Design practice - the place of knowledge about design

For the research and innovation of design practices, we need to go to the places where the knowledge production takes place. These are the design practitioners who work on a daily basis with the demands of digital innovation. According to Dan Lockton from Carnegie Mellon University and Carine Lallemande from Eindhoven University of Technology, it is necessary for research to overcome the “industry-academia divide” by attending industry events and by running workshops with practitioners (Lockton & Lallemande, 2020).

We share this view, and seek to collaborate closely with practitioners in the work of finding better ways of making visible how ideas materialise in the design process. The authors of this blog post are Danny, a long time UX designer, and Ruth, a design academic and design teacher. For our research project, we came together at UX Brighton, a small meetup style community event, in Brighton last week. The style of the event requires attendees to sign up in a public Google document to the 12 places available, and then arriving on the day with food, drinks, and a topic of concern. People come with design concepts and other questions they seek to run past others in an attempt to gather ideas, inputs, and help, in order to move forward strengthened by the community feedback. So, on the day participants arrived with prototypes of half finished projects, questions that were thrown into the group to go round the table, problems in the design process, and some even brought solutions to problems in the design process.

It was particularly interesting to hear the problems from design practice. One participant reported about the different teams in her organisation all working with different personas. In collaboration, the teams then need to 'translate' personas into each others’ settings (“I think your Josh might be our Elaine”), which makes it hard to design the product in a user-centred way.

Another problem raised by a participant was the slow turn-around time between user tests, writing up findings, and iterating the prototypes based on these findings, making the process of improvement complex. Others suggested that remote testing tools might be useful to get test results returned immediately, allowing team members to begin reviewing the tests and deriving improvements quicker. However, this requires either one person to be in charge of both - testing and iterating - or a close collaboration between the people responsible.

Several participants mentioned that their organisation was “development-led” (led by the software developers) as opposed to “user-led”, and that there exists a strong "engineering culture", whereas a culture of user-centred design was desirable. These questions pose the challenge for the designers to introduce and “sell” the concepts of user experience to their organisations, and why UX matters to the success of a product or service. We discussed whether, in order to do that, it was necessary to have “evangelists” for UX among the “higher ups” in organisations, or if there were ways to work from the bottom up. It seems even harder when there are many software engineers, far outnumbering the few/singular UX designers within teams. A possible solution suggested was the demonstrating through user tests how people fail to use products, and showing in this way the need for user-centred design. Another possibility, if user tests are not part of the budget, is the exploiting of existing routes to gathering user feedback such as customer-facing support staff and sales personnel, who know the strengths but also the weaknesses of the product well through ongoing direct exposure to the everyday problems and the delights and frustrations of users.

Danny (one of the authors) introduced the concept of “Top Tasks Management” by Gerry McGovern, which can “reduce complexity by identifying what really matters to customers” (McGovern, 2015). The key purpose of using Top Tasks is to make sure there is a focus in design work on what people do, rather than on who people are.

At the end, Ruth (one of the authors) presented the current state of the “reconfiguring artefacts” research project. Immediately there were protests against the shiny format of a keynote presentation, but the group was very welcoming towards hearing a little bit from the academic world. Also, there was interest in the concept of the research which seeks to include practitioners in researching approaches to design that work better. Ruth explained the research, and showed how in order to understand our design processes better, we need to make visible how we work with the material constraints of prototypes, drawings, and maps in order to get our ideas across. Calling these material helpers “imaginaries”, she asked the designers about their experiences, and whether they had seen certain materials supporting them better in realising their ideas within organisations. The response revealed that there are many thoughts on the ‘material format' of getting ideas across. One participants said that “fancy drawings” do get a better response when suggesting solutions. In other situations "real code” can have a lot of impact in getting a suggested solution accepted, because it shows tangibly and reliably how something can work. Mentioned was the example of the - now best practice - solution to use images for the visual representation of a user interface on screen, and to replace the “img tag” with text in the code for web crawlers or technology assisting visually impaired users.  This idea was shown by building and demonstrating it. There was also the controversial idea that there should be a “level playing field” created for idea generation and implementation. However, we agreed that while it was important to give everyone opportunity to shape a design, it should not happen by curtailing someone’s means to show an idea. For example, it wouldn’t be helpful to prohibit a person to visualise an idea only because she is great at drawing. However, the need to manage the input into the shaping of designs emerged as an interesting topic. We hope to continue this investigation with the design community and to ask these questions in more detail.

