket in for repair (free) and wait 4-6 weeks to get the repaired jacket back. But, instant gratification is so much better! I found an almost identical fleece in the store, and paid the difference. The store credit was a smart strategy. Many people will not pass up cash now versus an item in-hand later and there is a high likelihood that people will make a new purchase once they are already in the store, ultimately spending more money.

As it happened, I also found an item for my son. The item was not in-stock in San Francisco but was available in a Denver store. If I bought it then, Patagonia would waive the shipping charge. If it didn't fit my son, I could bring it back to the San Francisco store for cash back. I ordered the jacket. And it gets better. A few days later, a store associate from the Denver store called me to notify me that the item would be on sale in a few days, so if I could wait for the item they would send it to me after it went on sale and I would pay the sale price. Very above and beyond the standard in my opinion.

There are many different components of service design: some of them are directly related to the disciplines of architecture, industrial design, and user experience design, but others are reliant on softer human skills. You cannot separate the parts from the whole but it is also important not to neglect the human element and its impact on the customer journey. Everyone I interacted with - from the associate in San Francisco, to the associate in Denver who took my initial order, to the one who followed-up with me - contributed to a noteworthy Patagonia brand experience.

As an aside, my damaged jacket wasn't just thrown away, it was recycled as part of the Common Threads Recycling Program, which recycles old patagonia clothing and turns it into new clothing. Patagonia really does understand how to successfully deliver on the whole customer journey. Even at the end of a garment's life, they found a way to reuse it in a way that is consistent with their overall brand mission. For more about Patagonia and the Common Threads Program visit: www.patagonia.com.