I'm thinking about web teams, and similarities between developing virtual environments (e.g., information architecture, design, and web production) and physical environments (e.g., architecture, design, and construction). Both involve designing and constructing interactive environments for user experience, service delivery, community building, access to products & information, you name it.

Humans have lots of experience with teams for designing and building physical environments. With very few exceptions (tents, small igloos, temporary huts, etc.), erecting a structure has always been a group activity. Working alone, no single individual could raise an Amish barn, an Egyptian pyramid, or a Manhattan high-rise. In a well-run modern building project, the design and engineering professions and construction trades know their roles, and acknowledge and respect the specialized expertise of others. Professional certifications and credentials are mandatory for participation. Building permits must be obtained before work begins. The total effort is coordinated by a designated project manager who represents the owner.

What about virtual environments? Although not publications per se, they are built with the same graphical, textual, and media tools used in publishing. Virtual environments are relatively new so we don't have centuries of accumulated experience and tradition to draw from. Professional roles are still evolving, and the barriers to entry are low. No degrees, licenses, apprenticeships, or qualifying exams are required. Web space and software is ludicrously cheap in comparison to land and building materials. The software tools are cheap and easy to use. Projects don't need city permits.

What happens when we use a publication-based model of individual authorship in the web environment, rather than an architecturally-based group process? Consider an entire building designed and constructed only by the interior decorator -- the surfaces would be alluring, but would the load-bearing structures, HVAC and electrical systems, and loading docks function as needed? The web equivalent might be a visually attractive but slow-loading graphics-heavy site that can't be navigated by people with disabilities. Conversely, a building designed and constructed solely by the custodian wouldn't contain any surfaces that couldn't be hosed down. The web equivalent might be a text-only list of links -- lots of information, easy to maintain and quick to load, but with no aesthetic appeal or capacity to communicate a powerful institutional message.

I know this isn't a perfect analogy but have found it helpful when talking to senior administrators about the need for broad-based involvement in planning & design, and especially the importance of their personal involvement in strategic uses of the web.