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

[Nuno Lopes]

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