[Sigia-l] Information Architecture 3.0

[Olly Wright]

Having made light of the issue, I must say I agree with Peter  
unreservedly that the interaction design / IA overlap is cause for  
real concern. Here is a case in point:

I was recently brought into a large, complex multi-vendor project to  
give 'strategic' guidance, under the monkier of strategic information  
architect. The company responsible for most of the deliveries had  
interaction designers assigned. I assigned someone from my team also,  
an information architect, since the manpower was needed. We defined a  
set of start-up project tasks and started rolling.

Not long after, confusion emerged as it became clear that  
misunderstandings based on the role definitions of interaction  
designers and and information architects had led to confusion about  
who was going to be delivering what. The result: having to re-look at  
the planning and budgets. With this large project that was a  
significant hassle and a waste of both time and energy, not to  
mention the precipitant for a minor bun-fight.

In this case the role definition problem had real-world negative  
consequences. This alone should be reason enough to seek to create  
clear definitions, re Peters article.

And I agree with the general direction presented in the article. The  
unstated assumptions behind the confusion pointed at information  
architecture being closer to the 'big-ia' definition: strategy, a  
wider context and a more business-oriented approach. Interaction  
design on the other hand was seen as more focussed on the minutiae of  
clicks and system-responses. This does seem to be the natural split  
that most people lean towards, and so to my mind is a good starting  
point for our definitions. Also interesting however was the notion  
from the interaction designers that the IA would be handling  
'information-related tasks' which were vaguely defined as something  
to do with 'the structure of the content' and 'databases and so on'.  
Head scratching ensued.

"My point is that in the separation of role and discipline, lies an  
opportunity for information architects to explore well beyond  
information architecture"

I too see this as a great opportunity. It is the opportunity that  
makes me want to show up at the office each morning. As of late my  
interests have been towards ethical design, in areas like brand- 
authenticity and transparency, and 'business'-rules for social  
networking. This is only obliquely web-related in places, let alone  
IA-related, and the best material I have found is coming from places  
like Marshall Mcluhan, Seth Godin and Stefano Marzano, none of whom  
could ever be considered information architects. However as an IA I  
find myself in a very good position to put many of these ideas into  
practice in my work.

Whilst I respect the desire for the IA community to defend its 'home  
turf' from the upstarts and pretenders to the throne, this should not  
be a reason for us to be myopic when it comes to our influences or  
conversations with other disciplines.

At the last Euro-ia summit much was made of the possibility of a  
disconnect occurring between the 'big-ia' practitioners and the more  
'traditional little-ia' folks. Eric Reiss had a slide showing exactly  
this. The risk that by heading too far away from core-ia, many of us  
could cease to be IAs at all. This would result in a fragmentation of  
the discipline, to the detriment of us all. Whilst I understand the  
fear, my personal opinion is that this is really no risk at all,  
since it is upon the foundation of IA, its practices, approach and  
mindset, that our value as big-ias is predicated. IA is the  
foundation from which we are able to go out into the business world  
at large and speak with relevance, authority and value. Cut that out  
and we become versions of that ever-popular breed: the fluffy  
business consultant. If that ever happens, I think it will be a sign  
that I should switch to carpentry.

Olly Wright