The UX Brighton community meetup is an important site of knowledge for design. The meetups are there to support individual designers, but it also cultures critical discourse within the community. To be “disagreeable” is a good thing, according to two members who had a disagreement. It means to be able to look closely, and to shape a view that can bring a conversation further, can help someone else rethink their own viewpoint and get to a new position from where a problem might be better solvable.

Lockton, Dan, & Lallemand, Carine. (2020). Meeting Designers Where They Are: Using Industry Events as a Research Venue for HCI and Design Methods Development.
Gerry McGovern. (2015). A List Apart., accessed 20th March 2020.


Materialaufbewahrung und Mobilität

Unser Team beschäftigt sich mit den Aspekten Materialaufbewahrung und Mobilität im Rahmen des Studiengangs „Management by Design“. In der Empathie-Phase, welche am Anfang unseres Lösungsprozesses steht, versuchen wir, möglichst viele Einblicke von den Personen zu erhalten, für die wir ein Design gestalten. Durch unsere Professorin und unseren Professor konnten wir Probleme und im Weiteren auch Antworten finden, die sich rund um die Aufbewahrung und das Transportieren der Materialien für die Vorlesung drehen. Erste Inputs kamen von selbst, dann konnten wir durch kurze, spontane Interviews weitere Informationen sammeln.

Zwei große Fragen stellen sich uns:

  • Wie bewahren wir das Material auf, sodass es sich auch leicht an die gewünschten Orte bewegen lässt?
  • Wie und wo bringen wir die Prototypen anschließend unter?

Um uns einen tieferen Einblick in die Materie zu verschaffen, fragten wir, wie viele Materialien gebraucht werden, wie schwer sie insgesamt sind, welches Volumen sie haben und welche am häufigsten von den Studierenden verwendet werden. Aber auch Fragen, wo die Materialien derzeit gelagert sind, wie sie transportiert werden, warum es nicht schon einen kleinen Wagen gibt und was die größten Probleme sind, wurden beantwortet. Die Ergebnisse der zwei Interviews waren aufschlussreich und enthielten einige mögliche Lösungsansätze.

Es gibt eine große, vier kleine Taschen sowie mehrere Kartons, diese sind sperrig und schwer zu tragen. Laut unserem Professor ist der Gesamtumfang der Materialien in Boxen und Taschen 2x2 Meter groß. Derzeit werden die Materialien unter dem Tisch im Zimmer der Professoren und Professorinnen aufbewahrt. Es gibt einen kleinen Wagen, der verwendet werden kann, jedoch ist es fragwürdig, wem dieser gehört. Auch ein Materiallager besteht, das ist jedoch nicht für alle frei zu betreten. Mit Playdoo wird am liebsten gearbeitet, gleichzeitig ist es auch das teuerste Produkt. Stifte und post-it’s sind schnell aufgebraucht und müssen oft nachgekauft werden. Auch Scheren und Klebebänder sind beliebt. Hier gilt es zwischen Werkzeug und Verbrauchsmaterial zu unterscheiden. Ein großes Problem ist das Chaos, das entsteht, wenn die Materialien nicht wieder ordentlich sortiert und weggeräumt werden. Außerdem können manche von ihnen nicht wiederverwendet werden. Ein Lösungsansatz ist, die Diversität der Materialien zu verringern. Optimal wäre Ordnung, denn diese führt zu einem größeren Angebot und in Folge zu einem besseren Ergebnis der Prototypen. Für die Professorin persönlich ist es nicht angenehm, den Wagen zu schieben, es gibt ihr ein Gefühl von Stress und Unwohlsein. Im Gegensatz zum Professor, er hat damit kein Problem.

In der D-School gibt es zum Beispiel einen fixierten Ort, so wie unser Materiallager, bei dem jedoch die Studierenden freien Zutritt haben und die benötigten Utensilien für die Prototypen einfach selbst holen. Dort wird alles in beschrifteten Schütten gelagert. Die Studierenden halten sich an die Regeln und räumen die Materialien wieder an den richtigen Ort zurück. Ein Gegenargument ist hier die Serendipität. Denn in einem großen Fach ohne viel Ordnung ist die Wahrscheinlichkeit höher, etwas zu finden, das man vorher gar nicht gesucht hat. Dadurch können kreative und vorher nicht bedachte Lösungen entstehen.

