archive.Joe Lamantia.com

Readers active in the enterprise, intranet, portal, and syndicated content & functionality spaces might be interested in The Building Blocks of Effective Portals that appears in the November / December issue of Intranets Today.

Intranets is one of the leading publications focused on these topics, with regular contributions from the likes of Rachel Alexander, Jane McConnell, and James Roberston.
You will need a log-in to read the complete article on-line, but perhaps you were thinking of subscribing, and this will pull you in.

In case you couldn’t make it to Amsterdam for EuroIA 2008, or if you were in town but preferred to stay outside in the warmth of a sunny September Saturday than venture into the marvelous Tsuchinski theater, I’ve posted the slides from my talk Frameworks are the Future of Design.
Enjoy!

Reading about the recent release of SocialText 3 I was struck by the strong parallels between the defining characteristics of enterprise environments in 2003/2004, and the emerging public Web 2.0 landscape. The essential characteristics of many enterprise environments are:

• Syndication: streams of modular content and functionality broadcast widely to subscribers within the firewall, such as enterprise data feeds, ERP, BI capabilities, CRM, custom capabilities shared via SOA
• Services (e.g. environmental, like the bees we used to have for pollination): identity, security, publication, data management, cloud storage, imap email, etc.
• Social Structures: tangible networks & communities of like-minded people, oriented around a common practice, purpose, process, or pain; think of all the matrixed, horizontal org structures and ad-hoc networks encoded via internal email lists, IM, sprawling intranets, corporate directories, etc.

These same attributes are emerging as the hallmarks of the public Web 2.0 landscape. This is how the three S’s manifest for Web 2.0:

• Syndication: A literal and figurative torrent of content in the form of blogs, RSS, feeds, streams, APIs, for social objects of all types, as well as catalogs of rentable content
• Services: This layer is growing rapidly for the public internet, with OpenID / OAuth, mapping, visualization, backup, calendaring – the list is nearly infinite, and still expanding
• Social Structures: The Web (and soon the mobile universe) is profoundly social now, and will continue to become ever more so.

I think you can easily see the strong parallels. It’s this similarity between the older enterprise environments and the emerging Web 2.0 environment that user experience practitioners, — and especially anyone practicing information architecture — should note.
Why? As I’ve written before, modularity is everywhere in this new environment, it’s apparent at all layers of the information world, from utilities like processing power, to services, to the elements that make up the user experience. The effects of modularity in syndication, services, and social structures on developers and IT have been profound; practices, processes, organizational structures, and business models have all shifted in response.

This wave of change first affected the developers who build and work directly with code and systems. But inevitably, disciplines further up the stack are feeling the impact of this shift, though many of us (and I’m putting user experience in this class) may not know it yet.

How will we feel that impact? One obvious way is in the pressure to adopt agile and other modular product construction practices created by and for developers as the preferred way to structure user experience and design efforts. This is a mistake that confuses the different stages of software / digital product creation (as Alan Cooper explained well at Agile2008). Design is not construction, and shouldn’t be treated as if it is. And one size fits all does not work when choosing the process and toolkit used for creating complex digital products, services, or experiences.

One result of this modularity rules all approach to user experience is the erosion of bounded or well-structured design processes that balance risk effectively for the various stages of design, and were meant to ensure the quality and relevance of the resulting products and experiences. Erosion is visible the trends toward compression or elimination of recognizable design concept exploration and usability verification activities in many design methods.

More immediately – in fact staring us right in the face, though I haven’t seen mention of it yet in m/any user experience forums – is the growing number of situations wherein there’s “No designer required”.

Examples of this abound, but just consider this feature list for the Social Text 3 Dashboard:

• You decide what matters
• Create your dashboard in minutes
• Include 3rd party information and applications
• Track & attend to what’s most important to you
• Status updates flow automatically, as you work

If that’s not specific enough, here’s what comes out of the box, in the form of pre-built widgets:

• My Conversations – changes others have made to any Socialtext workspace page you authored, edited, or commented on
• My Colleagues – recent updates made by people you are subscribed to
• Workspaces – workspaces you have access to and their activity metrics
• Workspace Page – any page from any of your Socialtext workspaces
• RSS Viewer – results of an RSS feed you configure
• Workspace Tags – a tag cloud of all tags in a particular workspace
• All People Tags – a tag cloud of all tags on people in Socialtext People

No architect required for most people here… and this trend is everywhere.

