The user wants control
Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2025 10:26 am
And here is the rub. Most platforms do not invite spontaneous and sustainable use. Despite all the research, platforms do not sufficiently connect to the reality of the user. Platforms seek the solution in the widest possible range of functions, but practice shows that this is no guarantee for mass adoption. Moreover, platforms succumb to this excess of complexity.
The result is that the platforms are underused for simple actions such as information requests, profile management and updates within projects. Co-creation, organization-wide knowledge sharing and collaboration outside of the own team are seen much less.
Cartoon information
Causes
So where does it go wrong? Platforms are now designed from the following 4 basic assumptions:
The user is an individual
The user wants control
The user acts and thinks rationally
Use of the platform is a given
The user is an individual
The user is approached in IT as a cell, a flexible workstation that must function optimally and autonomously through control and overview of data and project flows. The whole point of social, however, is that the user must be seen primarily as a social being, as part of a broader entity than just his person or his team.
We have a strong tendency to see ourselves as autonomous thinking individuals. The literature shows that this independence is fiction. In reality, social norms and beliefs have a dominant impact on our behavior, as confirmed by leading academics such as Yochai Benkler and Richard Sennett . Our individual behavior is much more strongly rooted in social connections than we often assume.
Ask a user and they want something like Facebook but different and with social bookmarks thailand telegram like WordPress, plus the functionalities of Twitter. Familiar functionality mainly creates peace and a sense of control. The challenge lies in breaking through the comfort zone, so that employees contribute outside their team and knowledge is spread throughout the organisation. In other words, the user must become 'more social' and therefore not be placed in a closed cockpit. An element of disruption is inevitable if an organisation wants to exploit the social capital among its employees. Asking the user what the ideal form of interaction is for his own future behaviour is therefore, on closer inspection, an idiotic exercise. The employees will have to learn the new behaviour through external impulses. Adoption is not a matter of temporary habituation, but of learning to work together within informal networks, which are characterised by vague reciprocity and conditional trust. The user therefore benefits more from:
Steering in terms of interaction with weak links
Inspirational instead of functional content
Example behavior from your own circle instead of change professionals who tell you how beautiful change is
Dialogue nurseries: visual, playful and safe environments where one can practice in a small group and take the first steps in openness and knowledge sharing
The user acts and thinks rationally
Everyone likes to see themselves as a well-thinking, rational being who weighs arguments and information before making a decision. We therefore see the importance of access to the right, rich information. We also want to be able to discuss and evaluate the arguments extensively, and then funnel them towards a commonly supported outcome. The point is, however, that we do not act like that at all. Dialogue analysis teaches us that positions are often already taken and that the conversation often has a ritual character, with an exchange of positions and support instead of arguments. In other words: we 'read' the dialogue, but we do not read the words. This argues for a different, more visual form of dialogue that enables us to take a position more quickly. Think for example of argument maps , mind maps and visual networks.
The result is that the platforms are underused for simple actions such as information requests, profile management and updates within projects. Co-creation, organization-wide knowledge sharing and collaboration outside of the own team are seen much less.
Cartoon information
Causes
So where does it go wrong? Platforms are now designed from the following 4 basic assumptions:
The user is an individual
The user wants control
The user acts and thinks rationally
Use of the platform is a given
The user is an individual
The user is approached in IT as a cell, a flexible workstation that must function optimally and autonomously through control and overview of data and project flows. The whole point of social, however, is that the user must be seen primarily as a social being, as part of a broader entity than just his person or his team.
We have a strong tendency to see ourselves as autonomous thinking individuals. The literature shows that this independence is fiction. In reality, social norms and beliefs have a dominant impact on our behavior, as confirmed by leading academics such as Yochai Benkler and Richard Sennett . Our individual behavior is much more strongly rooted in social connections than we often assume.
Ask a user and they want something like Facebook but different and with social bookmarks thailand telegram like WordPress, plus the functionalities of Twitter. Familiar functionality mainly creates peace and a sense of control. The challenge lies in breaking through the comfort zone, so that employees contribute outside their team and knowledge is spread throughout the organisation. In other words, the user must become 'more social' and therefore not be placed in a closed cockpit. An element of disruption is inevitable if an organisation wants to exploit the social capital among its employees. Asking the user what the ideal form of interaction is for his own future behaviour is therefore, on closer inspection, an idiotic exercise. The employees will have to learn the new behaviour through external impulses. Adoption is not a matter of temporary habituation, but of learning to work together within informal networks, which are characterised by vague reciprocity and conditional trust. The user therefore benefits more from:
Steering in terms of interaction with weak links
Inspirational instead of functional content
Example behavior from your own circle instead of change professionals who tell you how beautiful change is
Dialogue nurseries: visual, playful and safe environments where one can practice in a small group and take the first steps in openness and knowledge sharing
The user acts and thinks rationally
Everyone likes to see themselves as a well-thinking, rational being who weighs arguments and information before making a decision. We therefore see the importance of access to the right, rich information. We also want to be able to discuss and evaluate the arguments extensively, and then funnel them towards a commonly supported outcome. The point is, however, that we do not act like that at all. Dialogue analysis teaches us that positions are often already taken and that the conversation often has a ritual character, with an exchange of positions and support instead of arguments. In other words: we 'read' the dialogue, but we do not read the words. This argues for a different, more visual form of dialogue that enables us to take a position more quickly. Think for example of argument maps , mind maps and visual networks.