1 Introduction

Today, an increasing number of people, from different cultures, are collectively designing their projects to create their own lifestyles based on their own ideas of well-being. These new ideas not only meet people’s needs but also create new social relationships or collaborations [18]. However, very few researchers in interaction design have explored and investigated the underlying design processes of those projects, and fewer have reflected on how interaction design can support such processes.

In this work, we apply the theory of infrastructuring in relation to the theoretical framework publics [16] in understanding the collective design of a community-based project – Vancouver Tool Library. We draw on the framework proposed by Le Dantec because it provides a practical analytical tool that is an alternative to other related infrastructuring frameworks (e.g., technology driven infrastructuring). Le Dantec’s framing can be easily situated in and developed further through interaction design research.

The question this study aims to address is: How does the theory of infrastructuring in relation to the theoretical framework of publics [16] effectively describe the collective design of community-based projects in an urban Canadian city? To answer this question, we apply qualitative case study as our research methodology. The case we selected is the Vancouver Tool Library project, which is a non-profit community service cooperative that provides tools to its members. The goal of the Vancouver Tool Library project is to contribute to a more sustainable life style and enable its community to access a rich collection of tools without having to buy or rent them.

The purpose of this study is to validate the effectiveness of the theory of infrastructuring in relation to the theoretical framework of publics [16] in describing the design process of the community-based project and to further uncover the characteristics of the design process that interaction designers can support. In what follows, we describe an overview of related work on infrastructuring theory. We then describe findings from our case study. We conclude with a discussion of the characteristics of the collective design of the project and opportunities for interaction design to support such community-rooted projects.

2 Research Background

2.1 The Concept of Infrastructuring

The term ‘Infrastructuring’, or ‘artful infrastructuring’, coined by Karasti and collaborators [12, 14], is an attempt to build a sensitive understanding of community participatory design. Karasti and Syrjänen characterized infrastructuring as a continuous process that is constantly becoming, and as the integration of new tools and technologies with existing people, materials and tools [14].

Infrastructuring draws on the notion of infrastructure [23, 24] and Suchman’s notion of “artful integrations” [25:99]. By the notion of “artful integrations”, Suchman highlights the significance of the integrations across artifacts and the integrations between devices and the settings of their use, rather than the discrete or decontextualized artifacts [25]. Through artful integrations, she argues, innovation and change is no longer merely brought about by professional designers but also could be made by everyday practitioners. Building on the above two notions, infrastructuring refers to a continuous process in which multiple relations are developing and socio-material assembly is constantly becoming.

More recently, researchers have worked at the intersections of infrastructuring, information and communications technology, and participatory design. For instance, to describe the dynamics in the infrastructuring process of cyberinfrastructure projects, Edwards et al. denoted three types dynamics - reverse salients, gateways, and path dependence [8]. The three dynamics have been embraced and developed by many researchers on information technology (e.g., [13, 26]). Also, focusing on infrastructuring in the field of information technology, in his book A Vast Machine, Edward proposed “infrastructural inversion”, which emphasizes models and data of climate and the relationships between them [7]. In addition, the concept of infrastructuring has been applied by participatory design researchers in the workplace [21], in communities with open, and heterogeneous structures (e.g., [2, 3, 9]), and the context of jurisdictional identity schemes [4]. The works mentioned above show that the theory of infrastructuring is powerful. However, the majority of the studies confined themselves to technology design and the social aspects are overlooked. Furthermore, these examples limited the understandings of continuous infrastructure development to its longevity, but are short on articulation of the dynamics, changes and the evolutions that happened in it.

In our use of the term infrastructuring, we turn chiefly to Le Dantec, who investigated the application of infrastructuring in the formation of publics at particular groups [5]. We selected Le Dantec’s framework over other related frameworks of infrastructuring because Le Dantec’s framing can be more easily located within, operated, and developed further through interaction design research. It provides a practical lens for interpreting the dynamics in community-based projects and offers scaffolding that other related (and even design-oriented) frameworks of infrastructuring do not provide. In the section below, we will provide a brief overview of the framework of publics. Particularly, we will present how the infrastructuring is defined regards to publics.

