Will IA Go MIA?

"Yes, indeed. IA as it has lived will soon die. Not because it wasn’t valuable, not because IA’s didn’t do great work, but because the Web is moving on."

So says Joshua Porter of Bokardo.com

Now before you take either side of the debate regarding the role and future of Information Architects (IA's), I would ask this question.  Does the term accurately represent what a (insert title here) does?  Or if you are an IA, do you feel it does?

The answer probably depends on the type of work you are doing and how you do it.

I began working with IA's back in 1998 when the role consisted mainly of—well, organizing information in a cohesive and usable format in the context of Website design.  Since then, the profession, practitioners and certainly the Web have all evolved considerably.  From my perspective, one of the most significant changes has been the shift from Websites to interactive experiences which actually have more in common with actual products than they do their ancestral Web counterparts.  In short, unless you are working on a traditional site structure, what you do may have more in common with product design than information architecture.  Several years ago, I moderated a work session at the IIT Strategy conference where we discussed a related topic.

If you look at the description, you'll notice that I didn't use the title Information Architects even though that's what we called them at agency.com.  I referred to the discipline as Interaction Designers (ironically, that's the title we use at Digitas).  In my opinion it's a broader term that is more accurate to the direction that IA seems to be gradually moving in.

The difference?  The words Interaction + Design.  Design used not to denote aesthetic, but as the thinking process of how we interact with something, and the experience we have from it.  Yes it's also about usability—but like product design it involves some degree of visual appeal as well—and of course functional.  And methods like prototyping, proof of concepts, etc.—all borrowed from product design.

So should the title "Information Architect" go away?  Actually, I don't think so.  The reality is that there is still "classic IA" work which needs to be done out there and if that's the majority of the service your firm offers—it makes sense to use it (just look at the cover of the book—"Designing Large Scale Web Sites").  However, if the majority of what you do feels more like designing interactive product/experiences, vs. a large scale Website—it might be worth taking a look at.

Joshua makes this final point:

"But the fact is that IA is a theory about the inherent structure of information…the architecture of information…and if we are moving away from that we should call it something else.

Relationship Architecture, perhaps?"

Interesting thought, but I think it gets too specific.  Again, if we make this about what accurately describes what you do—it's simple.  Do you architect information?  Do you design interactions?  Or maybe you architect digital experiences?  Hmmm, Experience Architect—that has a nice ring to it too.  :)

 

Comments

[Davezilla]

Agreed. I work at an agency as well, and we've decided to switch IA from being a job title to a service. We [former IAs] do a lot more than just organize data and label things. I can't think of an IA now days who doesn't involve themselves in usability, analytics or strategic decisions. The title is limiting. The practice is not.

[John Young]

I tend to roll my eyes when I see experience designers, who (hell, why not? Let's go Meyers-Briggs) tend to be NTPs, talk about "information architecture" to the people who, in my opinion, ACTUALLY architect the information -- the people responsible for creating the data structures that can do things like return results for a query on any of the four axes (hierarchy, URL, browse, search) within, let's say, 200 milliseconds, under load of 75,000 concurrent requests per second, and do it all day without having to throw a plumber :).

Designing those systems, taking into account all the various real-world factors that add up to a nimble user experience? THAT'S architecture, and the people that do it tend to be NTJs and STJs with significantly less hip clothes.

Now, as a dyed-in-the-wool INTP myself, I love my colleagues in experience design, and I agree with the comments on Joshua Porter's post saying "duh, experience design is experience design, no matter how shiny the field!" I agree that the work of creating an intuitive, powerful, and coherent experience is utterly crucial work, and it's hard, and it's a specialized field of competence that can be done well, or it can be done poorly. But it's not the whole iceberg.

Experience designers NEED to know enough about what's going on under the hood to be able to actualize a good user experience, instead of just asking for the moon and being constantly disappointed. Unless and until they're understanding the "direction of the grain" of what they're doing, and until they're realizing they're trying to BUILD an experience (not just Visio one), they're not architecting -- they're designing.

