Sometimes as service creators, service owners or workers we believe that our work is really necessary. If we would stop it, people would get mad, and things would go to shit.

The interesting thing, is that it’s both true and false.

Yes on a short term, we can get pretty pissed when a service stops. But it’s interesting to see how in the end people either find alternatives, or just live without it.

I think this reminder helps us when we are about to let a part of a service die (1), because it’s just using too many resources. We should think about the long term impact of the decision of stopping something. And not just the immediate frustration it will create.

Action question

In the long term, how hard would it be for people to live without your service? Is your service a necessity or a lovely luxury (2)?

Footnote

(1) See principle Let Things Die for more details about why it can make sense to let services die.

(2) I’m not saying here that we should live in a world where we have only necessities, lovely pleasures and luxuries have their place. But I think it’s good to be honest about the type of service we’re offering. A little pleasure that takes huge resources is maybe a problem.

Daniele's notes

• This is the first shitty draft of this principle

• This principle might one day make it in the fifth book in the "Service Design Principles" series that explores how to better serve humans and the planet.

• If you're curious about service design principles, you can get the four previous books in the series, with proofread principles and less grammatical creativity.