2.2 Infrastructuring and Publics

Public, a conception from Dewey [6], is defined as a particular configuration of people bound by common cause in confronting a shared issue. They are not a priori social groups. A public “seeks to work constructively within the messy and contentious reality of discourse where all voices – from mainstream to marginal – jockey to participate and arrive at desired outcomes” [16:15]. The frame of publics thus provides an issue-oriented focus of relevance in community-based work. Furthermore, it provides “a pragmatic perspective and authority dynamics form complex and fluid social alignments” [5:246].

The frame of publics includes three elements – issues, attachments, and infrastructures. First, a basic element to form a public is issues. Issues determine the individuals who get involved, thus shaping the public. The evolution of issues drives the “dynamic and contingent nature of publics” [16:18]. Second, attachments are the “organizing force” that makes actors, institutions, and artifacts affected by an issue gather and take actions toward a common end. Attachments include multiple relations and motivations, central to which is the interplay between “dependency on” and “commitment to” [19]. Attachments are important because they build out the collective capacities to act on issues [16:63].

Based on the concepts of publics, issues, and attachments, in his book, Le Dantec articulated that the process that a public integrates social and technical resources to act towards issues is a process of infrastructuring:

As a public identifies and marshals the social and technical resources to contend with social issues, these resources become a form of infrastructure for the public: a durable and ready-to-hand support that enables constituents of a public to act. The work of creating it is a process described succinctly as infrastructuring, in which the infrastructure arises out of the relations and the resources entangled in the present issues and attachments [16:26].

According to Le Dantec, what infrastructuring does, is “move from a focus on creating a particular artifact (and the attendant fixity of context and artifact) to design as constituting a public in which issues and attachments are conjoined into sociotechnical networks for addressing present and future conditions” [16:28]. With respect to publics, Le Dantec sought to define infrastructuring as “the work of integrating sociotechnical resources – via existing and newly articulate attachments – that enable adoption and appropriation beyond the initial scope of the design space” [16:26].

This notion of infrastructuring provides us a perspective for understanding how individuals, artifacts, and institutions gather around a set of issues in community-based settings. It offers a vantage point to articulate and interpret the ongoing and dynamic process of the development of community-based projects. Specifically, we can explore the issues, actors, artifacts, and institutions affected by the issues, and the relations between them.

Above we presented the concepts of infrastructuring. Our goal in this work is to apply this concept to further the understanding of the underlying design process of community-based project and uncover the characteristics of the process. The theoretical framework articulated above serves as an analytical tool to reveal the inner workings of the tool library project.

3 Methodology

Our methodology approach is qualitative case study [31]. There is a shared understanding that the case study method has advantages in providing a holistic description of social phenomenon within a real-life and contemporary context.

In the process of data collection, we interviewed seven participants who were involved in the project to understand their collective design in the project. We also observed the projects by serving as a volunteer and participating in events, such as workshops. The site of the project as well as the working environment of participants was directly observed during the fieldwork. Moreover, documents related to the project, such as design files, policy files, agreements, annual reports, and online articles were also collected as evidence. Raw data, such as interviews and field notes, were converted into formatted write-ups and prepared for analysis.