And then there’s the awesome spectre ofcommoditization. Listening to a friend describe the confusing experience of trying to select a short list of design firms for inclusion in an RFP made the linkage clear to me. I’ll quote Weil’s definition of commoditization from the paper referenced above, to make the point explicit.

Please recall that commoditization denotes the development of a competitive environment where:

• Product differentiation is very difficult;
• Customer loyalty and brand values are low;
• Competition is based primarily on price; and
• Sustainable advantage comes from cost (and sometimes quality) leadership.
• Commoditization is driven by excess capacity.

Please note that I’m not implying user experience practitioners face overnight obsoletion.

But I am saying that I doubt our current disciplinary worldview and toolkit adequately prepare us for the realities of the new environment emerging so rapidly. Code, by contrast, is and always will be modular. (After all, that is the defining attribute of our alphabets.)

But user experience is holistic, and has to learn to build in its own way from these smaller pieces like a writer combining words and phrases. Eventually, you can create works of tremendous depth, richness, and sophistication; think of Ulysses by James Joyce, or the Mahabharata. These are richly nuanced experiences that are the result of working with modular elements.

My suggestion for one response to the oncoming wave of modularity and commoditization is to focus our value proposition in the creation of tools that other people use to define their individual experiences. In other words, shift our professional focus to higher layers of abstraction, and get into the business of defining and designing frameworks, networks, and systems of experience components. Practically, this will mean things like observing and defining the most valuable patterns arising in the use of systems of modular elements we design, and then advising on their use to solve problems. This is the direction common within enterprise environments, and in light of the appearance of public pattern libraries (Yahoo’s UI), I think I see it happening within parts of the user experience community. I’m not sure it’s happening fast enough, though.

I hoped to communicate some of these ideas in my talk on why frameworks are the future (at least for anyone practicing Experience Architecture) for the 2008 EuroIA Summit that just took place here in lovely Amsterdam. I’ll post the slides shortly. In the meantime, what do you think? Is user experience ready for the modularized, enterprise-like environment of Web 2.0? How are you responding to these changes? Is commoditization even on your radar?

The recent launches of Ubiquity (Mozilla Labs) and Chrome (Google) show how sexy it is to be modular on the web, from the user experience [Ubiquity], to basic application architecture of the browser [Chrome]. This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, but it’s not something I hear much about in the user experience community. The fragmentation of the web into a veritable blizzard of services, feeds, widgets, and API’s that create tidal waves of portable and sharable socially rich objects makes thinking about modularity indispensable. In all design contexts.

It’s time the user experience community embraced this way of thinking, not least because it has excellent pedigree. Fifty years ago, in his famous talk There’s Plenty of Room At the Bottom, physicist Richard Feyman said, “What I want to talk about is the problem of manipulating and controlling things on a small scale.” His point was simple: think about *all* the levels of scale and structure that are part of the world, from very small to very large. Feynman wasn’t talking about designing services and experiences for the web or the wider realm of integrated experiences(nice to see the community picking up my terminology…), but his message still applies. Working, thinking and designing at [sm]all levels of scale means doing it modularly.

The microformats community has understood this message for a long time, and is very successful at creating small, useful, modular things.

So how are you thinking modularly about user experience?

September in Amsterdam approaches: in addition to the inevitable mix of clouds, rain, more rain, and tiny slivers of sunlight, September means EuroIA 2008, where yours truly will speak about design frameworks.

In case you can’t make the conference, here’s a text only summary of my talk. Pictures will follow the presentation – promise!

It’s a DIY Future
The Web is shifting to a DIY [Do It Yourself] model of user experience creation, one where people assemble individual combinations of content gathered form elsewhere for expressive, functional, and (many) other purposes. The rapid growth of widgets, the resurgence of enterprise portals, the spread of identity platforms from social network destinations to blogging services, and the rapid increase in the number of public APIs syndicating functionality and data, are all examples of the DIY shift.

Architects of the Future
For design professionals, the defining characteristic of DIY future is co-creation: the participation of a broad spectrum of people in creating experiences. In this new world, the role of designers is to define the tools co-creators use to assemble experiences for themselves and others. These tools will increasingly take the form of design frameworks that define the modular components of familiar structures such as social networks, functional applications, collaboration platforms, personalized dashboards, and management consoles.

