It goes without saying that I’m excited to see how Kluster fares in this space. Others have come before it — Innocentive, Cambrian House, CrowdSpirit, IdeaBlog — but none of these have impressed me as much. Kluster reads like a potent combination of community technologies for online collaboration — prediction markets, community currency, user-generated content, social filtering — and applies it to an area very close to my heart: design. It’s great to see someone create what looks like a solid platform that targets and incentivizes a co-creative community.

However, I have my doubts.

As a student and practitioner of “West coast-style” human-centered design thinking, (as pioneered in the Stanford design community and practiced by pros at IDEO and countless other firms), I’m going to be watching Kluster to see if the wisdom of the crowds can adequately substitute for deep, insightful human-centered design.

The problem is, the Web is still talk-centered, despite rich multi-media support. And Kluster is no exception, where the engines of creation are more or less Digg-style social filtering of idea proposals and comments. What rises to the top is still what sounds good or looks good, not what is grounded in real, meaningful user need.

Kluster’s participatory design is essentially algorithmic brainstorming. That’s only half the battle, and, in the end, can only lead to half-assed products. Good design starts with ethnographic research methods — needfinding, as designers say — which take time and effort (away from computer screen) talking to real human beings in order to understand their worldviews, their culturally-specific meanings, their unmet needs.

Good design also depends on prototyping — putting physical (or software) mock-ups and models in front of actual users get their feedback, then incorporate that feedback into new design iterations.

In other words, good design doesn’t happen in one fell swoop.

Social filtering model is one-dimensional. Stories, comments, pictures, videos, links, etc. bubble up from ground zero to mass visibility. There’s no room for the chaotic ebb and flow of real design process, where ideas that rise up because they seem good at first — sure-fire winners, even — come crashing down after a reality-check…to rise again, crash, and rise again, re-centered on user need. I believe that real, nuts n’ bolts, collaborative design will not be successfully crowdsourced until these elements are included fundamentally in the prescribed process.

Thomas Maiorana, an accomplished human-centered designer and crowdsourcing maven blogs about how to combine the best of both worlds in his Six Steps to Effective Crowdsourcing. Highly recommended.

Let me be clear: I am a huge believer in the potential for democratized design, and I see Kluster as a wonderful first prototype. But there’s a real danger that lies dormant in this field, especially when combined with the democratization of material manufacturing. When products are designed and manufactured merely on the basis of sounding cool — we’ll end up with even more mountains of landfill than we have already, because no one actually needed the stuff in the first place. Human-centered design — which requires needfinding, prototyping, iteration — is more than a smart design process, it embodies an ethics of sustainable design.

Members of ThePeople.net agree to give 15 minutes of their time each week to do whatever ThePeople.net as a whole decides to do that week. So, for example, if the community decides that this week everyone will give $5 to a homeless person, that’s what you do. If the community decides that this week on wednesday at 12 noon everyone will stop what they are doing, stand up and announce “ThePeople.net” and then continue what they were doing as if nothing happened, then that’s what you do. It’s a new kind of social contract.

Now how does the community decide what the members of ThePeople.net will do each week? For this to be truly emergent democracy, we don’t want anyone to have control, we want the decision-making process to be truly bottom-up. So here’s what I propose: Any member can suggest an action to the community. The community members then vote on the actions that are most interesting.

I have my own opinions on how decision-making could improve on simple voting in this system, but I am absolutely enamored with the overall bottom-up idea. I really like the possibility of playful or humorous flashmob-type acts in addition to the usual do-gooding. But it makes me think that just one site is not enough. The greatest participation would come with those collective actions that most closely fit the values and desires of the community. I would rather see this system as a general purpose tool utilized by all sorts of communities for co-creating, choosing and enacting their collective will: church groups, war-protesters, elementary school classrooms, corporations, communes, et al. Just as a Wiki is a general-purpose tool for coauthoring documents, I’m talking about a tool for coauthoring collective action.

The wonderful thing I always bring up in regard to this hypothetical system is its inherent capacity for self-reflection and autocatalysis. Assume you have such a system. The team of people involved in building it plus anyone else interested in its development can use the system itself to generate ideas on how to improve it. Open source thought. In other words, use version 1.0 to design version 1.1. You have yourself a snowball.

Lacking nothing better at the moment, all I can do is make my own little snow-pebble and pitch it down the slope: let’s build this thing.