The context of the case selected in this research is the city of Vancouver, which is located on the west coast of Canada. It is a dense city with citizens from diverse cultures and ethics. A large part of the population is immigrants, including Chinese, South Asians, Latin Americans, and so on. In 2011, the City Council approved the Greenest City 2020 Action Plan, which was developed to guide Vancouver to become the greenest city in the world by 2020. There are 10 goals outlined in this action plan: climate and renewables, green building, green transportation, zero waste, access to nature, clean water, local food, clean air, green economy, and lighter footprint. With respect to the goal of lighter footprint, the city will “develop a municipal sharing economy strategy” and “continue to expand the Greenest City Fund” [27:64]. Therefore, a variety of projects that are considered as building blocks to reach those goals have gained overwhelming support from the city (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.
figure 1

The environment and interior of the Vancouver Tool Library

Full size image

The Vancouver Tool Library is a non-profit community service cooperative in Vancouver. It was established in 2011. It provides tools for a variety of projects, such as everyday repair and gardening. As the library develops, its tool inventory is growing quickly. Currently, the Vancouver Tool Library offers over 2,000 tools to its 1,800 members. Members of Vancouver Tool Library can rent tools by paying a membership fee. In addition to tools, the Vancouver Tool Library provides diverse workshops, such as making wine racks, zippered pouch sewing, and sustainable home building. The goal of the Vancouver Tool Library project is to contribute to a more sustainable life style. It aims to enable its community to access a rich collection of tools without having to buy or rent them. It also helps individuals to save money and space that would otherwise be invested in tools. It has the benefit to the community of reducing waste. Furthermore, it connects neighbours and supports community building. The individuals who are running the Vancouver Tool Library are almost entirely volunteers. There is only one paid staff. Board of Directors, volunteers, and members keep Vancouver Tool Library moving forward. Currently, the Board of Directors consists of seven individuals who are responsible for strategic planning, budgeting, and volunteer recruitment. Coordinators were recently set up to help Directors with specific projects. Volunteers help manage the shop, maintain tools, and assist with workshops and other events. They believe that the library is an initiative that fosters the process of building vibrant neighbourhoods in the city.

4 Collective Design of the Vancouver Tool Library Project

In this section, we present the findings from studying the case Vancouver Tool Library project. By using the theory of infrastructuring in relation to the theoretical framework publics [16], we describe the project through its confronted issues and the emerged work of infrastructuring in the project. Again, our goal is to understand the collective design process and describe the characteristics of this process that can be supported by interaction designers.

4.1 Issues

From the data analysis, there are three critical issues that emerged in the collective design of Vancouver Tool Library project. They are volunteering issues, cannot afford additional spaces, and lending tools as business.

Volunteering Issues.

The tool library is a volunteer-run cooperative. Except for its manager, the only paid staff, all the board members, coordinators and shop volunteers contribute their time and energy almost for free. Volunteers are waived their membership fee. However, mostly relying on its volunteers brings problems to the development of the tool library.

The time availability of volunteers varies. Balancing personal life and time contributed to the library is not easy, especially for those who have full-time jobs. When much time is asked to put into the tool library, the result is that many volunteers are burned out and quit their roles in the library. Therefore, finding the delicate balance between keeping the tool library running smoothly and not letting people burn out is very important. One interviewee commented that many of the prior board members were burned out because of too much work.

We had a lot of burn out within the board prior to our recent board been voted in. People were just too stressed, because they are doing both the strategic planning and taking on ground level projects. Being a volunteer position, that was just too much. (Gary)

Cannot Afford Additional Spaces.

The second issue is that volunteers do not have sufficient money to afford a bigger space they need. As a library, the restricted space limits its capacity to store a larger amount of tools. As the tool coordinator expressed, they want to buy some tools but do not have space to fit all of them.

There are other tools we want to afford, but we have constraints on space. We don’t have enough room to fit all the tools we may want to buy. (Paul)

In addition, the limited space makes it difficult for the volunteers to run workshops with a big group of participants or provide a workspace for members to work on their projects. One participant described his desire to have a larger space for people to do projects and run workshops.

It would be a dream to have a really large space where we can have people drop in and work on projects. But right now, you just don’t have the space to house people’s work. We can do workshops but we have very limited numbers of people that can do it. (David)

Lending Tools as Business.

