This morning I read Small Change by Malcolm Gladwell in the New Yorker. Besides his remarks about the impact of social networks there is another interesting passage in his article.
There are many things, though, that networks donâ€™t do well. Car companies sensibly use a network to organize their hundreds of suppliers, but not to design their cars. No one believes that the articulation of a coherent design philosophy is best handled by a sprawling, leaderless organizational system. Because networks donâ€™t have a centralized leadership structure and clear lines of authority, they have real difficulty reaching consensus and setting goals. They canâ€™t think strategically; they are chronically prone to conflict and error. How do you make difficult choices about tactics or strategy or philosophical direction when everyone has an equal say?
For a while this topic has been fascinating me. Why design needs direction, someone with a vision or clear ideas? Why do most open source projects fail to get this right? And why do you often need a designer or someone who thinks like one for innovation?
Building a house from a design could very well work like an open source project. Designing a house as an open source project would probably be a disaster, it would end up over complete and hard to stand out. Networks are good in converging, designers are good in diverging.
The networked and peer-culture that founded Google is likely why they are incredibly successful in finding things (“to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful“) This might also explain why they fail in building social networks (Orkut, Jaiku, Wave, Buzz).
This is what makes Facebook and Twitter succeed, those are fare more hierarchical organizations where there is a clear vision set by one or a small group of people.
Design is what makes you stand out. Good design is about making choices. Even in a networked culture.
The image in this post is a picture I took from the book Sketching User Experiences by Bill Buxton.