Why Frameworks?
Frameworks are the future for three reasons. First, everyone can create sophisticated information structures now, and designers no longer serve as a gateway. Second, the definition of frameworks allows designers to continue to provide valuable services and expertise in a cost effective manner: It’s something designers can sell in a commodified digital economy. Third, designers have an good combination of human insight and architecture design skills; this hybrid way of thinking can serve as a differentiator and strength.

One example of the sort of design framework information architects will create more of in the DIY future is the Portal Building Blocks system described herein. Providentially, this design framework addresses many of the problems inherent in the current architectural schema for DIY self-assembled experiences.

History Repeats Itself: The Problem With Portals
The rise and fall of the Web 1.0 portal form offers a useful historical lesson for creators of the new generation of design frameworks underlying DIY self-assembled experiences.
Despite early promises of utility and convenience, portals built with flat portlets could only grow by expanding horizontally. The resulting experience of low-density information architectures was similar to that of navigating postwar suburban sprawl. Like the rapid decline of many once-prosperous suburbs, the inconvenience of these sprawling collections of portlets quickly overwhelmed the value of the content they aggregated.
The common problem that doomed many very different portals to the same fate was the complete lack of any provision for structure, interaction, or connection between the self-contained portlets of the standard portal design framework.
Looking ahead, the co-created experiences of the DIY future will repeat this cycle of unhealthy growth and sprawl – think of all those apps clogging your iPhone’s home screen right now – unless we create design frameworks that effectively provide for structure, connection, and interaction.

The Building Blocks – An Example Design Framework
The building block framework is meant to serve as a robust architectural foundation for the many kinds of tools and functionality – participatory, social, collaborative – that support the vision of two-way flows within and across the boundaries of information structures. This means:

• Allow for rapid growth and structural change
• Establish a common language for all co-creation perspectives
• Encourage construction of scalable, reusable structures
• Create high-quality user experiences
• Enable sharing of assets across boundaries
• Enhance social dynamics, such as 2-way conversation flows

The Building Blocks framework defines two types of information architecture components in detail – building blocks (or Containers), and navigation components (or Connectors) – as well as the supporting rules and guidelines that make it possible to assemble complex user experience architectures quickly and effectively.

The Containers and Connectors specifically provide for structure, interaction, and connection at all levels of the information environment; from the user experience – visual design, information design, interaction design, information architecture – to functionality, metadata, business rules, system architecture, administrative processes, and strategic governance.
Case Study: Evolution of an Enterprise Portal Suite

The Building Blocks began life as an internal tool for lowering costs and speeding design during the course of sustained portal work done for a Fortune 100 client. Over a span of ~24 months, the Building Blocks provided an effective framework for the design, expansion, and eventual integration of nearly a dozen distinct portals.

The design framework evolved in response to changes in the audiences, structures, and contents of portals constructed for users in different countries, different operating units, and several organizational levels.
The portal suite went through several stages of evolution and growth:

• Experimentation
• Rapid expansion
• Consolidation & integration
• Stability and continuity

Lessons In Designing Frameworks
Successful co-created experiences – Flickr (commercial) and Wikipedia (non-commercial) – combine deliberate top-down architecture and design with emergent or bottom-up contribution and participation in a new kind of structure Kevin Kelly calls the “hybrid”. Frameworks support hybrids!

Hope to see many of you in Amsterdam!

I’m happy to announce I’m speaking at EuroIA 2008 in Amsterdam, September 26 – 27. My session is titled ‘Frameworks Are the Future of IA’. If the exciting title isn’t enough to sell you on attending (what’s more compelling than a case study on an open structural design framework for self-assembled user experiences and information spaces…?), here’s a description:

The Web is shifting to a DIY (Do It Yourself) model of user experience creation, where people assemble individual combinations of content and functionality gathered from many sources to meet their particular needs. The DIY model for creating user experiences offers many benefits in public and consumer settings, and also inside the enterprise. But over time, it suffers many of the same problems that historically made portals unusable and ineffective, including congested designs, poorly planned growth, and inability to accommodate changes in structure and use.