Lending tools is challenging per se. Different from books, tools have diverse shapes, functions, materials, and components. Maintaining a variety of tools requires much knowledge. Moreover, organizing and managing tools in an efficient way is not easy.

First, being a group that lends tools and encourages people to learn to use tools, volunteers face the challenge that tools may get broken intentionally or unintentionally. One participant described that not all members value the shared tools.

I have someone come in and say ‘do you have this thickness planer? I got this wood. It is really dirty and I don’t want to run it into my planer but I want to run it through your planer.’ So, he is placing less value on our tools than his own personal tools. We encourage people who are new to the tools and who don’t know tools to come in and just have a go, because we believe one way people learn is by doing. We want to support that. We also hope they use tools as intended. Because we have to repair that tool whether they were intentioned or not. Of course, tools get broken. Those challenges are just the nature of the business. (Paul)

The second challenge of being a tool library is about organizing and managing its tool inventory. For example, organizing tools in an efficient way so that volunteers can quickly find each tool is difficult.

In the physical tool inventory, when a new tool arrives, it is assigned with a code and labeled by Sharpie or by the code being carved into the tool. However, not all the tools are big enough to write a code on, for example the wrenches. There are also tools that come in a set. It is hard to really make sure each piece of it is returned. The following quote describes the participant’s question about managing the small tools and those in sets (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.
figure 2

The tools that have different size (left) and come in set (right).

Full size image

The wrenches are small and big and there are a lot of them. In theory, every single wrench should have an ID. There is another problem, that things are in a set, and a set has many different parts. So, when they come back, we get all our parts back. If we don’t, how do we know and we end up with an incomplete set that doesn’t actually meet the needs, but it was not obvious that it doesn’t work. (Paul)

Moreover, many codes are worn out or even disappear after a period of time. Almost all interviewees expressed worries about the coding system used in their tool management and tracking (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3.
figure 3

Codes on tools.

Full size image

The third challenge in lending tools relates to the digital system – myTurn – which was uniquely created for the tool library to track and manage tools. The digital system used for tracking tools is not synchronously updated. The asynchronous issue brings challenges to both the volunteers and the customers of the tool library. For example, participants described that sometimes tools listed as available in the online system may be under repair or otherwise not physically available.

Our inventory is extremely varied. Some tools are checked in but not. Because often the times, either the tool is in repair, or has been lost, that inventory online has not been updated. So, that is challenging. (David)

In addition, participants also expressed their expectation to have a more efficient way in using the digital system. Scanning, instead of manually inputting the code into the system, would be more appreciated.

If there is a way to scan a barcode, that would be easier. (David)

Ideally, we can just scan them and the system automatically does its thing. Right now, we have a manual system and we manually come up with ID. (Paul)

Another shortage of the digital system is that it lacks the financial record of renting tools.

Another one is myTurn. It has some limitations. MyTurn meets our basic needs. But there are definitely a lot of issues with the software. It is not good at recording the financial side of everything. (James)

Above we presented the issues confronted in the project of Vancouver Tool Library. The issues provide a “point of entry” [16:34] for articulating how different actors and artifacts and institutions are enrolled in the dynamic and complex collective design process in the Vancouver Tool Library project. In the following sections, we articulate the work of infrastructuring in contending with these issues.

4.2 The Work of Infrastructuring

In the above section, three significant issues in this project were described. In this section, we describe the work of infrastructuring emerged to contend with the issues. More precisely, the infrastructuring work emerged in studying this project includes: infrastructuring the organization, infrastructuring the space, infrastructuring for workshop places, infrastructuring for more reliable relations, infrastructuring the tools, and infrastructuring the tool management system. Below, we articulate each of the infrastructuring work in detail.

Infrastructuring the Organization.

To avoid volunteers being burned out, positions of coordinators were created to reduce the workload of board members. With this organizational restructuring, many practical works of the board members can be split and shared. This change has helped relieve part of the volunteering issue of the tool library. As one participant commented, the restructuring also saves much of the manager’s time so that he can focus more on other important tasks.

