Design Research

Someone asks for a new website. Someone else needs a clearer identity, a more useful application, or a better way to welcome people into a space. Those requests may describe exactly what is needed. They may also be the visible part of something that has not yet been understood.

We listen for both.

What is difficult right now? Who experiences that difficulty? What has already been tried? What is working well enough that changing it would create a new problem? What would make a meaningful difference to the people involved?

These questions are not a delay before the creative work. They begin it.

Understanding the situation changes which possibilities we can see.

Research also makes room for what a project could become. A conversation about improving an existing feature might expose an unmet need, a different way to deliver a service, or an opportunity to simplify something people have learned to tolerate.

We do not need to assume the initial idea is wrong to investigate it properly. We need enough openness to let what we learn affect the response.

Design Research is a broad field of inquiry. The scope follows the decisions in front of us, rather than a requirement to investigate everything equally.

People and their circumstances

We consider the people using, choosing, delivering, supporting, or being affected by the experience. Their goals may overlap without being identical. A customer needs an understandable answer; a team member needs the information and authority to give one.

User Research focuses on the people experiencing a product or service. Stakeholder Interviews bring organizational knowledge into the work. Both can contribute to Design Research, but they are not interchangeable sources.

What already exists

An existing website, application, brand, or service carries a history of choices. Content, navigation, interfaces, support records, analytics, physical materials, and previous research can help us understand those choices and their consequences.

We look for the useful parts as well as the gaps. A familiar phrase, a reliable workflow, or a small act of care by a member of staff may deserve to be preserved and supported.

Starting again should be a considered decision, not the automatic expression of a new designer's taste.

If your team already has research, bring it. We examine the questions it addressed, who contributed, when it was gathered and what has changed since. Useful knowledge deserves to travel forward; a new engagement does not need to begin by repeating work simply because we were not there when it happened.

The surrounding world

Competitive Research and relevant examples from other fields can help us see conventions, expectations, alternatives, and overlooked possibilities. Desk research might begin with a simple search, then lead to a closer examination of how an offer is explained or a service is delivered.

A competitor's website can show what that company presents publicly. It does not tell us whether the approach works, why it was chosen, or whether it would suit this business. We use comparison to ask better questions, not to disguise imitation as evidence.

The organization behind the experience

Technology, content ownership, staffing, operational routines, physical environments, and business priorities can all shape what people encounter.

If a customer repeatedly supplies the same information, the issue may involve interface design. It may also involve systems that do not share information or a handoff that nobody has been asked to own. Understanding the connection helps us decide where the design effort belongs.

That is why research can lead into Service Design, Architectural Design, Custom Software, Branding, or Marketing as well as UI/UX. The brief should be informed by the situation, not constrained by the category in which the conversation started.

We begin with the knowledge already available and the questions it cannot yet answer. Some material may be useful but outdated. Some may describe only one customer group, one location, or a particularly difficult period. We want to know where it came from before deciding how much weight it should carry.

Then we agree what needs closer investigation.

An early question may be broad: what prevents people from understanding the offer? A later one may be specific: do people recognize the difference between requesting an appointment and receiving a confirmed booking? Those questions call for different levels of attention and different ways of learning.

Abstraction's regular discovery work draws strongly on stakeholder conversations, existing materials, and analysis of the current experience. Where direct end-user research or specialist testing is appropriate, we can plan and coordinate that work with research partners, participate, and bring the learning into the wider design effort.

Time and budget affect the scope. So do the consequences of getting something wrong. We make those tradeoffs explicit: what we will investigate now, what we will proceed with as an assumption, and what needs to be revisited.

A smaller investigation should still leave a clear account of what it establishes—and what it does not.

You may be asking whether you can afford research before you can afford the project. We can begin with the decision carrying the most uncertainty, review what is already known and agree which unanswered questions deserve attention now. Our guide to choosing project priorities explores how we balance what people need, what is feasible and what the business can sustain.

