case study

.lab

Strengthening design culture by showcasing student creativity.

role

Research & Insight Mapping

Visual Design

Strategic Communication

principles

Design Thinking

Frame Creation

DURATION

3 Months

tools

Figma/Figjam

Framer

After Effects

background

.lab is a design initiative developed in collaboration with the Department of Informatics at Umeå University. It was created to support students in sharpening their design skills outside of their formal studies through creative experimentation, collaboration, and exploration. As part of this project, we set out to explore how .lab could evolve into something more defined and engaging, with the long-term goal of fostering a stronger design culture within the department.

understanding the problem

We began with a clear observation that .lab was struggling with low engagement. Students weren’t showing up, and the initiative seemed to be drifting in the background of the department. We set out to understand why .lab felt disconnected and explore how it could evolve into something students actually wanted to be part of.

Interviews

PARTICIPANTS

Informatics Students/.lab’s Coordinator

Purpose

Understand how .lab is perceived and what drives or prevents engagement outside of class.

Focus Areas

How students make decisions around extracurricular initiatives.

Factors that influence participation.

Perceptions of .lab as a concept and format.

User Survey

PARTICIPANTS

Informatics Students

Purpose

Follow up on interviews and reach a broader student group.

Focus Areas

Understand how common the patterns from interviews were.

Gain a broader view of how students relate to .lab.

problem definitions

The issue was not lack of interest but how .lab was structured, communicated and perceived. Its unclear value, low visibility and fragmented setup prevented students from engaging. These became the core challenges to solve.

Industry Connection

Many said they would have joined if there was a clearer link to the design industry. Real projects, real people, something to build on. Without that, .lab felt disconnected from the rest of their academic or professional path.

Time & Priorities

Even students who liked the idea found it hard to prioritise. When time and energy are limited, things that are optional tend to fall off the radar.

Unclear Identity

Was it a space? A project? A brand? The lack of clarity around what .lab actually was made it hard for students to understand how to get involved, or why they should.

paradoxes

We found that the barriers around .lab were driven by underlying contradictions in how students understood and engaged with it. These tensions revealed new angles on the problem and became a key lens moving forward

#1

Freedom vs. Structure

Students liked that .lab was self-driven and low pressure. At the same time, many said they didn’t know what to do with that freedom. They wanted more clarity, more direction, something to grab onto.

#2

Low Commitment vs. High Expectations

.lab didn’t come with deadlines or course credits. Still, people hoped it would deliver real value. They expected something useful, visible, maybe even career-relevant, without knowing exactly how or why.

#3

Inclusive but Undefined

It was open to everyone, which sounded good. But that openness also made it blurry. Who was it really for? What was it trying to do? Without a clear focus, it was hard to feel like you belonged.

#4

Autonomy vs. Connection

Students wanted to explore their own interests. But doing it alone, without a shared space or sense of community, made it hard to stay motivated.

Outcome

The paradoxes revealed the core tensions behind low engagement, showed why simple fixes had failed, and helped us work with complexity instead of reducing it. This shifted our focus from forcing clarity to asking the right questions.

Understanding the Context

We mapped .lab within the department’s broader system to uncover the roles, expectations and institutional rhythms shaping how it functioned. This helped us see it as an interconnected system rather than a collection of individual opinions.

Mind Mapping

What, Why, Where, and When?

To uncover gaps in how .lab was perceived, we mapped it against four basic questions: what it is, why it exists, where it happens and when. This simple structure exposed inconsistencies and revealed which elements were unclear versus which could serve as future anchor points.

Stakeholder Mapping

Identifying Roles, Motivations and Missing Links

We also mapped who was involved, what they cared about and what roles they could play. This helped reveal where strong connections could form and where gaps in the system were limiting .lab’s potential.

Students

The main users, driven by self-growth, collaboration, and hands-on design experience.

Faculty & Coordinators

Responsible for enabling .lab and making sure students could access it.

Industry Partners

Potential collaborators looking for fresh ideas and future talent.

Alumni

People who’ve been through the program and could now give back through mentoring or joint projects.