People were just too stressed… And that was where the restructuring happened for the past year where we created these coordinator positions and assigned them all the ground level projects. That freed off much time for the directors to focus on broader level strategies and making bigger pictures. It shifted a lot what our manager’s position was, too. Before restructuring, our manager was quite all over the places. (Gary)

Infrastructuring the Space.

In order to have more space for tools, shelves and sections were created to better organize them. It is also interesting to find that there is a section named “sick bay” to store the tools that need repair (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4.
figure 4

Shelves and sections created for organizing tools and the Sick Bay (right).

Full size image

With the built shelves and clear sections, more tools can be included in the tool library. One participant also described that tools can be found more easily now.

We created the wall for all the clamps to make them very organized… Having a more organized shop has let us be more efficient. Because we organize in terms of our space, you can get them easily. (Paul)

While observing the space, two interesting and creative installations for storing tools were introduced by the participants. They are the pulley system and the French Cleat. These designs show the creativity of actors in using the resources (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5.
figure 5

The pulley system (left) and French Cleat system (right).

Full size image

We made a pulley system for the lawn tool, which is only popular in summer. We also applied a system, which is quite adjustable, called French Cleat. You can add or remove one very easily. (Paul)

To create more space for tools and keep the inventory updated, actors of the tool library started doing a garage sale in spring. As one participant commented, the garage sale also brings more revenue for the tool library.

The other big change was every year now we do a garage sale where we get rid of old tools. We actually also make money from it and make space on our shelves. We had that these two years. (Paul)

Infrastructuring for Workshop Places.

As discussed before, the tool library has limited space to hold all of its workshops. Volunteers then externalized the space resource to other partners, such as Wood Shop, Vancouver Hack Space, and Vancouver Public Library.

We are actively reaching out to different organizations and folks to come in. For example, the wood shop, they do workshops and also made customer products with salvaged material. They let us use their space to host workshops. (Gary)

As a participant observer, we took part in two workshops of the tool library. One was held in a meeting room of a branch of Vancouver Public Library. The other one was conducted in the loading bay of Vancouver Hack Space (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6.
figure 6

A workshop held in Vancouver Public Library (left) and in Vancouver Hack Space (right).

Full size image

One interesting strategy the tool library adopted is that it uses its membership or physical tools as a “trade” to get the resources it needs. For example, to use the space of the Wood Shop for workshops, the tool library offers free organizational membership and waives the tool loan fees for tools borrowed by the Wood Shop.

Infrastructuring for More Reliable Relations.

Many relations are very informal, such as partnerships with other organizations. These relationships are usually built on mutual benefits and friendship. In the collaborations, they help and learn from each other. However, sometimes, informal relations bring unreliability and unintelligibility. From data analysis, it was found that when actors identified an informal relation that often causes problems, they rebuilt the relation so that the problems were solved. In this way, an informal relation evolved into a more formal one. For example, as one participant described, there was only a verbal agreement between Vancouver Tool Library and the Wood Shop at the beginning. However, then they found they had to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to clarify their collaboration. The MOU, including the responsibilities of Vancouver Tool Library and the space provider, specialized and clarifies the rules about their collaboration.

We hadn’t really made a formal agreement, so it was not really communicated what we were expecting from this partnership. But to solve the problem, we came up with a kind of contract and we both agreed to, we both signed. (James)

Infrastructuring the Tools.

In last year, volunteers made a change in its price for renting tools. Repricing the tools helps increase the revenue for the tool library. Moreover, the new charging rule encourages people to return the tools on time.

Recently just last summer, we changed the fees to $1 a day to encourage people to return the tools. So, we didn’t need to buy many tools because they become more available. (Paul)

In addition to the price, physical tools were also modified. For example, one participant described that when a tool is often broken or hard to repair, he puts a note on the tool to remind people to use it carefully (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7.
figure 7

Note was put on the tool to remind people to use it carefully.