When we work with a showroom team considering online booking, we begin with the visit they want to make possible. The feature matters, but so does what happens before someone chooses a time and after they arrive.

We talk with the people arranging and hosting visits. Are customers trying to find an available time, or establish whether the right specialist will be there? Does the consultation need measurements or photographs beforehand? Can someone browse without an appointment? Your team's answers help us understand what the booking needs to support.

Together, we examine the current content, the scheduling arrangement and appropriate records of how visits are organized. We look for differences between what the business intends, what it communicates and what remains unknown about the customer's experience. Where a question needs direct customer investigation, we shape that inquiry with the relevant research collaborators.

Your team participates in interpreting what the material means. An observation from the floor may change how we read a support request. A content review may reveal a question that the booking screen cannot answer on its own. We make those connections discussable instead of treating each source as a separate report.

We can then compare directions: self-service booking, clearer preparation guidance, a different confirmation process, a better internal handoff or a combination. User Journey Mapping helps examine the goal from the visitor's perspective; Service Design considers the delivery around it.

The learning informs our creative judgment. It does not remove the need to design. We work with you to shape a response that serves the appointment experience, rather than making one interaction easier while leaving the surrounding questions unresolved.

Research can produce a great deal of information without producing much clarity. The work of synthesis is to make the relevant relationships understandable. Information Design can help give findings and their implications a form the team can discuss and use.

We separate what was observed, what someone reported, what a record shows, and what we infer from those sources. We look for patterns, contradictions, and missing perspectives. A confident account is worth hearing; confidence alone does not make it conclusive.

Numbers can show a change without explaining its cause. A conversation can reveal a meaningful difficulty without establishing how widespread it is. A design review can identify a plausible barrier without proving that it caused a particular business result.

The value often lies in bringing these different kinds of information into conversation with one another.

A Discovery Findings Report can bring together Abstraction's investigation and useful knowledge contributed by the client. Depending on the scope, it may include:

• The questions investigated and the material considered.
• Relevant findings, their sources, and important limitations.
• Conflicting accounts or assumptions that remain unresolved.
• Implications for the experience, business, content, technology, or environment.
• Opportunities, priorities, and questions for the next stage.

The report should help the team move forward. It should also remain intelligible later, when someone asks why a choice was made or what new evidence might change it.

Inquiry should leave the people involved with more understanding, not simply leave us with more information.

We can take responsibility for leading the inquiry without treating the client as a source to extract information from and leave behind.

Your experience helps us notice what an outside perspective might miss. Our questions can make familiar situations newly visible. A specialist collaborator may recognize a dependency neither of us had considered. That exchange is part of the value of co-creation.

We encourage clients to take part in examining findings and considering their implications. You do not need to become a researcher to contribute. Knowing what a recommendation rests on can make the next decision feel less like a leap of faith.

The people and organizations contributing information also deserve care. We agree appropriate access, recording, attribution, sharing, and handling of sensitive material. A useful private account does not automatically become something we can publish.

Sometimes the evidence supports a modest improvement. Sometimes it reveals that the proposed solution is too narrow. Sometimes it suggests that an idea should be abandoned and the question approached again.

We still bring imagination, taste, and judgment to what follows. Research does not remove those responsibilities; it gives them a more informed place to begin.

Our process follows Discover → Define → Explore → Design / Develop / Market → Learn → Advance → Discover.

Within Design Thinking, investigation is especially valuable in Discover, Define, and Explore before substantial commitments to Design, Development, or Marketing. It also returns as new questions emerge. A launch, a change in the business, or unexpected customer behavior can create another reason to look closely.

Learn and Advance lead us back into Discover. Product Intelligence helps preserve the evidence, choices, and lessons we build with the client so that the next round can begin with more understanding.

You may have a clear project in mind, an inherited product that is difficult to untangle, or a concern that has not become a brief yet. Design Research can be a focused engagement or the beginning of broader work together.

Bring what you know, what you suspect, and what you have not been able to explain. We can work out where to look—and what the learning could make possible.

Contact Us