Scenario-Based Thinking

Exploring Future Scenarios

We explored possible futures for .lab by mapping out two key uncertainties: how strong its identity could become, and how much it might collaborate with people outside the university. Thinking this way helped us reflect on the risks of staying undefined, but also what might be possible if .lab grew into something more intentional and better connected.

Outcome

This phase involved a range of methods that helped us zoom out and understand .lab in a wider context. The challenge wasn’t just about visibility or messaging. It was about how .lab fit into the department’s structures, expectations, and culture.

Understanding the Field

Mapping the broader context gave us a system-level view of .lab. But to move forward, we also needed to zoom in. What makes some student initiatives feel established and easy to join, while others fade into the background? And how did different people relate to .lab as it was?

Local Orbits

What Makes an Initiative Feel “Real”?

We looked at other student-run spaces to understand why some initiatives seem to work better in practice. What makes them feel grounded, alive, and worth the effort? We interviewed the head coordinator of E‑Puben, a student-led bar, to explore what made that initiative feel embedded in student culture. The contrast to .lab quickly became useful in clarifying what might be missing.

E-Puben

Structured, Recognized, and Rewarding

E‑Puben has a clear setup: an official committee, defined responsibilities, and visible perks. People know what it is, how to join, and what they get out of it. Even small contributions come with recognition, social status, and a sense of belonging.

.lab

Open, Undefined, and Easy to Overlook

In contrast, .lab was open-ended but blurry. There was no committee, no real entry point, and no clear value in return. Students often said they liked the idea, but didn’t know how to engage or if it would lead anywhere. The openness gave it potential, but also made it easy to ignore.

User Personas

Making the Barriers More Tangible

To make sense of the different needs and disconnects, we created two user personas:

The Student

Curious and motivated, but unsure what .lab is or how to get involved. Wants to meet peers, build a portfolio, and be seen.

The Expert

Open to mentoring or collaborating, but lacks a clear way in and doesn’t fully understand the point of .lab.

Outcome

These personas helped us anchor our design work in the realities of how different people relate to .lab. By clarifying their needs and perspectives, we could sharpen the direction of our process and focus on what actually mattered to them.

Storyboarding

Using the personas, we created a simple storyboard to capture a shared frustration: both students and external partners struggled to see why .lab mattered. It wasn’t about a lack of interest, it was about the lack of visible outcomes and clear value.

Outcome

The storyboard helped us visualize and bring together our insights in a way that clarified a core issue: while .lab had potential and was appreciated by those involved, its value wasn’t always visible to others, especially those standing on the outside, unsure whether to join. This was a turning point where we shifted the framing from “how do we get people to engage?” to “how do we make .lab feel worth engaging with?”

Reframing the Problem

Over time, it became clear that this wasn’t about low engagement. Students were active, their efforts just weren’t visible, valued, or shared. Without a space to show their work, .lab never became part of their identity. And without that visibility, potential collaborators had no way to understand what was happening or why it mattered.

Maybe the answer wasn’t to reinvent .lab, but to let it surface what was already there, to make creativity visible, shared, and real?

this lead to framing it in a different perspective

Press to Reveal

Turning .lab Into a Shared Artifact

We started to imagine .lab not just as a loose space for experimentation, but as a collective portfolio: a shared place where student creativity could take shape, gain visibility, and be recognised. Framing it this way gave us something more tangible to work with, something with clearer form and purpose.

Making Value Visible

A collective portfolio is a platform where projects are shown, not just developed, and where the value becomes clearer for everyone involved. Students get to build a visible track record, and industry partners can actually see what’s happening, not just hear about it in vague terms.

Turning .lab Into a Shared Artifact

This turns .lab into something you can point to: a shared artifact that reflects the department’s design culture and helps shape its future. It becomes easier to understand, easier to support, and more meaningful to be part of.

What This Project Taught Me

Good solutions don’t come from chasing answers, they grow from staying with the problem. The more we familiarised ourselves with the complexity of .lab, the less it felt like something to fix, and the more its direction revealed itself. We kept circling back, testing small shifts, and letting things take time. Eventually, the next step wasn’t something we decided. It just felt like the natural move forward.