Die Wünsche unserer Lehrenden in Hinblick auf den Transport von den Materialien sind, dass sie nicht zu Schieben sind und, dass sie einfach am richtigen Ort auftauchen - „Magic Appearance“. Vorgaben sind außerdem, dass das zukünftige Design durch die Türen und in den Lift passen muss. Wünsche von uns Studierenden an die Ausweitung der Utensilien sind: Steckschaum, Stoffe, Mechanische Bauteile, Technik, Kleber, Doppelseitiges Klebeband, Metalle, Rasberry Pi, NXT Mindstorms und Kreidestifte.

Wir erhielten außerdem Denkanstöße wie zum Beispiel die Einrichtung einer „Anregungs-Ecke“, bei welcher Materialien geteilt werden können. Wenn ein Student seine Kartonreste nicht mehr braucht, kann er sie an diesen Ort bringen und sich etwas anderes mitnehmen. Eine Studentin findet dann eventuell seine abgelegten Kartonreste und kann sie für ihren Prototypen mitnehmen. Auch ein Umdenken wäre möglich indem man sich fragt, wie man den Raum und nicht das Material bewegt.

Schon während der Empathie-Phase sprühte unser Team vor Ideen, wie sich unsere zwei Hauptfragen lösen lassen.

We are designing a new approach to innovation

The research project at its core: "We are designing an approach to innovation that makes better visible how ideas materialise. With this approach we seek to bridge Now and possible Future, production and use, technology and experience, thinking and doing, and the different expert knowledges needed to innovate.”

The words 'approach' and 'innovation' are carefully chosen. In conversations with Christoph Wecht and the students of MxD we discussed the meaning of words such as 'design' and 'innovation'. Design (Gestaltung in German) is in the Central-European context loaded with the concept of giving form to tangible objects. The word design makes it difficult to convey the research aim. A possible way forward would be to use the word innovation. Innovation is, at least in the Anglo-American space, closely connected with design. We can pose the question whether 'innovation' as a concept can be used to avoid the constraining local concept of design.

The word “approach” was hotly debated with students of the 6th semester at MxD. We have not come to a conclusion about it. The question is still up in the air, whether we should use the word “practice”, “method”, “process”, “approach”, “strategy”, or “Haltung”, which can be translated with “mindset”, but does in German have a more bodily association, close to the word “posture".

Are we working on a design practice, a design method, a design process, a design approach, a design strategy, or a design mindset?

The double life of design imaginaries

In design, futures do not happen, they are made. Or at least this is how design likes to think about itself.

Design processes are invented and applied in order to solve the gaps in production processes. We center the user in order to bridge production and use. We think about technology and experience through a holistic view on the tangible and the intangible. We seek to closely tie together thinking and doing in rapid iterations. Within the design process we integrate different expert knowledges located with individuals and their practices. Design processes are very good at pointing out unnecessary gaps in the work around creating products and services, and the issues that might follow. Design processes suggest new orders in organising this work, so these issues can be overcome. Design processes therefore serve important goals and principles in changing realities and creating futures.

However, one aspect in design has not received the attention it deserves. Design processes, as they are conceived and used in organisations, are based on the tradition of knowing in design. But this particular treatment of knowledge - as designers use it - has largely been ignored. Design practices appreciate the dual nature of knowledge. Designers work in reflective conversation with the materials (Schön, 1983). When designers change worlds from what exists now to future realities, they do not do this alone. This work is mediated by material artefacts, such as sketches, models, and forms of making. Knowledge does not exist within the designer alone, it is located within the conversation with the materials. Design knowledge is entangled in both, materials and ideas. This is an integral part of how design works. It is often left aside, when thinking about design processes, but it is an important aspect to consider when trying to make design processes work better.

