Für neue Kunden:
Für bereits registrierte Kunden:
121 Seiten, Note: 1,3
A – Preface
Chapter 1 - Introduction
1.1 - Culture in a Nutshell
1.2 - What is Service Design?
Chapter 2 - Culture in Detail
2.1 - The Hofstede Model
2.2 - F. Trompenaars’ & C. Hampden-Turner’s Model
2.3 - Culture repeats itself
2.4 - Why Stereotypes are dangerous
2.5 - Cultural Competence by Cultural Dimensions
2.6 - Advantages of a Global Mindset
2.7 - Conclusion
Chapter 3 - Being Human in Service Design
3.1 - Human Interactions in Process Stages
3.2 - Stakeholder Relations
3.3 - Co-Creation means Value-Creation
3.4 - Increase Value with Relations & Interactions
3.5 - Using Cultural adequate Management as Catalyst
3.6 - Conclusion
Chapter 4- Cultural Dimensions
4.1 - Hofstede‘s six Cultural Dimensions
4.2 - Trompenaars’ seven Cultural Dimensions
4.3 - Critical Remarks on Cultural Dimension Models
4.4 - There is no Right nor Wrong
Chapter 5 - Cultural Dimensions in Service Design
5.1 - Cross-Cultural Feedback Structures
5.2 - Quantitative Research vs. Qualitative Research
5.3 - About Cultural Immersion
5.4 - Time to chose: Trompenaars or Hofstede?
5.5 - Merging both Models
5.6 - Applying Cultural Dimensions
Chapter 6 - Concluding Thoughts, further Development
O - Appendix
O.1 - Cultural Dimension Values of sample Countries
O.2 - Interviews with Service Design Professionals
O.4 -List of Figures
O.5 - Others
Nowadays companies are faced with the challenge to success- fully place their services and service products in highly competi- tive local as well as global markets. Therefore this challenge also applies for service designers in established markets and for ser- vice design pioneers in emerging markets. With user experi- ence and customer centered approaches becoming increasingly important business factors, proceeding globalization demands a better understanding of how cross-cultural differences shape the way services are used and how they are created.
New and emerging service markets like India and China rise the demand for internationally working service designers to incorporate cultural aspects in their process to stay competitive and to nurture and grow the service design sector in untouched markets. Examples from practice in Asia have shown that service providers as well as service users reject approaches which don’t resonate with their culture.1
Cross-cultural tools, such as the cultural dimensions, are used by International Management for decades in order to allow effi- cient management of multicultural teams and organizations. Their main fields of application certainly lies in business, but in recent years they are also used by design disciplines. Since service design connects design and businesses, it seems to be predestined for a possible application of cultural dimensions.
Therefore one the main question of this research paper is whether methods from international management, cultural dimensions to be more specific, can be applied to service design and how internationally active service design providers have to adapt their process of service design to specific cultures.
Trying to grasp and to define culture fills many books of social sciences. Each author has their own thesis and definitions. Since culture itself is continuously around us and knowledge about it can be applied and tested at the very moment, it makes sense to use an application-oriented and action-oriented definition. Three famous authors in the field of cultural research and their two dif- ferent cultural concepts and own dimensional models are covered in this research paper. Hofstede defines culture as » the collective programming of the mind «.2 One could say this definition of cul- ture as a collective program feels quite mechanical or techni- cal and it dismisses the fact that culture is created and designed by human and not vice versa. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner say culture is » the way in which a group of people solves prob- lems and reconciles dilemmas «.3 which somehow limits the func- tion of culture to merely solving problems. Even though this research paper is mainly dealing with the two famous books of these well-known authors, another definition of culture by Alex- ander Thomas might be better to understand the full dimension of that term:
» Culture is an universal, but very typical orientation system for a society, organization and group. This orientation system con- sists of specific symbols and is passed on in the respective group. It influences the perception, thinking, values and actions of all its members and thus defines theirs belonging to society. Cul- ture as an orientation system organizes the sphere of activities for belonging individuals and thus creates the conditions for the development of independent forms of coping with one ’ s environ- ment. « 4
This alone defines the scale of culture, but only another expla- nation about the meaning of this orientation system shows more concrete WHAT has been created by human, if we talk about cul- ture: As a result of understanding culture as an orientation system, its creation, preservation and continuation is explained. Psychological research shows that humans have a natural need for orientation, which further explains why culture is not lim- ited to nations but belongs to all kinds of human societies. A part of the orienting function of cultures is the providing of meanings and evaluation methods, which enables the members of a culture to deal with their environment. Because of their natural acqui- sition of cultural traits during human socialization they usually function automatically, without a cognitive regulation.5
After this short overview and before culture is explored more detailed in the following chapter, one can already understand that culture influences a person’s behavior, thoughts, the perception of belonging to a specific group and their ideas about what is right and wrong. This is important to understand its relevance towards human relations and interactions in service design.