Full size image

We have a tool called a thickness planer. It is sharp and turns very fast. And they break very easily. To avoid the planer tool getting broken too often, we have notices on the tool saying please don’t do this thing. (Paul)

Infrastructuring the Tool Management System.

Volunteers and the manager had to find other software to meet their financial needs since myTurn did not provide financial functions when it was integrated. That is the reason why they use the software program Vend for their finance and accounting.

Myturn meets our basic needs. But there are definitely a lot of issues with the software. It is not good at recording the financial side of everything. So we have the second software Vend to do financial tasks. (James)

To sum up, by applying the theoretical framework publics and the theory of infrastructuring, the underlying collective design of Vancouver Tool Library project is described. Specifically, it includes: infrastructuring the organization, infrastructuring the space, infrastructuring the tools, infrastructuring for workshop places, infrastructuring for more reliable relations, and infrastructuring the tool management system.

5 Discussion

In this part, we further discuss the findings from the case study of the Vancouver Tool Library project. We reflect on the infrastructuring work emerged in this project and analyze the characteristics of the collective design in Vancouver Tool Library project.

5.1 Creative and Resourceful

In many of the infrastructuring work presented above, publics who engage in the practices of designing could be described as creative and resourceful. In the design process, creativity and resourcefulness demonstrate in multiple ways.

First, publics use their creativity in developing vision for what the project could further be. For example, at first, the tool library was thought as a place for storing and sharing tools. Then, actors think about holding workshops to teach people how to use diverse tools. They also creatively started doing garage sales in order to save more space for new tools and keep the inventory updated. The actors are able to creatively generate new ideas or strategies in designing and shaping the project.

Second, creativity is also present in the practical ways publics are able to identify multiple artifacts and appropriate them for their own purposes. For example, French Cleat and the pulley system are creative designs that were made to help organize the tools more efficiently. The “sick bay” is also a creative design to store the broken tools. The creative thinking allows the publics to identify the elements or aspects in their infrastructure that can be changed to better deal with the issues they confronted.

Third, in addition to creativity, resourcefulness is present in the design process of Vancouver Tool Library project. In the work of infrastructuring, publics are aware of the different resources present in their attachments. For example, recycled wood and drawers are repurposed for making shelves. They also create new attachments to include the resources they did not previously have. For instance, workspace from other organizations are identified and integrated as places that can be used for workshops. Thus, publics adopt and appropriate the resources through their present and newly built attachments as their design resources.

In the design process, creativity and resourcefulness manifest in the multiple design strategies the actors used in dealing with the different issues. On the one hand, publics reduce the factors that cause the problems. For example, they get rid of old tools to save space to mitigate the issue of imitated space. On the other hand, publics increase their capacity to confront the result of the issues. For instance, they built the shelves so that more tools can be stored in the space. They also use space from others so that to augment the ability in contending with the issue of limited space.

5.2 Mutual Benefits as a Key Design Principle

In the Vancouver Tool Library project, mutual benefits are also found as a salient principle in the collective design process. The design process of the project is dependent on multiple social relations.

Throughout the project can be found mutual benefits as a critical principle in the work of infrastructuring. This is particularly obvious in creating new attachments. For instance, Wood Shop that provides its workspace as the place for the workshops was offered a free organizational membership of the tool library. Vancouver Hack Space, where we went for a workshop as a participant observer, could have more visitors and advertise its projects and space. Besides, volunteers who contribute their time working in the tool library can be waived their membership fee as well. Therefore, in the work of infrastructuring, the line between the service provider and consumer is seemingly blurring. All the actors and institutions involved in the project make contributions and gain benefits from each other.

Additionally, mutual benefits provide fertile ground for cultivating friendship that helps to strengthen and maintain the constituted relations in the design process. It thus consolidates the resources that can be used for future design act. Thus, a durable (although dynamic) infrastructure is formed in supporting the further design acts of publics.