Finke, Ward, and Smith (1992) used the concept of "preinventive structures" in order to describe material representations of creative processes, serving the visibility of the current state of thinking and evoke collaborative creativity. In the words of Ball, Linden, and Christensen (2020), "preinventive structures are like partial solution insights or fragmentary solution ideas that have the potential to form full-blown solutions for the creative task at hand. The properties of preinventive structures can be exploited during the exploratory phase, during which one seeks to interpret them in meaningful ways" (p. 27).

I propose to go one step further, and to treat these preinventive structures not only as material representations of collaborative creativity, but also as material collaborators. According to the traditions of design, design knowledge is located in the collaboration between the designers and the materials. Therefore, close attention needs to be paid to the materials and the ideas that bundle into material artefacts, which are then used to negotiate projects.

Such artefacts can be informal plans and intentions, or formal plans such as design processes, user journey maps, experience maps, ...  Many ideas are floated and voiced. Some ideas disappear, and some ideas bundle as a plan. These plans are "imaginaries", and products of temporary alignment in creative collaboration. Imaginaries collaborate in design. They evoke a possible future to come true.

It is the making of plans in design, which is interesting, and I propose to view these plans both as representations and as collaborators (according to the traditions of design). These plans – imaginaries – are made and deployed into collaboration, where they exist as both, an idea and material artefact.

An imaginary is the material deployment of an idea. It participates thus in collaboration. In the ongoing negotiation around the future, an imaginary stepwise helps change material worlds. Material reality changes, and the imaginary changes with it.

When collaborative design work is viewed like this, design can be reformulated as an approach to collaborative innovation.

Question that emerge for this research, are the formulation of this approach, and the concept and visualisation of an ideal imaginary. How does an imaginary participate in collaboration? How do we need to work with it? What do various formats and properties afford?


Ball, Linden J., & Christensen, Bo T. (2020). How sticky notes support cognitive and socio-cognitive processes in the generation and exploration of creative ideas. In Sticky Creativity (pp. 19-51). London: Academic Press.
Finke, Ronald A., Thomas B. Ward, and Steven M. Smith. "Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications." (1992).
Hutchins, Edwin. (2005). Material anchors for conceptual blends. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1555-1577.
Schön, Donald A. (1983). The reflective practitioner how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

Workshop with Katharina at MxD

Our first workshop takes place with Katharina and the students from the 4th Semester of Management by Design (MxD). Katharina is a Service Designer from Vienna, and she is also part of the Service Design Network (SDN). At first she introduces us to the idea of Service Design as a mindset. She explains that in order to make change happen through design, we need to consider the human relations, instead of focusing on products alone. The human experience of the world matters in design, and not only the technologies used to facilitate experiences.

Experience is a key factor in design, both in considering the users and in understanding the design activity itself. An important quote is that of Nigel Cross, who describes the skill to design as "designerly ways of knowing", and so demarcates design as a particular way of understanding and intervening in the world.

In a following blog post we will reflect on the activities of the workshop:

  • We split into groups of 3 to 4 People.
  • As a group, we randomly chose an area which we would redesign
  • Everyone introduced themselves and provided words or sketches about three things how they felt connected to the chosen topic.
  • We conducted interviews about the topic with interview partners from other groups, and made notes.
  • We switched roles and conducted more interviews.
  • We defined the problem by distinguishing between what was said by the interviewees, and by what we though was meant.
  • We created a drawing of our solution to the problem we had discovered.
  • We proceeded to prototype our idea as a tangible object which we could show and explain.
  • Each of these activities was timed, and time limits were short and strict (5-15 minutes per task).
  • There were materials provided for each task, ranging from paper print-outs, pens, post-its, and craft materials.

Questions we want to explore are: How did we experience these activities? Which things worked for us and which didn't? We will reflect on how materials influenced us in proceeding with the design activity. 


As who are you contributing to this research?

In a previous short paper I suggested that it might be useful in a collaborative design process for a person to have not only the opportunity to define in what activities she/he wants to participate, but also as who (Neubauer, 2019). Knowledge and expertise is ascribed to professional roles and positions. Through the ascribing of job roles to activities, and through the ordering of activities in chronological design processes, relations are put into place between people which may effect constraints and possibilities for them. As an example I have previously described how when designers deal with the human aspect of a task before handing the task to a software engineer for technical consideration, there is a constraint in executing the task for the engineer, while there are many possibilities in interpreting user needs for the designer (ibid). The designer is here related to the human aspect (as the designer's knowledge is understood to be human-centred) and the engineer is related to the technical aspect (as the engineer's knowledge is understood to be technical). When the human aspect is defined to take priority over the technical aspect in the design process, a constraint is introduced for the engineer.