Service Design is not a fixed term by the meaning that there is one specific and compulsory process with particular tools and methods and everyone who does service design has to follow this single way or everyone who uses its tools and methods is doing service design. Therefore it might have different names accord- ing to who is asked about what they are doing. Some might call it Experience Design, Design Thinking, Holistic UX, User-centered or Human-centered Design, Strategic Design and so on. All these design approaches are not exactly the same, but they have more in common than they have differences and hence the naming is not as important as the actual process and mindsets, which are shared among all these disciplines.6 In this research paper only the term service design is used, but every other mentioned (and not mentioned) related discipline is meant to be included.
Service design helps organizations to solve complex and sometimes unknown problems. It does this by reframing problems into intelligible pieces, shaping data into human forms and create stories, which humans can easily relate to.
Besides creating value for the end user and customer, service design can address the entire value ecosystem. This includes (but is not limited to) end users, other businesses, internal and exter- nal partners or colleagues. Due to this holistic and adjustable approach service design works for public services, B2C, B2B and internal services.7
Service design is a rather practical than theoretical approach and practicing service design is definitely focused on human relations and interactions, which are reflected in two of service design’s main aspects: to enable and encourage co-creation and to break down silos in organizations.8
In this research proposal several stakeholder terminologies are used to describe human participants in a service and ser- vice design process. Since their meaning may vary across ser- vice design organizations and cultures it is required to clarify and specify the used terms. The definition of stakeholders by Marc Stickdorn et al. in » This is Service Design Doing « 9 works well and hence is used in the following research.
Stakeholders are persons, groups or organizations that are somehow connected or have interest in a project, organization or tangible or intangible product.
Users / Customers or Service Users are persons who use or buy services or physical/digital products. Clients in a service design context are persons, groups or organizations which hire service designers to work with them.
They are also called Service Providers in this research paper, as for the term focusing more on the relationship between them and their service users. In the context of this paper it also includes the Service Delivery Team, which covers all parties within an organi- zation involved in providing and delivering services to users and customers.
Design Teams are the groups of people that are directly involved in the service design process and include the core design teams, extended teams, agencies, in-house design departments and consultants.
The expression actors is another term that is often used and describes all involved human- and non-human elements which are part of a service structure, such as people, departments, orga- nizations, places, machines, interfaces, devices, platforms and so on.10 This means every stakeholder is an actor, but not every actor is a stakeholder. Nevertheless when actors are addressed in this present research paper it solely focuses on human actors, i.e. stakeholders and their roles involved in a service design process. The term actor fits well, since every stakeholder can take and change their roles depending on their particular tasks during each process stage as will see later.
This chapter deals with culture in detail and tries to answer questions such as » What is culture? « and » How can different cul- tures be described and compared to each other? « It introduces the work of Geert Hofstede, Fons Trompenaars and Charles Hampden-Turner and their specific cultural dimension models. The author compares these two well-known dimensional models
- since each models has their benefits and imperfections (which will also be addressed later on) - and use a practical service designer’s focus to evaluate each model towards a potential usage in a service design process.
These tools were created by international managers with a management mindset, therefore their main usage is naturally to be found in the management aspects of service design - A later chapter about human factors in service design will show why the management of human relations and interactions is an essential part in service design and thus explains the more management- and less design-related focus of this research paper.
