How to (not) create a study group to learn Service Design skills

Last Thursday I got the interview my mate Arun for an event of the Swiss Service Design Network. In this event, Arun shared his key learnings from his experiment of running a study group to learn more around Journey Management.

I really appreciate that Arun shared not just the good stuff but also what went wrong so that those who want to create their own study group start in a better place.

They key insights

Here are five key insights from that webinar, obviously there are way more in that nearly hour long conversation.

Made with AI: The 5 insights are based on the transcript of the webinar that I then asked Claude 4.5 to summarize in five key points. I've reviewed and adapted the insights by hand.

1. The Dual Identity Challenge: Organizer vs. Learner

Arun discovered a fundamental tension when running the study group: he was both the organizer (whom participants looked to for direction) and a learner (wanting to learn alongside others). This dual identity created confusion about expectations and leadership. His key learning was that having a co-facilitator would have helped separate these roles, allowing him to be more vulnerable as a learner while maintaining the organizational structure the group needed.

2. The Power of Explicit Value Propositions

One of Arun's biggest lessons was the importance of clearly articulating what participants would gain from the study group. While the broad goal of "learning journey management" brought people in initially, the lack of specific outcomes led to declining attendance. For future study groups, he emphasizes the need to define concrete takeaways upfront so participants understand exactly what they'll achieve by the end.

3. Cultural Dynamics Shape Learning Expectations

Arun observed how cultural perspectives influenced participation. In some cultures, the person who creates a group is automatically seen as the teacher and expert, not a fellow learner. Additionally, the word "presentations" created anxiety even in a safe space, as participants felt pressure to be experts on topics they were just learning about. This cultural sensitivity is crucial when designing any collaborative learning experience.

4. Psychological Safety Transfers to Client Work

The study group taught Arun valuable lessons about psychological safety that he now applies in Service Design projects. He learned that people don't resist change—they resist how they're being asked to change. When working with stakeholders, he now explicitly clarifies his different roles (learner, expert, facilitator, change agent) and ensures teams understand how their input will be used, especially when sharing pain points with leadership. This transparency builds trust and encourages honest participation.

5. Study Groups Work Best for Emerging Topics

Arun identified that study groups are most valuable for exploratory, newly evolving topics that lack established courses, books, or thought leaders—like AI integration with Strategic Foresight, career transitions, or new methodologies like journey management. They provide a low-stakes space for experimentation and collective learning when traditional learning resources don't yet exist.