The Architecture of Participation: What Do You Think? Where Does Participation Fit?

I’m re-reading a great book, The World is Flat, by Thomas Friedman. The book, now in it’s third release in so many years, explores how the Internet, the World Wide Web, XML, and related technologies have made the world a much smaller place...a place in which knowledge workers from around the globe work together, collaborating on projects by using technology to overcome time zone, distance, language, and cultural differences, changing the way businesses on the planet Earth operate—forever.

[Note: If you have not read this book yet, you really need to. It’s one of the most important works I’ve ever read and will help you better understand where we’re heading and what obstacles we’re going to have to overcome along the way. I can’t recommend this book enough. If I were a department manager or CEO, I would require all my knowledge workers to read and discuss the book. It’s that important!]

In chapter four, “Uploading: Harnessing the Power of Communities”, Friedman shares the story of New York Times reporter Seth Schiesel who wrote an article in June 2005 that included this statement: a growing number of young male sports fans (age 12-34) “would rather play a sports video game than watch the real thing on television”. Industry statistics back up this statement. Television ratings are dropping for most major sporting events televised in the US while sports video game sales are soaring. Schiesel asked a young basketball video game fan why he preferred video games over the real sporting event. “I like Kobe, O.K.? But, I like to play him because I can make him pass (the ball) to the other guys. When I see him on TV, it’s like he doesn’t know how to pass.”

Tim O’Reilly, founder and CEO of O’Reilly Media, publisher of popular computer and technology books, dubbed this phenomena the “architecture of participation”—systems that are designed for users to produce, not just consume. He suggests that software manufacturers that design their products to encourage participation will be the ones that attract the most users.

Writer Micah Sifry says participation “is indicative of the larger shift in the Internet age away from a static and passive approach to media to an active and participatory approach. It’s more fun,” Sifry says, “to be in the game than to watch the game”.

So why is it taking so long for software companies to build participatory features into their products? Why are so few content professionals able to see the need for participatory features in the information products they produce?

Sifry says he knows why. “The act of participating is like a muscle you have to use,” Sifry says, “and we are so unused to being active participants in the process that even though the tools are here now many people don’t use them.”

What do you think? Is Tim O’Reilly right? Will the products that marry traditional functionality with participation features attract more users? In an industry in which we joke that we create documents that no one wants to read, how might participatory features help us make our information products more appealing—and more useful to the humans who use them? Is there a place for social networking features in online help systems, knowledge bases, and support sites? How might we use technologies that empower our users to participate actively? What ideas do you have?

Let’s get the conversation started!

Filed under: Experience Design : Technological Innovation : User-Generated Content : Web 2.0

Comments

By Shampa on April 23, 2008 -- 1:53pm

Hi,
I liked the approach and completely agree with you.

May be we need to bring the “user” aspect
into our information products. By this I mean
more interactivity, dynamism. Let user create
their own information product from a pool of information
objects.

It is a time to reconsider
the way we and think and represent information.

I liked the idea of embedding social networking features into OLH,
knowledge base, etc. In that way an information product
can act as an “interface” for help systems and a discussion
area of a product feature……

By ScottAbel on April 23, 2008 -- 2:01pm

Shampa:

I think you are right. It’s time to reconsider the way we think about and present information. I’m certain this is happening in various industries, whether many of our readers see the possibilities yet. And, dynamic content is a primary component of this new approach.

I can’t wait until more software tools support these approaches.

Thanks for your comment.

By Shampa on April 23, 2008 -- 3:32pm

Thanks! As an Information Developer/Technical Writer/
Content Developer I think we should take a major
role in creation of such tools.
Ultimately we’ll be at the “receiving” end.
~Shampa

By Tony M on May 12, 2008 -- 9:49pm

As an avid consumer of media (TV, radio, magazines, books) and internet content, I find it difficult to switch gears and actually produce content. There’s so much to consume, that I prefer to watch/listen/read than produce.

Did you notice something about the above list? All of the media mentioned were designed for me to consume. The only participatory action I make is to buy them, turn them on, tune them in, open them. (I can discuss all of the above with my friends and colleagues, but that’s a different relationship...) The internet is uniquely designed to change that relationship.

Most of the time, I need a compelling reason to produce a document, report, or even an email (and even then)… With the internet and Web 2.0 technologies, I can now use my special skills to participate more:

As a cultivator of content…
As an editor of content…
As a dealer of content…
As a presenter of content…

Even in the internet age, we have to package content for consumption, but now we have the ability to collaboratively decide how that information is presented. As such, we will need to constantly challenge ourselves to learn what works best for which kinds of information and what makes a compelling case for each consumer of information to cross the chasm to become a participant in the knowledge exchenge.

Josh Bernoff and Charlene Li at Forrester have a good lead on the social web, and their book Groundswell (http://www.forrester.com/Groundswell/index.html) will be a great read to follow on this thread.

They may have left out a few compelling reasons to why we participate in the social web, like the fact that we are physiologically wired to change behavior when we percieve our reputations are on the line (http://www.sciencefriday.com/newsbriefs/read/171), but I’m sure we’ll be able to update that in an online version of their book - if it were ever to appear in wiki format!

Looking forward to more discussion around the participatory web.