This case study demonstrates a simple design framework of standardized information architecture building blocks that is directly applicable to portals and the DIY model for creating user experiences, in two ways. First, the building blocks framework can help maintain findability, usability and user experience quality in portal and DIY settings by effectively guiding growth and change. Second, it is an example of the changing role of IA in the DIY world, where we now define the frameworks and templates other people choose from when creating their own tools and user experiences.

Using many screenshots and design documents, the case study will follow changes in the audiences, structures, and contents of a suite of enterprise portals constructed for users in different countries, operating units, and managerial levels of a major global corporation. Participants will see how the building blocks provided an effective framework for the design, expansion, and integration of nearly a dozen distinct portals assembled from a common library of functionality and content.

This case study will also explore the building blocks as an example of the design frameworks IA’s will create in the DIY future. We will discuss the goals and design principles that inspired the building blocks system, and review its evolution over time.

The conference program includes some very interesting sessions, and Adam Greenfield (of Everyware reknown) is the keynote.
Amsterdam is lovely in September, but if you need more reason to come and say hello, Picnic 08 – with a stellar lineup of speakers – is just before EuroIA.

I’ve posted slides for my recent Effective IA For Enterprise Portals presentation at the IA Summit in Miami. Portals are not a traditional space for user experience practitioners, so many thanks to the packed house that turned out, and stayed as we both started late to accommodate the crowd, and then ran long.

These slides include a substantial amount of case study and example material that I didn’t cover directly in the talk. For the repeat session on Sunday, I showed additional examples beyond those included here in the starting slides.

Stay tuned for a more detailed writeup of both published and unpublished example material – one that shows the building blocks in action at all levels of a multi-year portal effort from initial strategy through design and into governance / evolution – in part six of the Building Blocks series running in Boxes and Arrows, due out once the post-summit flurry settles down.

I’ve just started a new ‘Organizational Architecture‘ group on Slideshare, to explore links to user experience, and questions like these:

• What is organizational architecture?
• How does organizational architecture relate to user experience?
• What can user experience practitioners borrow from OA to become more effective?

Join now!

The culture, structure, and workings of an organization often pose greater challenges for User Experience practitioners than any technical or design questions at hand. If you’d like to know more about the factors behind these situations, be sure to check out We Tried To Warn You: The Organizational Architecture of Failure, by Peter Jones, just published by Boxes and Arrows.

Peter is an independent consultant with deep expertise in research, product design, and strategy. His talk for the panel on failure at the 2007 IA Summit was insightful and in-depth, and this two-part series offers quite a bit more very useful material on the roots and warning signs of organizational failure (by comparison, consider the very brief post I put up on the same subject a few years ago.)

Peter’s is the second written feature to come out of the failure panel (my missive on the parallels between entrepreneurial and societal failure was the first). I’m looking forward to part two of We Tried To Warn You, as well as additional features from the remaining two panelists, Christian Crumlish and Lorelei Brown!

Here’s a snippet, to whet your appetite:

How do we even know when an organization fails? What are the differences between a major product failure (involving function or adoption) and a business failure that threatens the organization? An organizational-level failure is a recognizable event, one which typically follows a series of antecedent events or decisions that led to the large-scale breakdown. My working definition: When significant initiatives critical to business strategy fail to meet their highest-priority stated goals.”

Common models for participation in social and contributory media invariably set ‘content creators’ – the group of people who provide original material – at the top of an implied or explicit scale of comparative value. Bradley Horowitz’s Content Production Pyramid is one example, Forrester’s Social Technographics Ladder is another. In these models, value – usually to potential marketers or advertisers external to the domain in question – is usually measured in terms of the level of involvement of the different groups present, whether consumers, synthesizers, or creators.

By the numbers, these models are accurate: the vast majority of the content in social media comes from a small slice of the population. And for businesses, content creators offer greater potential to commercialize / monetize / trade influence.

It’s time to evolve these models a bit, to better align them with the sweeping DIY cultural and technological shift happening offline in the real world, as well as online.

