A nice little argument is going on at the new Interactive Media for Higher Education blog. Bystanders of passionate arguments can gain poinyant, albeit entertaining insights, and this argument is no exception.
Seth Meranda, who is behind the blog, is the Assistant Director for Interactive Media at The University of Nebraska-Lincoln Office of Admissions.
He references a Seth Grodin post that outlines ten principles to follow in order to create a great website and takes issue with Seth’s blanket statement that web design by committee is always a bad thing.
Grodin’s first principle was:
1. Fire the committee. No great website in history has been conceived of by more than three people. Not one. This is a dealbreaker.
Meranda disagrees, and says:
Any website supporting the open source philosophy goes against this thought. If two heads are better than one, what about 200?
This was the philosophy behind the University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s latest web redesign. A network of qualified designers and developers created the new site, and they continue to enhance on a daily basis. There are over 200 members of this “committee” and and the website has garnered national attention.
…Embrace the committee; the more qualified designers and developers working toward a common goal, the better. Find your developers on campus, get them in a room together and outline your vision. Those who want to be part of your goal should be tapped to help with a redesign. Empower them; you will find this non-paid committee will produce a far better outcome than a hired designer (especially at the price).
Continue to the comments section of the post though, and that’s where the fun starts. I think the critical point here is the blanket statement that all websites build by committee are bad. I think the anti-committee approach from the 10-principles post is speaking more to committees made up of individuals clueless about the web in general, ..all of them wielding influence over the design of a website. On the other hand, Meranda is pro-committee, but notice that his idea of a committee is one made up of “qualified designers and developers.”
I’ll interject my opinion now. Because I’ve seen this scenario play out, for better and for worse.
I think committees and meetings have the unique ability of neutering almost any creative endeavor. The situation at the university where I work, in terms of results-driven design freedom and accountability, is awesome, but in the past, with previous employers I’ve worked on great projects that in the end, were ruined by committee, ..by one form or fashion of groupthink.
It’s a democratic design process wherein everybody has a say, and everybody feels an obligation to leave their mark, change something, alter the headline, enlarge the logo, ..this obligation stemming most often from a pure desire to justify being asked in the first place, to justify a seat at the table. Because we all know that management is on the lookout for leadership qualities, and decision makers with leadership skills, you know, they get the payraise, and the promotion, and the Dodge Stratus. So go forth and edit. Go forth and leave your mark on the project.
If you’re lucky, your work might emerge from such a committee and still retain a measure of spark, but odds are, the finished piece will be all things safe, predictable, and without soul.
“More ant interaction equals more sophisticated behavior. It’s similar to flocking behavior, of course, where birds follow very simple rules but complex behavior emerges.
And that’s all great and intuitive… until you get to humans. Humans, he said, demonstrate the opposite principle: more interactions equals dumber behavior. When we come together and interact as a group seeking consensus, we lose sophistication and intelligence. Ants get smarter while we get dumber.”
There is no absolute truth here. The statement that “all websites built by committee are bad”, is open ended. What is meant by “built”? Are we talking about design? Is it content priority? Is it navigation? Content? And what is meant by “committee”? Just a steering group who approve or disapprove a final product? Or a group of polished web developers? Or a meddling group of nitpicking suits who prefer consensus over quality?
To contradict almost everything I’ve said, now for another read that promotes group web projects because they leave behind a sense of ownership by all involved. The benefits being obvious:
4. Use participative design to foster “ownership”
There are many forms of communication and not all will avoid the resistance to change. If communication is one-way – from the people imposing change down to the users – resistance is virtually guaranteed. And it’s no good faking two-way communication with a couple of open question and answer sessions and a suggestion box. What you want is real involvement throughout the process by the people who will be affected by the change.
…The more participation there is by the user community, the more that community feels some control over the change.
This is a basic principle of participative design. When the people affected by a change feel ownership of the change because they were part of its design and development, they will more readily support the behavioral changes necessary to make the system a success.
Associated with this sense of ownership is the value of a shared vision. If the body of people who will be affected by a change understand the intended future state and are convinced of its benefits, then the energy and excitement within the group can drive the transition forward. This is even more so, of course, if the users created the vision in the first place.”
Those are very good points. The only concern that comes to mind is: Ok, everybody was involved and had a hand in this “project”, and we all feel ownership and pride in it, but maybe it still sucks. The ultimate judge will be whether or not the finished project meets it’s goal(s). Do those goals hinge on the satisfaction of users of the website, or the consensus and pacification of the committee who built it?
My final thoughts are: there is no golden guideline. Each situation and each web project is unique. Some endeavors benefit with direction and collaboration from a collective. Some don’t. Sometimes smart people will make stupid decisions as a group. Other times not.
It comes down to group chemistry. And judging from my high school transcript, chemistry is complicated stuff.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Great post!
It think the emphasis needs to be made on the blanket statement, and you did that much better than I. Each situation is different; however after working with the committee I can’t imagine taking on such a project in a University setting alone again. But the distinction is that I worked with “qualified professionals.” It isn’t a group of dreamers; it’s a group of developers that know the latest technologies, design principles, trends and outcomes. If you can create this committee you will be in a better place.
November 28th, 2007 at 6:35 am
Very well argued.
Design by committee in Higher Ed can work, provided everyone knows their role on that committee. Two scenarios lifted from the real world.
I am lucky to work at a large College in a Big 10 school. Within the College, we are fortunate enough to have a centralized IT group. Everyone knows their role in the bigger picture of the mission of the College. When design decisions are being made I know that our Multimedia section knows what is best visually, and that my job is to evaluate how well that vision will mesh with usability, standards, and SEO. Egos, while still a factor, are much less of an issue due to this strict linearization of roles and responsibilities in the design process. Visual creativity is not sacrificed nor is technical creativity – indeed quite the opposite as we are able to feed off each others ideas and take different approaches than we would have if left on our own. This illustrates Meranda’s committee of “qualified professionals” theory.
A counter-point was recently adopted by another College at our University. When my peer announced that their Marketing Department had decided upon design by committee – a commitee that was not only going to consist of the IT and Marketing groups but also of faculty and staff. Now it should be said that this is an IT-oriented College, so the faculty as a whole is more web design savy than say Liberal Arts. There were no clear roles and responsibilities laid out for the individual committee members. Knowledgeable committee members is a mixed blessing, they understand the web but they also each bring their own agendas and ideology to the table and without a clear understanding of what each member is supposed to bring to that table the project flounders. It has been close to a year and NO progress has been made. This illustrates the “web design by committee is bad” theory.
I will go on to say that I personally am in agreement to the blanket statement that design by committee is bad when you apply it to the visual design aspect. One man’s Van Gosh is another’s refrigerator art. To attempt the visual/graphical design within a committee will totally squash creativity and leave you with a bland final product.
Thoughts?
October 17th, 2008 at 9:46 am
[...] Web Development by Committee? [...]