That's not meant to be dismissive: I absolutely don't mean "JUST" designing, by the way.

[Lewis Green]

Dave,
When I was in the corporate world, we spent way too much time worrying about titles, I believe. A title's purpose, so it seems, is to keep HR people employed.

Frankly, how many of our customers/clients care what we call ourselves? They just want their job done well. And if we are to be customer-centric, then, what is the purpose of a title?

[DA]

John,

Not sure I'm totally following the comment. Most of the IA's I know consider themselves the "user advocate"—so they spend the bulk of their energies making sure a digital experience is both useful and usable. They need to be knowledgeable of the build and the engineering of databases etc.—but I don't know if that is the focus.

But the eyerolling must mean this is a worthy discussion. :)

Lewis,

I totally hear what you are saying, however I think there is middle ground here. There is a difference between getting carried away with titles and using a label that accurately describes what you do for a living.

My parents cut hair. When my dad first started, he identified with being a barber. As he and my mom progressed in their craft through experience and education, they started referring to themselves as "stylists".

At a basic human level, what we do helps give us purpose and therefore what we call ourselves does matter. Again, there's a difference between obsessing about it and discussing/changing our titles if it makes sense.

Let's not overthink this. It comes down to calling something what it is.

[Lewis Green]

Dave,
You are correct, if we can find that middle ground. In my business experience, HR creates the titles, obsesses over them and applies them to employees, whether they make sense or not.

I would prefer titles that are customer centric. To most of my clients, IA doesn't mean much. That may not be true for your cleints. That said, if the title works, use it; if not, lose it and change it.

[Scott Weisbrod]

David,

Relating to your post,I think there are three things going on here (quoting from a recent post of mine):

1. Information Architecture is something you do, not something you are

2. People who once identified themselves as Information Architects are now looking for more meaningful expressions to describe what they do - whether it’s interaction architect or experience designer

3. Information Architecture, generally, attracts people who are lateral thinkers that approach experience design challenges with a holistic view of the problem; these people are starting to move on and are looking to tackle problems bigger than designing experience and organizing information - for example, they’re becoming publishers or talking about product design

I think the original conversation, which Joshua really exacerbated with his recent post, is related to a different issue though. I think that issue has more to do with the conversation being stuck.

Go to an IA Summit and you'll know what I mean. I lot of the same things being talked about. I'm hoping to talk about experience planning this coming March. We'll see if the proposal gets approved.

The conversation will start evolving again when the IA community begins engaging in larger conversations like the one you participated in at Strategy '06 or like others have at confereneces like DUX.

[DA]

Scott,

Just read your post. Good points all around, though I believe there is a tight bond between who you are and what you do. How else can you explain the passion around this topic?

Why call your blog Experience Planner? Why do I describe my practice as "Digital Experience Design" vs. simply saying I am a Creative Director? I do reference myself as a CD, but if I want to get more specific to the right audience—I say that my field is Digital Experience Design.

It all can seem silly, but at the end of the day we want to refer to ourselves in a way that is most meaningful. My guess is that some in the field feel that the IA label has lost it's meaning—or needs to be a subset of something larger. Maybe, maybe not. I look at it from the individual perspective—if I tell someone I am a Creative Director for a marketing firm and they ask if I work on commercials, I would probably explain a little more what it is that I actually do.

I agree 100 percent with your observation of IA's needing to engage in larger conversations. The field is too inwardly focused. To the outsider it seems almost cult-like with high priests and priestesses. It's not inclusive, it's exclusive. Maybe it's not just a title we are talking about, but the IA "brand" itself.

[gabby]

Well, now that I've jumped ship from Digitas to Critical Mass and gone from being an "Interaction Designer" to "Information Architect", I have to say that the job title & description discussion is one that never fails to frustrate me. It seems so very, very beside the point. We build things for customers and if we're not talking and thinking about the customers 98% of the time, we're failing and badly.

