Impartiality has for long been a central value in the Swedish public administration. The value of impartiality is recurringly challenged when other values are incorporated through the implementation of innovation. Today Service design is being implemented in the public administration and seem to often emphasize aspects of substantive equality. Therefore, this study argues that a potential value conflict theoretically could occur between impartiality and substantive equality when public officials implement service design. This study therefore aims to explore different types of reasoning amongst public officials regarding impartiality, and the tension between impartiality and substantive equality when implementing Service design. The case-study is limited to public officials active within Experio-lab. Experio Lab is one of the leading swedish PSI-labs for knowledge exchange regarding service design. Six public officials have been interviewed to identify different types of reasoning. Through an abductive analysis of the interview-transcripts three different types of reasoning were identified: The denying-, The ambivalent- and The reforming type of reasoning. Key words: Impartiality, substantive equality, Service design, value, value pluralism, valueconflict