[Sigia-l] IA system components - add to the list!

[John O'Donovan]

Nuno, the original post stated:

"The term "IA system" is meant to describe the IA-part of an interactive
system (website or intranet), and the components of an IA system therefore
are the parts of such an interactive system that an Information Architect
CAN deliver, but not necessarily has to (because maybe somebody else already
does it in that company). I separate this from what I'd call "process
deliverables", which are merely used within the process or to communicate
the results (e.g. scenarios, Content Inventories,..) "

Cheers,

jod


----- Original Message -----
From: "Nuno Lopes" <nbplopes at netcabo.pt>
To: <sigia-l at asis.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 4:32 AM
Subject: RE: [Sigia-l] IA system components - add to the list!


> In order to understand the issues involved in this debate, I've re-read
> all the posts of this thread. While doing this, it became apparent to me
> that several collateral issues from the original question appeared, as
> far as I look at them at the moment. Due to this I have a couple of
> questions to clarify my mind regarding what as been said.
>
> At some point someone used the term "IA System". Can someone clarify
> what this is?
>
> The reason I ask is due to the fact it makes no sense. This is due to
> the fact that I consider that the perception of a system is different
> from its architecture. In other words, we don't talk about a "Software
> Architecture System" because it does not have any practical meaning. I
> suspect that in IA it is the same but I would need further clarification
> from an experienced person in the field.
>
> Another issue that I've observed on this debate is the need for coherent
> (robust, blab la bla) process/method from witch deliverables can be
> identified and measured. I don't see this as an architecture issue, but
> nevertheless I understand its relevance when creating a information
> architecture, so probably it is in the realm of Information Architecture
> as a discipline.
>
> Can an expert clarify this to me?
>
> For long people tried to separate components/artifacts/parts from
> process when developing architectures. Although the development of both
> go hand in hand, one driving the other and vice versa. This line of
> thought is popular because it is recognized as bare "fabric" of
> reusability of thought and work.
>
> So maybe this is good for a young field such as IA, is it?
>
> Defining effective generic processes is always hard and costly, this is
> due to the fact that most processes are defined ad-hoc, and only when a
> significant number of samples exist, patterns can be observed, and
> clearer, more effective processes/methods can be defined. Nevertheless
> the basic notion of self improvement and utility requires observation of
> results within the scope of a problem domain and context. This is as far
> as I understand the notion of deliverables.
>
> This is not very complicated.
>
> Take a software architect. It exists with the objective of building
> better software. So the deliverable of a Software Architect is at least
> a working software solution.
>
> Now for IA it seams to be really hard to define deliverables, both
> abstract and concrete in distinct manner from other fields (addressing
> different issues). Or at least no one could in this list address this
> issue in a coherent manner since I joined two months ago.
>
> I like the phrase "Helping people finding information they need/want" as
> an abstract deliverable. The problem I have with this is the use of the
> word "help". Why not "Making people finding information they want/need"?
> This is better for me because it is easier to set concrete deliverables.
>
> Now this deliverables I suspect in case of IA (as it is in most other
> fields) vary from project to project. Please some expert clarify this to
> me.
>
> Another issue is in the realms of human competency. In other words, what
> are the competencies of an information architect?
>
> The basic thing would be at least having knowledge around the
> artifacts/components/parts (that some people don't like) commonly used
> to build an information architecture. I think this was already discussed
> in some other thread. The issue of process and unified method as well.
>
> It seams that this question is still answered in this list of so many IA
> specialists. Probably this is one thing that needs some work and effort
> from IA a community. Or I simply need to read more books, as I've said
> I'm a newbie.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Nuno Lopes
>
> ------------
> When replying, please *trim your post* as much as possible.
> *Plain text, please; NO Attachments
>
> ASIST IA 03 Summit: Making Connections
> http://www.asist-events.org/IASummit2003/
>
> Searchable list archive:   http://www.info-arch.org/lists/sigia-l/
> ________________________________________
> Sigia-l mailing list -- post to: Sigia-l at asis.org
> Changes to subscription: http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigia-l
>
>