IA Standards (was RE: [Sigia-l] AIfIA Goals 2004 Survey Results)

[Donna M. Fritzsche]

At 10:43 AM -0500 12/19/03, David Heller wrote:
>Donna, great point re: standards and how we should be talking more tangibly
>about standards in IA vs. standards in general. Just got sidetracked by what
>seemed to be a discussion about the value of standards in general.
>
>So now what? Are we to say that b/c we can't agree on the end-goal we can't
>agree on how to get there? Are there standards for how to get there? I.e.
>didn't Einstein use scientific methods to prove relativity? Relativity was
>an unknown possibility, but there were standards for how to get there.

Im not sure that I would call the scientific method a standard.  I 
think I would call it a well-accepted methodology. (Semantics, maybe).

>  Yes,
>I know he dreamed it but his dreams alone were not enough and he had to use
>scientific methods in order to turn his dreams into an axiom for all time.
>
>Can't we be looking for our methods?

Of course, I agree, but that is very different than standards (to 
me).  Engineers have a variety of methodologies that they apply 
depending on the situation they are in.  Very large companies may 
standardize the methodologies to be very scripted formats.  This may 
serve the needs of those large companies - and that is fine, but in 
the past 20 years, we have also learned that very large companies are 
generally not  great innovators - they cannot move fluidly enough.

I am all for establishing  and refining methodologies(plural) that we 
can build on and draw from.  Its the standardizing part that I dont 
think is realistic.  (Look at architecture, graphic design, 
engineering, etc.)  They learn principles, critical thinking, problem 
solving and methodologies. (At lease when I was in engineering 
school.)  Their training is all about applying critical thinking to 
the problem at hand and pulling from a toolset of techniques and 
methodologies.  And, then creating new ones, when the tools at hand 
are not adequate.


>I realize there is much debate here,
>but if we did have methods that were standardized than this might actually
>help others looking in from the outside be able to accept us as something
>other than magicians. So getting back to the survey results, I think someone
>said it is a chicken and egg sorta thing, eh?

Are there other way to be accepted in the business world?
Creating standards for the purpose of being accepted in the business 
world seems like the wrong reason to use standards.  There are other 
options - education, pr, etc.

Good dialogue, got to get back to work -hopefully I can catch up 
later in the day.

Thanks
Donna