Finally, in creating the mutual benefits, mutual respect is also found. Actors involved appreciate the understanding and respect between each other. For example, when tools get broken unintentionally, volunteers know that it happens to beginner users and they are willing to support and encourage them. When the mitre saw was broken in the workshop, participants, facilitators, and the volunteers all understood and accommodated that unexpected situation. The collective design process thus allows for trail and error. Individuals respect each other and benefit each other.

In summary, the collective design process creates mutual benefits and relies on this quality for following design acts. In creating the mutual benefits with all the actors and institutions involved, virtuous relations were built and strengthened which support the formation of the network of resources that can be used for publics’ future design acts.

5.3 Sociotechnical Relations and Resources as Design Resources

The design resources involved in the design process are diverse. Sociotechnical relations and resources are understood to be resources for further design acts by publics who can adapt and appropriate them to respond to issues.

In the design process, publics see the social and material resources in the attachments as resources for further design acts. The capabilities of those social and technical resources are often what allow publics to see them as supports for design actions.

In addition, the informal relations built in the infrastructure enable publics to adjust or rebuild them in responding issues. When the informal relations cause problems such as lack of clarity and reliability, they were adjusted or reformed. For example, a MOU was created to clarify the obligations of both the tool library and Wood Shop. Therefore, the informal relations built in the design process allow publics to adapt them so that to act better in future design process.

To summarize, in the process of infrastructuring, publics see sociotechnical resources as well as relations as resources for further design acts.

6 Implication for Interaction Design

Scaffolded by the theory of infrastructuring, the work presented in the above sections present a detailed description of the design process in a community-based project. Based on these findings, in this section, we will propose some relevant design implications for interaction design in supporting the collective design of such projects.

6.1 Mapping the Network of Resources

One significant characteristic of collective design process in community-based project is that various social and material resources are adopted as design resources. In fact, not only artifacts, but also individuals and organizations in local areas can serve as resources for further design acts of publics. This characteristic suggests a design opportunity for interaction designers to support the publics in sorting and identifying the resources they could integrate into their future design process. This can happen in several ways. The most direct is to visualize the resources in their current relationships.

Today, there are various projects that deal with this direction. For instance, Kumu (refers to “source of wisdom” in Hawaiian) is a platform to allow people to map their relationships proposed by two brothers, Jeff and Ryna Mohr in Oahu and Silicon Valley: “Kumu is a powerful data visualization platform that helps you organize complex information into interactive relationship maps.” The purpose of this platform is to create a context in which people can think. The starting point for this initiative was a simple motivation: “existing tools were overly academic and painful to use.” As a response, Kumu was developed as a simple tool to use and no technical background is required.

The tools designed to support publics in the sorting and identification of resources in present infrastructure should also be simple and direct. Moreover, the threshold for accepting new tools is very low. Therefore, interaction designers have to carefully think about how to integrate the designed tool into the current built infrastructure. One recommendation could be thinking about assembling the tool with the artifacts that the actors are already using. For example, would it be possible for such a system to automatically collect information from the email threads or Facebook posts related to the projects and generate the network of resources?

6.2 Design Venues for Exchanges and Understandings

In the work of infrastructuring, publics not only identify resources that exist in their present infrastructure, but also integrate resources from newly created attachments, which are the new nodes that were not previously connected to their network. We have described how publics create the new attachments so that to access the resources desired for future design acts. These offer design opportunities for interaction designers in supporting the exchanges and understandings.

In terms of mutual benefits, a great example can be found is Swapsity. Swapsity is a social enterprise that supports online and offline bartering in Canada. Its members embrace the value of win-win exchanges and its online community gathers diverse resources including skills, services, and artifacts that are ready for exchanges. Marta Nowinska, who is the founder of Swapsity, writes: “everyone has valuable gifts and inner creativity to unleash and share.” The vision of Swapsity is to “help Canadians build a more collaborative and sustainable lifestyle through a peer-to-peer swapping community.” In terms of the community-based projects, we encourage interaction designers to think about similar platforms that can be integrated by publics to exchange their resources with other necessaries.

