18 feb 2000 

Cyberspace as a Tectonic System ­ Implications for Design

Informatik
Umeå Universitet
erik@informatik.umu.se

Back to
Publications

Abstract for the DIAC-00 conference ³Shaping the Network Society --The Future of the Public Sphere in Cyberspace²

In this paper cyberspace is described as an example of a tectonic system. The purpose of the paper is to argue that design of tectonic systems is a special case of design where specific design principles are needed. The conclusion is that if we want to design a public sphere in cyberspace we have to recognize the characteristics of cyberspace as a tectonic system.

Cyberspace as a tectonic design

Many designs can be described as systems; they consist of many parts interacting in a way that presents itself as a whole. We usually define a system by addressing its different aspects, such as structure, function, aesthetics and ethics.

If we find that these aspects are implemented in an intentional way in the system it might give the system a sense of wholeness, a sense of being designed as a whole. This whole can, if it is well worked out, serve as a way for users to get an overall understanding of the system where all details seem to relate through-out the system and where each detail seems to have a relation to the whole. The system can be under-stood as a unit. We could label a system like this as architectonic.

To work in an architectonic way can be understood as a pro-cess where the relation between details and the whole is all the time dealt with, where every detail is as important as the whole. This can very easily lead to a complexity crisis, which emphasizes the importance of organizing principles guiding the design work.

A system can, of course, be designed without an organizing principle, or only with locally (or regionally) organizing principles. We can label such a system as tectonic. A tectonic approach is possible when we have a system that allows new parts, new functionalities to be added without necessarily changing the basic structure and dynamics of the system. With this technology we do not have to be architectonic, i.e. we do not have to design the whole first. A tectonic system can work without a ²super² designer, since the technology allows continuous adding and linking of new parts to the overall system.

Information technology is the perfect technology to create tectonic systems. Tectonic systems are usually more difficult to predict and understand than architectonic systems, since the latter often has a clearly defined purpose and goal that is well known and usually built into the structure of the system itself. A tectonic system does not have an overall agreed upon purpose or goal; the system can evolve in many directions at the same time. Cyberspace is a good example of a tectonic system.

Intended functionality and unintended use

Designed systems that show signs of being tectonic seem to invite unexpected use. When people are in relation with a tectonic system they have a much more open approach to how the system can be used, than when interacting with an architectonic systems. It is not only a question of use, since use often results in new designs.

We know how inventive people have been when it comes to cyberspace. There is of course a basic technological system with limitations and a basic functionality. But it is an open system with a very strong tectonic character. This tectonic character lends people to be creative and to find ways to continuously re-design and add new designs to the system. It becomes very difficult to predict the way people make cyberspace usable. This way of interacting with a technology can be labeled bricolage. Bricolage is when users do not take the system for granted. A bricoleur is a person who tinkers with the technology, and by combining and adding functions and parts, and by exploring the possibilities hidden in the technology, makes new use possible.

In a study on identity and deception in virtual communities Donath shows the very delicate relation between behavior and technology (Donath, 1997). Donath describes how the designed functionality of transferring and communicating identity on Internet breaks down when people finds ways to "fool" the system and to take advantage of possible but not intended capacities of the basic technological structure. What the study shows is that the space of possible actions is much larger than expected and that people are very good at finding new ways to act, i.e. to find new possible actions in that space.

One interpretation of this study can be that people are good at finding new ways to overcome the limitations of the technology. They invent new ways of making use of the present structure and functionality. But this is a too narrow interpretation. It is based on the assumption that technology should be judged by its intended functionality. Technology must instead be judged based on an understanding of the total space of possible actions is creates. Technology is polypotent and can not be judged based on how this potency is brought to existence in one specific context.

The study shows how difficult it is to clearly distinguish between use and design. This is definitely the case with tectonic systems. An architectonic system has a clearly defined purpose, stable functionality and is usually a closed system. The idea is not to let users be part of an ongoing design process, since that always opens up for unanticipated use, maybe even to use that threatens the stability and security of the system. A tectonic system is, as a result of its fundamental structure, less threatened by ³bad² or unintended use. Instead it usually invites to new creative use and to constant re-design.

Some basic principles of tectonic design

Based on the idea of cyberspace as a tectonic system the paper continues by presenting some design principles adequate for design of tectonic systems. If we assume that tectonic systems are always under ³attack² of the users creativity and if we want to design sustainable systems, we have to build these systems based on some other design principles than what are common in architectonic design. Since architectonic design has been the model for almost all systems design it is very difficult to escape the basic principles guiding that type of design. The principles adequate for design of tectonic systems presented and discussed are based on the concepts of tectonic systems, polypotent functionality, and bricolage.

Implications for the shaping of a public cyberspace

The paper ends with a discussion on how these principles have implications for the shaping of a public cyberspace. It has relevance for some of the ideas today popular in the debate of how to create a public cyberspace. For instance it challenges the ideas of ³best practice², participatory design, userfriendliness, etc.

The overall conclusion is optimistic and states that it is possible to design for active use by active users and for an evolutionary and ongoing development. The challenge today is to find and develop the design principles that leads to tectonic systems that can become the basic foundation for an active public sphere of cyberspace.