For this research, we have defined roles in the research plan:

  • Design educators and researchers
  • Design practitioner novices
  • Expert design practitioners

The roles ascribed to individual people participating cannot be assumed to naturally 'be' as they are viewed by the lead researchers writing the research plan. In the consent form detailing the participation in this research, we therefore ask in what role the person wants to contribute. However, it can be assumed that roles manifest through more than only forms that are filled out, and research plans. Therefore, a 'freedom' in choosing the role of contribution is surely never fully given. But a reflection on roles is necessary, and through this, shifts may become a possibility.

Ruth Neubauer (2019): Design Thinking: From Individual Thinking Towards a Technohuman Reconfiguration. In: Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: The International Venue on Practice-centred Computing and the Design of Cooperation Technologies - Demos and Posters, Reports of the European Society for Socially Embedded Technologies (ISSN 2510-2591), DOI: 10.18420/ecscw2019_p06

Activities of this research

The following activities are planned to be carried out during the research process:

  1. Development of the practice-based design research framework
    • For building the theoretical foundation for the research project we develop a research framework which bridges design processes from design practice, with the theorising of the concept of reconfiguration from design practice, which can be found in Ambiguity (Gaver, Beaver, & Benford, 2003), Boundary objects (Carlile, 2004; Star & Griesemer, 1989), und Affordances (Gibson, 2015). This research framework will guide the study.
  2. Exploration and design of design methods through practice-based workshops.
    • Based on the (in the framework development) identified design process approaches in design practice, we invite design practitioners to work with design students and to explore and design the collaborative methods with them.
  3. Exploration and design of design methods through reflective conversation with design practitioners, design researchers, and design educators
    • Through reflective conversations with design practitioners, design researchers, and design educators are adding additional viewpoints and input from other sites of practice, research, and education.
  4. Live research platform and dissemination
    • This website functions as a live research lab and dissemination platform. It will contain a description of the research study, its theoretical framework, and it will be updated with new content in an ongoing manner through all contributors.


Questions from design practice

When investigating the situations in collaborative design practice within organisations, it becomes evident the that design processes do not work as intended.

There are a range of problems:

  • Production processes are far from user-centred
  • There are technical challenges
  • Successes and failures are unpredictable
  • Negotiations between organisational silos are taxing
  • High turnover of personnel

Strategies such as UX design, Service design, Design thinking, or Lean/Agile Methods attempt to improve these production processes. However, they are often not successful, and they bring up more questions than answers.

Collaborative design processes remain opaque. It is not visible how situations change from possible futures into reality. Designerly agency remains invisible and it is therefore an impossibly difficult concept to work with.

The aim of this research is to explore the design process, in order to shed more light on how design works.

The following will be our research questions to guide this project:

We want to know how innovation works. We want to learn design, so we can do change.

Because we work collaboratively we need to know how artefacts enable and constrain us. How do artefacts reconfigure situations?

Management by Design: Studying designerly ways of knowing

Design as a method is an approach that extends the ability to "give shape” to innovative technologies and services, and constitutes design as the shaping of relationships and organisational structures that inspire innovation. Collaborative creativity should be harnessed for innovation and change. In an increasingly complex world design becomes a strategy in organising societal and organisational needs, desires, and goals in human-centred ways.

The underlying theory is that design is a particular form of knowledge which cannot be studied and taught in scientific and humanistic subjects of education. The design theorist Nigel Cross proposes design as a “'third area' of education” defining this area "by contrasting it with the other two – sciences and humanities” (1982, p. 221). And Tim Brown calls a “third way” and an “integrated approach” between the two pillars of “feeling, intuition, and inspiration” and “the rational and the analytical” (2009, p. 4). Design therefore poses an important alternative dimension in knowledge production, scholarship and training.