In addition to online platforms, physical space could be created in neighbourhoods to support the actors in exchanges and understandings to connect with each other. A well-known example is the Malmö Living Lab in Sweden, which has been “working with participatory design approached and social innovation in the city of Malmö.” The lab helps build a network of actors and organizations and connects them with neighbourhood residents. It facilitates continuous match-making process and emerging design opportunities. We propose that interaction designers who are interested in supporting community-rooted projects think about endeavouring to realize the physical living lab operated in his or her neighbourhood or city.

6.3 Design of Creative Social and Technical Resources

In this section, we emphasize the characteristics of creativeness and resourcefulness of the publics and discuss about how these characteristics can inspire interaction designers in supporting the design process of community-based projects.

In designing process, we have seen the multiple ways in which social and material resources are adopted and appropriated. How publics interpret and use their resources is very creative. It is hard to actually predict the context in which the designed artifacts would be used. When designing artifacts or systems to support the collective design process, how should interaction designers embrace the creativeness and resourcefulness of the publics?

Individuals’ resourcefulness and creativeness were recognized and discussed in previous interaction design literature (e.g. [15, 22, 28, 30]). In these works, authors depict how people reuse, repair, and appropriate the artifacts around them. Particularly, in their paper, Wakkary and Tanenbaum named home dwellers as “everyday designers” to manifest people’s capabilities in adapting the artifacts in their home [29]. In addition to home dwellers, Asad and Le Dantec studied the civic activities of communities [1]. They suggest a move away from designing artifacts as solutions and propose flexibility and process as two approaches to support civic activities. By design toward flexibility, they want to “cultivate more of a possibility space to encourage creativity and interpretation” [1:1701]. In terms of process, it refers to designs that “operate more like a platform than a single, deterministic service” [1:1701]. These works are inspirational; however, they merely tackle technological artifacts and do not speculate on how the social resources (e.g., actors and institutions) or a network of resources would support creativity for publics. We encourage interaction design researchers consider conducting studies on this direction.

7 Conclusion

The case study presented offer detailed evidence of the collective design process of a community-based project – Vancouver Tool Library. The work describes how publics identify and integrate diverse social and material resources in contending with the issues they confront. The theory of infrastructuring and the framework of publics applied in this study allowed for an account of the complexity and dynamism of the design process. Second, the case study conducted offer rich evidence in validating the effectiveness of the infrastructuring theory in relation to the framework of publics in describing the design process of project initiated in community context. Third, this work provides thoughtful evidence to further improve the theoretical framework in describing the design process of a community-based project. Finally, this study provides implications for interaction design.

For the future work, it would be valuable to continue this research and involve more actors who participated in the collective design process. In the Vancouver Tool Library project, most interviewees were current participants in the project. Data collected thus reflect the recent issues and the current publics, attachments, and infrastructuring work. Founders and actors in the initial design process of the projects are also very important. Although this research did not reach them, future work should study them so that to get a more holistic understanding about the design process of the project. In addition, this work only examined a community-based project in the city of Vancouver. It would be very worthwhile to study more community-initiated projects from other places with different social, political, and cultural backgrounds. This would allow for a more comprehensive view of how actors collectively design in order to tackle their shared issues and build their own idea of well-being. Third, since this work relied on in-depth interviews and short-term participant observations as the primary data source, it is hard to show a full picture of how the collective design of the project has evolved since it was initiated. In future studies, researchers could participate in the projects for a long term to reach more valuable findings. Through engaging in the process, researchers could explore more in-depth the design opportunities and challenges for guiding the future design process of community-based project. Expansive design knowledge would be produced.