Boxes And Arrows : The Design Behind the Design

Architecting Our Profession

by Clifton Evans on 2005/02/27 | [7 Comments]

The change within the interface design process over the past five to ten years has coincided with an increasing number of large companies refining an industrial style model of design instead of focusing on specialization or interaction sustainability through design accuracy. As a result of the overriding strategy, many smaller companies emulate the corporate model but find that it is indeed not sustainable; especially if they want to design appropriate interfaces and continue working within the respected boutique and agency models. This model of simply acquiring a larger IA strategy needs to change in order to give IA a place on the whole market and to allow professional networks to develop.

For instance, Company A has created a large international software application, which meets the needs of very specific market segments; the application actually has to be in a boat on the other side of the world and represented in a different language. Meanwhile, Boutique A has a very similar model of designing applications, not because it’s practical for them but because “that’s the way it’s done elsewhere.” However, the boutique only provides design, technical support and some software customization to existing customers who are within a 100-kilometer radius! This is sort of like comparing apples to oranges, but it’s more like encouraging apples to grow on orange trees. It’s attempting to implement a model of business where introducing a scaled down process leads to ineffective results.

This is the real hiccup in the current User Centered Design and Information Architecture processes; they are not really all that scaleable. Company A is driven by forces that Boutique A doesn’t need. Boutique A is a professional service firm in its own right, but it doesn’t need to work within such a large-scale model, especially not simply because of excess field pressure. In fact, customers would most likely benefit if the models were reversed as Company A typically avoids the simplicity of providing a local service like the one offered by Boutique A.

In my experience, this is the reason that projects fail in information architecture and interaction design: it seems that many companies and individuals are not insuring that they use a process which suits them. There is not enough rationing of responsibility to contractors, and therefore no appropriate delegation to specialists who can develop an appropriate model of IA for each situation. This means that there is definitely not enough reliance on the information architect as a professional who can cope with the details and design challenges of creating a complex system, both for the process and for the interface. This is the main reason IAs are unable to blueprint systems that survive the passing of time or the pressures of an evolving market, in other words, there is a round-peg in a square-hole problem here which needs to be addressed. As IAs, we aren’t playing the role of architect, artist, or even of the contractor, but the role of design team member, using common techniques on specialized problems.

Where do we find the solution? It’s likely in needs of smaller businesses and organizations. In order to make the needed room for these areas to influence the field of information architecture; we need for them to rely on or to develop their own specialists and contractors, individuals who are professionals with the insight and experience to understand the entire project, and to create new models of IA for each project. What we are missing however, is the support system to protect, establish and promote those who chose to contract out specialist needs.

In order to establish this sort of specialist and contractor system, we should understand what has worked this way in other industries, especially those that rely heavily on interactive technology, such as TV, film, music as well as video game and software development. These industries all have contractor associations and specialist houses, both of which translate well to the IT industry. In our market, business needs shift and product releases are quite sporadic, and so contracting associations and specialist houses, or firms or studios, could be the answer to providing IA services that actually reflect the needs of each project. We need a system within IA where individual professionals are given the authority to examine specific elements, attributes, and functions of a system as well as to architect the process involved. In essence, this would be the IA equivalent of hiring a director, or a sound engineer, or if we think about things a bit more pragmatically, contracting an architect.

This is all just a suggestion, though perhaps we should look at other models more closely in order to simplify IA processes. It is possibly the professional equivalent of giving ourselves a system for us after all these years spent figuring out what specializations to focus on. We do have the answers; all we need to do is create the infrastructure to begin to work in this way.

I suggest we look at a range of options for moving forward, with such possibilities as determining a board of local association members, establishing a union system and stewards, forming an open licensing system, or just seeking out legal specialists who can represent individuals and know the field well. We should begin to entrust our efforts to people dedicated to creating support systems within the field of IA. How we should go about structuring these support systems is something else entirely; it is something that we should discuss and determine together, moving towards making a professional field. Any comments?

Conclusion:

I’ve included a few links below; topics I consider appropriate grounding for considering specialization support within IA. Please be aware that the topic of blueprinting is only one example area where techniques and models need to be supported. The following links are given as encouragement for discussion.