Geert Hofstede is a social psychologist and a well-known expert for cultural science. He worked as professor for intercultural management at Maastricht University. Hofstede is a former IBM Europe employee in their personnel research depart- ment and became known for his studies at IBM on cross-cultural groups. Hofstede wrote several books about cultural influences and intercultural management, with » Cultures and Organizations: Software of the mind « being among his most famous ones. This also became somewhat of a standard in its field, since it was the first and most comprehensive framework of national cultures.11
Hofstede divides the meaning of culture in two area. The first area is what western terminology commonly refers to as culture: » civilization « or » refinement of the mind «, which merely under- stands culture in sense of art, literature and education. His second field of culture, what he calls » a mental programming «, is the broader sense of culture, which is also used by anthropology and sociology. Whenever this research proposal addresses culture, especially in the context of Hofstede’s model, it means culture as Hofstede describes it in his second area: Culture not only means certain programmed patterns of actions, feelings or thoughts but also banal things such as the way of eating, how to greet each other, how to express feelings or the distance to keep with others, as well as more important things like how maintain hygiene or how we love. Hofstede therefore summarizes culture as a learned, not inherited » collective programming of the mind, which distin- guishes the member of one group or category of people from anoth- er. « 12
Figure 01 Three Levels of Uniqueness in Mental Pro- gramming
illustration not visible in this excerpt
To get a better understanding of Hofstede’s theory he grants a graphical representation of his idea which divides the culture of people in thre levels.
The »personality« level as the top layer is the most individual layer. It is equally influenced by inheritance as it is also learned. This means it partly depends on each ones unique set of genes as well as it is influenced by unique experiences, cultural fac- tors and collective teachings. The second layer »Culture« refers to his understanding of culture in a broader sense, which was mentioned above, while the third layer »Human Nature« is the one universal level that all human beings share. This base level describes the ability to feel and express emotions, basic needs, the requirement for stimulation and the disposition to reflect and communicate with other humans. While all healthy human beings share these abilities, it is the cultural level which influences how we express and deal with those.13
Besides these levels, Hofstede also describes different depths of cultural manifestation, which are symbols, heroes, rituals and values. The more superficial these » onion layers « are, the less deep-seated they are in each individual.
Figure 02 The » Onion «: r Manifesta- tions of Cul- ture at Different Levels of Depth
illustration not visible in this excerpt
The Symbols layer includes gestures, words, pictures and objects, which carry a particular meaning often only understood by those sharing the same culture. Heroes are learnt role models with characteristics that are desirable and praised by the specific culture. These heroes may be dead or alive, real or imaginary. The Rituals layer consists of collective activities, which are described as technically dispensable by Hofstede, but considered as socially essential for the respective culture. These include the ways of greeting and paying respect, social ceremonies or reli- gious rituals, etc.
As these layers of culture are expressed by various practices they become visible to external observers.
Values on the other hand can only be concluded from the way people of a certain culture act in specific situations. These values are among the first things which children learn and deal with essential things like Evil vs. Good, Dangerous vs. Safe, Moral vs. Immoral, Abnormal vs. Normal, Forbidden vs. Permitted, and so on. As values are acquired so early in people’s lives, a lot of values remains unconscious to their holders. If one asks why they act as they do, people might say they just know or feel how to do the right thing.14 This makes Hofstede ’ s idea of values comparable to Trompenaars ’ idea of Basic assumption in his own onion model of cultural depths, which will be introduced further on.
Hofstede also notes that culture consists of several layers which are created by the fact that people often belong to sev- eral groups and categories, each of them coming with their own mental programming:
Figure 03 Hofstede ’ s Cultural Layers
illustration not visible in this excerpt
›› A national level according to one’s home country or countries ›› A regional and/or ethnic and/or religious and/or linguistic affiliation layer
›› A gender layer
›› A generation layer
›› A social class layer
›› An organizational and/or corporate layer
As a consequence, cultural can be very multi-faceted. A Brit- ish woman might not only impersonate the British culture, but also her regional culture (e.g. South Britain, London). As a woman she also plays a certain gender role determined by her culture. Depending on her age and social class she might use different symbols and rituals, than the overlying cultural layers. Hofstede emphasizes that each layer brings their own mental program- ming which are not necessarily in harmony (e.g. religious and generational or gender values) and resulting conflicts could make it difficult to anticipate their behavior in a new situation.15
Trompenaars’ and Hampden-Turner worked in cultural man- agement for many years and their model is based on 15 years of academic and field research. They also use their experi- ence from more than 1000 cross-cultural training programs from 20 countries.16 Fons Trompenaars is a reputable Dutch author in cross-cultural communication. He grew up with French and Dutch parents and later worked with SHELL in nine coun- tries, where he worked seven years as a HR director. He states that international companies tend to standardize the manage- ment functioning for globalization and impose this way of think- ing to their subsidiaries. The problems arise by not taking care of the cultural differences between involved parties.17 Trompenaars explicitly mentions that their book follows a more pragmatic approach on defining cultural dimensions, since it is more about finding and dealing with cross-cultural differences regard- ing business and management and less in giving advice how to understand specific cultures like French or British, because it would be impossible to fully understand other cultures.18
Author ’ s note: The model which is presented here, was introduced in the book » Riding the Waves of Culture « which was written by Fons Trompenaars and Charles Hampden-Turner. Nevertheless, when talking about cultural models and cultural dimensions (as introduced in the book) only Trompenaars alone is often referred to in academia. For the sake of simplicity the author follows this example and only mentions Trompenaars when referring to their specific cultural model. This is meant to refer to the work of both authors and just makes it easier for the reader to keep track of the origins of thoughts.