Management by design (MxD) is a university course which equips students with design as a method of managing organisations, innovation, and change processes. It is an alternative approach to organising and leadership, following the principles of design thinking. The novelty of this management approach, and this application of design evokes many questions, still. “It is difficult to explain to others what I am studying”, as one student put it. Explaining what MxD is, may be challenging to students amid traditional understandings of design and of management. However, the current openness of the concept of MxD bears the opportunity to define it, design it, and create it as something we want and need it to be, and it allows us to shape MxD as the thing that we think is best. The research project coming forward is a design project in which we explore MxD with students and with experienced designers as an approach to innovation, and in which we aspire to designing the ways we use this approach.

We are taking as our starting point the famous postulation that designers have particular ways of thinking and knowing in “designerly” ways (Cross, 1982, 2001). It is designers' ways of thinking that can be used to tackle "ill-defined, ill-structured, or 'wicked'” problems (Cross, 1982, p. 224, quoting Rittel and Webber, 1973). The nature of designers' ways of thinking is illustrated as "solution-focused", “constructive", and able to use particular codes or “object languages” (Cross, 1982, p. 226).


Cross describes designers as being “solution-focused” and “problem-solve by synthesis" in contrast to scientists who “problem-solve by analysis” (pp. 223–226). It is less important to understand a problem analytically. It is more important to practically try out solutions that might fit. “A central feature of design activity […] is a process of 'satisficing' rather than optimizing; producing any one of what might well be a large range of satisfactory solutions rather than attempting to generate the one hypothetically-optimum solution.” (p. 224)


Designers apply a “constructive” process of "pattern synthesis, rather than pattern recognition” (p. 224). By “pattern synthesis", Cross means “a pattern (or some other ordering principle) [that] seemingly has to be imposed in order to make a solution possible” (p. 224). Designers therefore, instead of waiting for a solution to arise in contemplation, become active in constructing patterns (ordering principles) that are tentatively applied and tested for being a possible solution.

Codes, ordering principles and object languages

This process of constructing patterns can be compared to constructing and “learning an artificial ‘language’, a kind of code which transforms ’thoughts’ into ‘words’”. Cross describes designerly knowing as “embodied” in this code, difficult to “externalise”, and present as a “tacit knowledge – ie they know it in the same way that a skilled person 'knows' how to perform that skill” (p. 224).
Designers use "'codes' that translate abstract requirements into concrete objects”. Codes and ordering principles are also “the knowledge that resides in objects” (p. 225). 'To know’ as a designer, means to be able to “read” and “write” codes (ordering principles) from and into objects. Designers are able to "understand what messages objects communicate, and they can create new objects which embody new messages.” In their dual function, Cross calls these codes and orders “object languages” (p. 226).

Designerly ways of knowing are described as the solution-focused construction of dual reading-writing codes that order and are ordered simultaneously.

Design as a dual reading-writing, ordering-ordered methodology

The ‘reading’ and ‘writing’ of codes, the simultaneous application of ordering principles, and being ordered by ordering principles, is the focus of our research project coming forward. We will be exploring and developing our approach to design. The objects, or artefacts, of design, which form into a methodology of language, are the object of our design project. There is a circular meaning here on purpose: As we use and explore design as a method, we reshape design as a method. As we use and explore the artefacts of design and how they configure things, we reconfigure design itself – our method of MxD.

The theoretical foundations of design thinking describe the tacit knowledge present in the thinking of the designer. Therefore it is important to investigate design thinking at these sites of designerly thinking and doing. Designerly thinking and doing needs to be explored in design practice (Zimmermann, Forlizzi and Shelley, 2007). Our sites of exploration will be design projects with design students, enhanced through the knowledge of experienced designers who work in innovation practice. This form of inquiry uses the research format of practice-based design research (Vaughan, 2017). The innovation of design, including any theory we derive from it, can only take place in and through the practice of design.


Brown, Tim. (2009). Change by design: how design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Cross, Nigel. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221–227.
Cross, Nigel. (2001). Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline Versus Design Science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49–55.
Rittel, Horst W. J., & Webber, Melvin M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4(1), 155–169.
Zimmerman, John, Forlizzi, Jodi, & Evenson, Shelley. (2007). Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. Paper presented at the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, San Jose, CA, USA.
Vaughan, Laurene (Ed.) (2017). Practice-based design research: Bloomsbury Publishing.