The DIY shift manifests in many ways:

• Web 2.0 culture of contribution, self-publishing
• Commoditized / outsourced / on-demand design, development & manufacturing
• Shadow IT
• Open Source & public data sets
• APIs, Web Services, SOA (public and private)
• Mashup infrastructure: Yahoo Pipes, Google Gadgets
• Physical goods: fabbers, and fab-labs ReadyMade, Make

The essential feature of the DIY shift is co-creation: the presence of many more people in *all aspects* of creation and production, whether of software, goods, ideas, etc. Co-creation encompasses more than straightforward on-line content creation – such as sharing a photo, or writing a blog post – acknowledged by the architecture of participation, user-generated content (and ugly term…), crowd-sourcing, and collective and contributory media models.

Co-creation includes active shaping of structure, pattern, rules, and mechanisms, that support simple content creation. This requires activity and involvement from roles we often label editor, builder, designer, or architect, depending on the context. The pyramid and ladder models either implicitly collapse these perspectives into the general category of ‘creator’, which obscures very important distinctions between them, or leaves them out entirely (I’m not sure which). It is possible to plot these more nuanced creative roles on the general continuum of ‘level of involvement’, and I often do this when I talk about the future of design in the DIY world.

A better model for this world is the ecology of co-creation, which recognizes that the key difference between industrial production models and the DIY future is that the walls separating traditional creators from consumers have fallen, and all parties interconnect. Judgements of value in ecologies take on very different meanings: Consider the differing but all vitally important roles of producers, consumers, and decomposers in a living ecosystem.

What will an ecology of co-creation look like in practical / operational form? In The Bottom Is Not Enough, Kevin Kelly offers, “…now that crowd-sourcing and social webs are all the rage, it’s worth repeating: the bottom is not enough. You need a bit of top-down as well.”

An ecology of co-creation that combines top-down architecture and design with bottom-up contribution and participation will take the form of a deliberate hybrid.

I’ll quote Kelly again (at some length):

Here’s how I sum it up:  The bottom-up hive mind will always take us much further than even seems possible. It keeps surprising us in this regard. Given enough time, dumb things can be smarter than we think.

At that same time, the bottom-up hive mind will never take us to our end goal. We are too impatient. So we add design and top down control to get where we want to go.

The systems we keep will be hybrid creations. They will have a strong rootstock of peer-to-peer generation, grafted below highly refined strains of controlling functions.  Sturdy, robust foundations of user-made content and crowd-sourced innovation will feed very small slivers of leadership agility. Pure plays of 100% smart mobs or 100% smart elites will be rare.

The real art of business and organizations in the network economy will not be in harnessing the crowd of “everybody” (simple!) but in finding the appropriate hybrid mix of bottom and top for each niche, at the right time. The mix of control/no-control will shift as a system grows and matures.

[Side note: Metaphors for achieving the appropriate mix of control/no-control for a system will likely include choreographing, cultivating, tuning, conducting, and shepherding, in contrast to our current directive framings such as driving, directing, or managing.]

Knowledge at Wharton echoes Kelly, in their recent article The Experts vs. the Amateurs: A Tug of War over the Future of Media
A tug of war over the future of media may be brewing between so-called user-generated content — including amateurs who produce blogs, video and audio for public consumption — and professional journalists, movie makers and record labels, along with the deep-pocketed companies that back them. The likely outcome: a hybrid approach built around entirely new business models, say experts at Wharton.

No one has quite figured out what these new business models will look like, though experimentation is under way with many new ventures from startups and existing organizations.

The BBC is putting hybridization and tuning into effect now, albeit in limited ways that do not reflect a dramatic shift of business model.

In Value of citizen journalism Peter Horrocks writes:

Where the BBC is hosting debate we will want the information generated to be editorially valuable. Simply having sufficient resource to be able to moderate the volume of debate we now receive is an issue in itself.

And the fact that we are having to apply significant resource to a facility that is contributed regularly by only a small percentage of our audiences is something we have to bear in mind. Although of course a higher proportion read forums or benefit indirectly from how it feeds into our journalism. So we may have to loosen our grip and be less worried about the range of views expressed, with very clear labeling about the BBC’s editorial non-endorsement of such content. But there are obvious risks.

We need to be able to extract real editorial value from such contributions more easily. We are exploring as many technological solutions as we can for filtering the content, looking for intelligent software that can help journalists find the nuggets and ways in which the audience itself can help us to cope with the volume and sift it.

What does all this mean for design(ers)? Stay tuned for part two…