Trompenaars’ and Hofstede’s cultural models have more in common than they are different. In Trompenaars understanding culture is not what is visible on the surface but what lies under- neath - the shared ways groups of people understand and inter- pret the world.19 Here he has something in common with Hofstede, who also talks about the two areas of understanding culture and about different layers. But other than Hofstede Trompenaars does not talk about a programmed behavior but describes culture as learnt ways of how human groups solve their problems and dilemmas.20 As well as Hofstede, Trompenaars identifies several » onion layers « of culture, even though he makes other distinctions about what each layer means.
Figure 04 Trompenaars ’ Model of Culture
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Artifacts & Products
The outer layer consists of the observable elements of a culture like buildings, language, food, the way of eating, agriculture, shrines, fashion, art, greetings and similar perceivable things or actions. They are symbols of the deeper layers (similar to Hofstede, who calls the most superficial layer of his model » symbols « as well). These products are explicit and perceivable expressions of the deeper values and norms in a society, therefore Trompenaars calls this the explicit culture - something comparable to the civilization part of understanding culture in Hofstede’s model.
Norms and Values
Explicit culture reflects the norms and values of an individ- ual or group. These layers of values and norms are deeper within the onion model, lay hidden underneath the explicit ones and are more difficult to identify. They even become less noticeable for their holders, because after certain problems are regularly solved, they disappear from consciousness and then o ften become Basic assumptions. Norms are the common sense of what is » right « and » wrong « among a specific group. This can be defined on a formal level as written laws or informal level through social instances. Values determine the definition of » good « and » bad «, and are closely related to shared ideals of a group. Trompenaars describes values and norms either as stabilizing or destabilizing element, depending on how much the norms reflect the values of a group. Norms describe the feeling » how one should behave «, while values is about » how one desires to behave «. If people say, they do some- thing because they like to do it, that is a value. If they just do it because everybody else is doing it,this is a norm. In order to develop and elaborate a group’s cultural traditions it takes shared meanings of norms and values, which are stable and salient. Now where do these different definitions of good or bad and right or wrong come from?
The answer lies in the core of the cultural onion model, which is called basic assumptions. These are things, which are taken for granted, an unquestioned reality, they are underlying premises to all other cultural expressions. These implicit basic assumptions define the meaning that a group shares. The most basic value people strive for is survival and each civilization on each area in the world found their own ways to deal most effectively with their environments and available resources. Such continuous problems are eventually solved » automatically « and they are solved in such obvious ways, that the solution disappears from our conscious- ness. It can be compared to breathing: People do it all the time, but they do not recognize it anymore.21
Somewhat similar to how Hofstede describes different layers of culture (region, gender, age and so on) Trompenaars describes three layers from a business point of view: a national, corpo- rate and professional layer. The highest level is the national one, depending on the country and region of a society. Europe com- pared to Asia, Germany compared to China, and so on. The second, corporate level is the way in which attitudes are expressed within a specific organization. The third level is the professional level, which is about how people within certain functions (marketeers, designers, engineers, bankers, etc.) share certain professional and ethical orientations. Trompenaars’ and Hampden-Turn- er’s work in » Riding the Waves of Culture « is merely dealing with the first level and - to some extent - with corporate cul- ture. Trompenaars admits that several different cultures can be observed in a one specific country (e.g. comparing West-Coast US and East-Coast US) but the more significant differences appear on country border levels, which is for historical and national cir- cumstances.22
As mentioned above Trompenaars also describes different cor- porate cultures. Since these corporate cultures derive from the national cultures in which these corporates are found and/or operate, they are based on the basic cultural dimensions which are described further below and won’t be explored in detail in this present research paper. This said, it could be the objective of further studies to find out how corporate culture affects ser- vice design in particular organizations. For the sake of complete- ness and as it might come in handy to know about their existence, the four organizational cultures by Trompenaars will be shortly listed here. It has to be kept in mind that these corporate culture models are just archetypical averages of organizational structures based on several combinations of cultural dimensions of their employers and employees. To better understand these corporate cultural models it might be advised to read the specifications of Trompenaars cultural dimensions first.
