{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025833333333333333, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004166666666666667, 'mean_word_length': 5.035175879396985, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Experiences of different methods in the research and design of an "organisational memory" for process control

Dilemmas between practical longitudinal research and various design methodologies are discussed as they arose over 5 years in the context of developing a knowledge sharing tool (electronic diary) in industrial process control. Design methodology is often presented as a unitary framework, present from the start, and guiding choices, approaches to, and progress through subject matter. In practice, we found this was not the case. Different methodologies were appropriate for different phases of the project, and different shifts in the subject matter. The best fit to our work was R. Harper's (1998) guidelines for design-oriented ethnography. But even this missed two major facets of the work: a friend in the organisation and the importance of prototyping. We conclude that there was no one methodology that could have been chosen at the outset, nor even with hindsight, (retro)fitted at the end to all the needs of the project. We do not argue for eclecticism in choices of methodology. Rather we believe it is research approach that provides the overall theme, guide, and consistency.