[Sigia-l] AIfIA Goals 2004 Survey Results

[david_fiorito at vanguard.com]

>My problem is with standards above that at the tool/process level 
>where some people presume to tell others what to do/how to work. 
>At the latter level, the only standard I would advocate is the 
>teaching of critical thinking.

In a 10,000 employee corporation where a dozen or so IAs work with dozens 
of UI designers there is a need for standards at the tool and process 
level.  A single designer may interact with every IA at some point and if 
each of those IAs deliver different diagrams and documentation of varying 
levels of detail and wildly different composition and format then time 
will be wasted with translation and rework.  The process will bog down and 
become inefficient.  Never having worked in such an environment I can 
understand that you do not see the need.  It is easy on small intimate 
teams to allow idiosyncratic behaviors, process, and deliverables but this 
breaks down when the enterprise scales upwards.

>> I have met many wildly creative individuals who work for companies 
>> that have an incredibly rigid bureaucracy.

>I'm sure there are the inevitable anecdotal exceptions, but I find it
>extremely hard to believe creative professionals would subject themselves 
to
>incredibly rigid bureaucracies. Why would they do that?

Just because you cannot see yourself doing it does not mean that others 
would not.  Perhaps it is life circumstances?  Perhaps it is the challenge 
of trying to make change in a large enterprise?  Perhaps stability is 
important?  Who knows why?  The fact of the matter is that you are making 
a judgement based on your own preferences.

>You are not telling me that large companies (that almost universally have
>internal policies, best practices, standards, etc in place) are immune to
>breakdowns, cost overruns, and inefficiency, are you?

Of course not.  It happens, but it happens with greater regularity where 
no standards are present.

>Exactly. It is idiotic in the extreme to insist that a resume be 
submitted
>in MS Word format when anyone can consume it as ascii text. 

You assume that the HR rep is computer literate.  You assume that they 
posses a comfort level with a PC that is the same as your own.  Guess what 
- they don't.  To someone uncomfortable with computers a new or unknown 
file type can be quite disturbing.

>It's coercive toinsist a sitemap or a wireframe be submitted as a Visio 
file when PDF can be
>universally consumed. 

Yes, but when that IA moves on and the next IA comes in and needs to work 
on your file and its a PDF or OmniGraffle and all they have is Visio you 
have created an inefficiency in the system and forced her to take the time 
to recreate your work.

>It's coercive to demand that a public web app be coded
>in VB or .NET. Just because some pinhead decided that ought to be a
>'standard.'

Perhaps that "pinhead" made a sweet deal with Microsoft that is saving the 
company millions of dollars.  Or maybe the internal training has been set 
up to teach .NET?  There could be some very legitimate business reasons 
for a decision like that.  Just because you do not see the wisdom does not 
mean it is not there.

>> Guidance does not assume ineptitude.

>Yes it does. Those who can think for themselves don't need to be guided 
by
>others.

So those who can think for themselves are born with all of the wisdom and 
knowledge they will ever need?  They do not need teachers and mentors? The 
rules do not apply to them because of their innate superiority?  Puh-leez.

>> Does the guidance the law provides turn lawyers into unthinking sheep?

>Laws, in general, don't provide guidance, they *tell* you, often in no
>uncertain terms, what is to be done.

Go talk to a lawyer some time about that.  I am married to one and she 
showed me that the law is more of a guide than a code. 

>What you are missing here is the fact
>that we don't have *mandatory/coercive* rules/standards that tell lawyers
>how to conduct their own cases. That would be the analogy here. 

You don't really mean that do you?  Do you not understand that the 
courtroom has rigid standards?  That legal deliverables have rigid 
standards?  The conduct of the practice of law is highly regulated by 
standards.

>Same law
>(format-level standard), different tactics (process-level standard). If 
you
>can't distinguish the difference here, I have nothing more to add to the
>discussion.

I can distinguish the difference but I disagree with your evaluation.  I 
see a need for process standards and standard deliverables (both form and 
format) within an enterprise to increase efficiency and decrease the need 
for retranslation and rework.

Cheers,

Dave