Relationships between employees are diffuse and based on people not positions. Status is ascribed to parent figures and there is a family-like attitude towards team members. Management is generally subject-driven, while ways of thinking are intuitive and holistic. Motivation works by respect and appreciation and criti- cism is dealt with by a » save everyone ’ s face « attitude.
Eiffel Tower Organization
Relationships are very specific in a mechanical, job-position based system and status is ascribed in strongly hierarchical ways. People are seen as human resources. Motivation works by promo- tion to higher positions, and the way of thinking is logical, ratio- nal and based on efficiency.
Guided Missile Organization
Relationships are specific in a system based on shared objec- tives. Status is achieved by project groups and the ways of think- ing are problem-centered and cross-disciplinary. People are seen as specialists and experts. Motivation works by rewarding solved problems, criticism is constructive and task-related.
Relationships are diffuse and spontaneous and status is achieved by individuals for creativity and growth The ways of thinking are generally process-oriented, creative and inspira- tional. People are seen as co-creators, are motivated by participation in change or creation and criticism is dealt with by improving a creative idea not denying it.23
As a remark for a future research on service design in different organizational cultures, it can be assumed that an Incubator setting is a demanded cultural environment within an organization for using service design approaches.
According to Hofstede culture as a whole has a strong ten- dency to reproduce itself. The symbols, heroes, rituals and values learnt and experienced throughout life from the earliest years until becoming a parent will then be inherited and taught to the respective children as well by the psychological effect that par- ents tend to reproduce the education that they received, whether they want to or not. That makes culture a lot slower to change than usually assumed. Cultural practices may change rapidly in a few years according to external requirements but the underlying values take much longer to be influenced and thus are more sta- ble.24
When cultural inexperienced people work in nternational environments there are often two ways of handling cross-cul- tural encounters: Either one is not aware of or not interested in managing cultural differences or one just accepts the typical ste- reotypes » which everyone knows about « and assumes this would be enough to work with.25
Figure 05 Cultural Traits as Normal Distribution
illustration not visible in this excerpt
According to Trompenaars prejudices and stereotypical assumptions mostly start on the observable, explicit layer of cul- ture. But each opinion we voice regarding explicit culture usually says more about where we come from, than about the commu- nity we are judging.26 People within a culture do not all have the same sets of artifacts, norms, values and assumptions. There is a wide spread of these, which often enough creates their own sub-cultures (similar to the levels of culture in Hofstede’s theory). Trompenaars describes this variation as normal distribu- tion of cultural features. Each culture shows the total variation of
Figure 06 Culture and Stereotyping
illustration not visible in this excerpt
its human components. By comparing these distributed cultures to each other, it becomes visible that - even though the average behaviors will be different in each culture - they have more or less similarities.
Cultures whose norms and values are not the same tend to use extremes when speaking about each other. This makes sense, because the surprising differences are rather more noticeable than the familiar similarities. This usage of exaggerated forms is called stereotyping and can be dangerous.
A stereotype is a very limited view of the average set of norms and values of a culture. It exaggerates the observed culture and the observer’s one and this exaggeration will push both sides away from each other. Another danger is equating something that is different with something that is wrong, so one might think » they do it different from us, so that cannot be right «. Finally stereotyping ignores the fact that individuals of the same culture can be very different from the cultural norm in both directions and might be closer to the observer’s own culture, which might lead to eye-opening insights like » Hey that person is not so different to me after all « but more often denies that insight by making the intercultural communication quite difficult from the very beginning.27
This research paper primarily deals with national cultural dimensions as a systematic framework to recognize and under- stand cultures and cultural differences. As it is shown later in this chapter, cultural dimensions as a tool should not be applied without critical thinking and not be taken as universal solutions to various cross-cultural differences. Nevertheless they can still have some sort of universal usage when not being regarded as non-negotiable answers but as parts of the question on how to appropriately deal with people in an intercultural context. Cul- tural dimensions can be used as a fast and pragmatic tool to gain elementary cultural competence and to learn about their impli- cations, which will eventually lead to answers for the following questions.
