Participatory Design Project

Understanding Time Thieves at Deichman Tøyen

Back

Overview:

Client: Deichman Tøyen Library

Context: Student project on Participatory Design (PD)

Duration: 6 weeks

Role: UX Designer

Team: 3 design students

Methods: Interviews, fieldwork, journey mapping, workshops, co-creation, prototyping

Process

Phase 1 - exploring challenges

Our first session focused on building trust and understanding the participants’ daily work. What started as an introduction quickly turned into an informal idea exchange, where staff openly shared pain points in their workflows.

We soon realized that running a library involves much more than just lending books. Participants expressed frustration with a fragmented system landscape, especially outdated guides in Confluence and a complex booking system in Planyo. During Workshop 1, we used structured brainstorming to explore two key questions: “What challenges do you face in your daily work?” and “What opportunities do you see?” Ideas were captured on post-its and sorted into themes, giving us a rich base to work from.

What stood out most was how many seemingly small “time thieves” — minor tasks that felt trivial on their own — collectively took away time from what mattered most: direct interaction with library users.

Key findings

Three core values clearly stood out:

Sharing knowledge and literature (formidling) is central to their role
Creating great visitor experiences matters deeply
There’s a strong need for user-friendly systems that support their workflow

The main issue we identified was the impact of countless small “time thieves” — like jumping between systems, manual updates, and inefficient communication, which together took time away from what they valued most: engaging with users.

This led us to a clear design goal: How might we reduce or eliminate these time thieves to free up more time for meaningful interactions?

Phase 2: Prototyping

The prototype development began with simple sketches created through co-creation with the participants.

In order to support continued involvement, we created a Continuous Participation Prototype (CPP) in Figma, which we shared with the participants. We then developed the prototype from low-fidelity sketches to high-fidelity mockups that showcased the features more clearly.

Reflections

Challenges

Throughout the project, we encountered several challenges that shaped the process. The most significant was inconsistent participation — during Workshop 2, only one participant was present. This raised questions about whether the final solution truly reflected the needs of all involved.

Time constraints, both for us and the participants, also limited how deeply we could explore certain phases.
We also noticed that our Continuous Participation Prototype wasn’t fully utilized, likely due to time limitations or technical barriers.
Another challenge was finding the right balance between designer-led and participant-led decision-making. When participation varies, how much should the designer steer the direction? This touches on a fundamental question in participatory design:

To what extent can we call this a truly participatory design process?
We concluded that even though not all participants were present throughout, the process still reflected participation on multiple levels. The core values and problems were identified collaboratively, and the design direction was clearly shaped by participant needs.

What I Learned

This project gave me several valuable lessons that I will bring with me:

Values-driven design is powerful: By identifying and focusing on the participants’ core values (in this case, knowledge sharing), we were able to create a solution that addressed their fundamental needs—not just surface-level issues.
Adaptability is essential: Design processes are rarely linear. Our ability to navigate changing participation, adjust methods along the way, and adapt to time constraints was key to the project’s success.
Facilitation requires awareness: I learned how important it is to create a safe space for creative participation, especially when participants don’t view themselves as particularly creative. This demands active listening and a balance between structure and openness.
Balancing ideals with reality: Participatory design as a methodology holds strong ideals of democracy and co-creation, but in practice, these must be balanced with real-world constraints. It’s not about perfect participation, but about meaningful involvement that brings real value to users.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse