[Sigia-l] Information Architecture 3.0

[Olly Wright]

On TuesdayDec 5, at 1:26 PM, Peter Boersma wrote:

> Don't you think that IxDs have a similar foundation, set of practices,
> approach and mindset?
> Don't you think there are Big IxDs?

To be honest, I personally use IxD and IA pretty much  
interchangeably. The description I gave is more how I've seen clients  
react to the titles, who appear to link IA more to strategy and IxD  
more to detail. In (my) reality I see around a 95% skill overlap and  
95% role / task overlap. So yes there are big IxDs. But from a naming  
point of view we should very much consider our clients, since they  
are perhaps the main end-users of our naming schemes. This even came  
up in our team meeting today, where we raised the idea of internal  
names and external names (the idea was quickly squashed I should add).

Really I see pretty much any role can be "big" or "small" in this  
way. As you seem to be saying too. It's really about the approach and  
skills of the individual.

On TuesdayDec 5, at 1:26 PM, Peter Boersma wrote:
> And I still think it is wrong for IAs to claim that their  
> profession makes
> the more suitable to grow into an overarching role, and they are  
> the ones to
> "speak with relevance, authority and value".


Hmmm. What I mean is that much of the relevance, authority and value  
of a "big ias" opinions come from the foundation of "little ia" on  
which their experience is built. Referring to the suggested possible  
disconnect (in the euroIA summit), I don't see a big risk of that  
disconnect occurring because I think it is that connection that makes  
"big ia" possible.

Olly Wright