Designing Services Around Real Lives

Service failure is built into the system 

Across housing organisations, core services such as repairs, compliance, arrears, damp and mould and retrofit continue to operate in silos. Each has its own processes, communications and escalation routes. For residents, however, there is only one experience, dealing with one landlord. 

When these systems collide, failure is predictable. Residents receive multiple uncoordinated messages, often in formats they cannot easily access. Access visits are missed. Trust erodes. Costs rise. 

This is not about poor intent. It is about service design that starts with internal structures rather than customer reality. As Naomi observed, the sector has normalised ways of working that would be unacceptable in other industries, while blaming residents when those systems fail. 

The problem with assumptions about residents 

A recurring issue is the assumption that residents lack capability, digital access or motivation. These beliefs shape everything from communication channels to enforcement approaches. 

In practice, residents are customers of banks, supermarkets and utilities. They manage complex lives, often under pressure. When housing services are designed around outdated stereotypes, engagement drops and operational waste increases. 

Missed appointments, repeat visits and unresolved repairs are not resident failures. They are signals that processes do not reflect how people actually function. 

Segmentation as a strategic tool 

Customer segmentation offers a way out of this cycle, but only if it is used properly. 

The approach described by Naomi is grounded in behavioural science. It draws on capability, opportunity and motivation to understand how people interact with services. Rather than labelling individuals, it creates an evidence based picture of a customer base, showing how different needs and capacities cluster across a population. 

Used well, segmentation does not sit at the margins of service improvement. It informs strategic service design. It helps organisations decide what consistent, accessible service delivery should look like across all functions. 

Crucially, it shifts thinking away from single channel processes towards genuinely flexible access routes, allowing residents to engage in ways that work for them. 

Why retrofit and damp and mould depend on trust 

The implications for healthier homes are significant. 

Retrofit programmes and damp and mould interventions require repeated access, disruption and cooperation. Many fail not because residents are unwilling, but because basic service relationships are already damaged. 

Residents who are waiting months for unresolved repairs are unlikely to prioritise energy upgrades. Those receiving enforcement style compliance letters may disengage entirely. Without trust, access becomes harder, not easier. 

From a health perspective, this creates risk. Incomplete retrofit, poor ventilation follow up and delayed damp resolution all undermine indoor environmental quality. The technical solution may be sound, but the delivery model is not. 

Segmentation helps organisations see this pattern early. It highlights where motivation is low, where capability barriers exist and where service sequencing needs to change. 

The hidden cost of wastage 

One of the most striking insights from the discussion was the scale of unmeasured waste. 

No access visits, repeat inspections, duplicated communications and complaints handling consume substantial resources. Yet few organisations quantify this loss. Instead, performance reporting focuses on activity counts rather than system efficiency. 

Other sectors track waste rigorously. Housing rarely does. The result is a false sense of constraint, organisations claiming they cannot afford preventative investment while absorbing ongoing inefficiency. 

From a Healthy Homes Hub perspective, this is a missed opportunity. The funding to improve services and health outcomes is often already present, hidden within avoidable failure. 

Rethinking tenant satisfaction measures 

Tenant Satisfaction Measures add another layer of complexity. While important, they are often treated as league table scores rather than diagnostic tools. 

Methodology matters. Different collection approaches reach different residents. More confident and capable customers are more likely to respond, skewing results positively. Without understanding who is missing from the data, organisations risk mistaking reassurance for reality. 

Segmentation allows satisfaction data to be interpreted properly. It shows where dissatisfaction is concentrated and why. Used this way, TSMs become a starting point for redesign, not an endpoint for compliance. 

What this means for healthier homes 

Healthy homes depend on more than good building fabric. They rely on services that are accessible, trusted and joined up. 

Designing services around real lives improves engagement, reduces waste and supports better health outcomes. It also creates the conditions needed to deliver retrofit, manage damp and mould proactively and protect residents’ wellbeing. 

This is not about perfection. It is about evidence led design and organisational honesty about what is not working. 

Practical steps for housing providers 

• Review core services as a single resident experience, not separate operational functions. 

• Use segmentation strategically to inform service design, not as an add on to individual processes. 

• Measure service wastage, including no access visits, rework and escalation costs. 

• Align retrofit and compliance activity with existing service performance to rebuild trust first. 

• Use tenant satisfaction data as a diagnostic tool, ensuring under represented voices are visible. 

Designing services around how people actually live is no longer optional. It is essential for delivering healthier homes at scale.