I don't care what you're called--tell me what you do, how you've solved a wicked problem. Engage me.

[Davezilla]

Dead on, Lewis. Couldn't agree more.

[Greg Johnson]

Funny enough, maybe the challenge here is that we're all trying to port a mental model from an adjacent industry to make the industry make sense to the less knowledgeable folks around us. John's point is well made: architecture, in the tech dev world, has a bit of a different meaning than it does in the experience/information world.

Some of this is bias, I'm sure. "Designer" sounds a little more rudimentary, maybe even a bit more production-focused, than "Architect." Architects must be strategic (as shown in the Brady Bunch, right ;) ) and thinking through the brand experience, across channels and such, is a very strategic role. Oh, wait. That's my own bias talking...

It all seems to boil down to how we want to be perceived, and maybe more importantly, how we want to be engaged. From that standpoint, titles tend to have more meaning than just the phrase on your business card (or blog).

[Stig Andersen]

To me the question; does the term IA represent what I do, has become relevant within the three-four of years. Though I agree that costumers generally are more interested in having their problem solved than in what we call ourselves, it’s important which title you pick when you sell your services.

I too have been with AGENCY.COM. (Copenhagen office from 2001-2003) Back then the title seemed appropriate, as what I did was primarily to act as the “users advocate”, when we build “information spaces” (mostly web sites). Safeguarding the clients interests (being the “business’ advocate”), and ensuring that content, or information if you will, was handled properly by technology, was handled by clever colleagues; strategic consultants and IT architects/programmers. BUT - the IAs would set the guidelines!

Nowadays IT solutions have become way more complex. Also the way businesses and organizations are present on the internet have changed to the more complex and demanding. In my experience, the idea that one person/resource with the title of IA can undertake the task of being the “users advocate”, “business’ advocate”, and understand complex technologies as we see them today, is preposterous. Typically professionals specialize in e.g. “strategic IA” (business needs, change management, enterprise architecture, etc.), “tactical IA” (management of information within a system – dare I say ‘little IA’), and “frontend IA” (stuff that deal with how information is displayed). But at the time, all these folks call themselves information architects. Or they don’t use the title at all.
I think architecting information is very relevant still. More than ever. But no ONE person can architect an information environment, so who should carry the IA hat?

I call myself consultant, as that is what I do; consulting.

[Jim]

IA will morph from site specific to the web overall from a user and group centric perspective. Intra-site IA will become kind of standard and basic, but creating logic around how my personal sites connects with my friends/mobile/audio/video/favorite sites will become the new ground to cover and develop IA for.

[Peter Morville]

I think it's important to consider the future of the role, the discipline, and the community separately (as well as together).

I've posted some thoughts here:

http://semanticstudios.com/publications/semantics/000149.php

Long Live IA! :-)

[Whitney]

I was an Interaction Designer at Digitas, and I'm a User Experience Architect at Tribal DDB. I don't think either title fully encompasses what I do on a daily basis. The dictionary's best definition of an architect (in my opinion) is "the deviser, maker, or creator of anything," while designer is defined as "a schemer, intriguer, or plotter." I feel my responsibilities fall in both realms -- I plan the overall experience for the user to help them best achieve their goals and deliver on business needs, but I also construct the environment for each task the user must complete throughout that experience.

I don't use the word "interaction" in describing my role because I don't believe that interactions are all that we design and architect. Certainly that's a part of it, just as architecting information is also a part of what we do. But I really believe that my responsibility is to maximize the user's experience from the moment they think about engaging with the brand until way after they've walked away from the computer. If there were a word broader than "experience" I would use it.

So where do I net out in this debate? I like Experience Planner, a term used at Publicis Dialog and a few other places -- and also the name of a blog David wrote about earlier this year. It stays away from the designer/architect debate and, I think, truly conveys the breadth of what we're tasked to do.