What makes a specific (national) Culture?
When learning about cultural dimensions one becomes aware of culture and its meaning. At the same time one is able to take a step back and see his or her own cultural context.
Which Effects does Culture have on People?
Knowing about the several cultural traits, one can understand cultural differences in each other’s behavior without being taken by surprise and therefore respect and appreciate them.
How can Cultural Differences be combined in a positive Way?
After the value of cultural differences becomes visible, it is not only possible to resolve these differences to avoid problems but also to combine each others’ strengths towards a more efficient and positive outcome.
How to implement and root Cultural Competence?
Cultural competence means the universal ability to facilitate efficiency in various intercultural contexts and help all included actors to contribute their own cultural strengths to the best of their abilities.28
1 ChinaBridge, Service Design for China
2 Hofstede, G. Hofstede, G-J. Cultures and Organizations. P. 2
3 Trompenaars, F., Hampden-Turner, C. Riding the Waves of Culture.
4 Thomas, A. Psychologie interkulturellen Lernens und Handelns. P. 380
5 Thomas, A. Interkulturelles Orientierungstraining für chinesische Fach- und Führungs-kräfte zum Umgang mit deutschen Partnern.
6 Stickdorn M. et al., This is Service Design Doing, P. 20
7 ibidem, P. 14
8 ibidem, P. 20, 22
9 ibidem, P. 62-63
10 Stickdorn, M. et al., This is Service Design Doing, P. 62
11 Hofstede, G. Hofstede, G-J. Cultures and Organizations. P. 435
12 Hofstede, G. Hofstede, G-J. Cultures and Organizations. P. 3-4
13 ibidem, P. 4-5
14 Hofstede, G. Hofstede, G-J. Cultures and Organizations. P. 7-10
15 Hofstede, G. Hofstede, G-J. Cultures and Organizations. P. 10-11
16 Trompenaars, F. Hampden-Turner, C. Riding the Waves of Culture. P. 1
18 Trompenaars, F. Hampden-Turner, C. Riding the Waves of Culture. P. 1
19 ibidem, P. 3
20 ibidem, P. 6
21 Trompenaars, F. Hampden-Turner, C. Riding the Waves of Culture. P. 6-7, 21-24
22 Trompenaars, F. Hampden-Turner, C. Riding the Waves of Culture, P. 7-8
23 Trompenaars, F. Hampden-Turner, C. Riding the Waves of Culture, P. 157-181
24 Hofstede, G. Hofstede, G-J. Cultures and Organizations. P. 9-13
25 Anecdotic evidence from the author’s own cross-cultural experience in several international projects
26 Trompenaars, F. Hampden-Turner, C. Riding the Waves of Culture, P. 21, 24-26
27 Trompenaars, F. Hampden-Turner, C. Riding the Waves of Culture, P. 24-26
28 Trompenaars, F. Hampden-Turner, C. Riding the Waves of Culture, P. 195-200
Masterarbeit, 148 Seiten
Bachelorarbeit, 151 Seiten
Forschungsarbeit, 11 Seiten
Masterarbeit, 148 Seiten
Bachelorarbeit, 151 Seiten
Forschungsarbeit, 11 Seiten
Der GRIN Verlag hat sich seit 1998 auf die Veröffentlichung akademischer eBooks und Bücher spezialisiert. Der GRIN Verlag steht damit als erstes Unternehmen für User Generated Quality Content. Die Verlagsseiten GRIN.com, Hausarbeiten.de und Diplomarbeiten24 bieten für Hochschullehrer, Absolventen und Studenten die ideale Plattform, wissenschaftliche Texte wie Hausarbeiten, Referate, Bachelorarbeiten, Masterarbeiten, Diplomarbeiten, Dissertationen und wissenschaftliche Aufsätze einem breiten Publikum zu präsentieren.
Kostenfreie Veröffentlichung: Hausarbeit, Bachelorarbeit, Diplomarbeit, Dissertation, Masterarbeit, Interpretation oder Referat jetzt veröffentlichen!