Defining "information architecture" (1)

It's been some time ago since Andy asked me a question about my definition of 'information architecture'. Finally I'd like to start answering his question. I'd love to hear your opinion on this topic.

If you browse around on the web or in bookstore, 'information architecture' is usually about the architecture of websites. The wikipedia definition of 'information architecture' also points in that direction.

As you may have noticed, that does not make up my work. My definition relates to the following definitions:

"Information Architecture. The shared view of information professionals on the information of their organisation (UoD) on its information as a corporate resource. The Information Architecture must be a complete view on the UoD, and therefore one will be able to derive the specifications needed to procure, develop and maintain IT-solutions." (A/I/M)

"The information architect creates an overview over the organisational information management, organizes this coherently and improves it. This is done by analysis, advise and support when developing, implementing and integrating the information management. Information management is focussed on improving the quality of product development." (Irmato)

"The information architecture, the architecture of the information flow, gives insight in the structure and relations of the information and communication management, independent of the level of automation." (From the Dutch book: Rijsenbrij, Architectuur in de digitale wereld, Zeist, 2004)

To a large extent I agree with these definitions. I'll elaborate on these definitions soon and when I find new definitions I'll post them too.

Comments

Post a Comment

Please leave a comment! Just log in using one of the formats and if you want me to get back to you. Otherwise comment anonymously.

Popular posts

Keep the Intranet Small

Image
This tweet by Jonathan Phillips ( @digitaljonathan ) triggered to finalize this post, that's been burning in my draft box. I've always been intrigued by how unsuccessful many intranets are. And there are all kinds of good reasons for intranet failure. One of the things that is hardly ever mentioned is: Shouldn't the intranet be smaller? Usually intranets are huge. Lots and lots of pages with lots and lots of content. With complex navigation. The intranet  evaluation surveys almost always show employees only use the news page and people finder. But still we build and maintain nice big intranets. Not only stats point to smaller intranets. There are others reasons as well. I came up with a few. If you have more, just leave a comment. Here's my list: -            user requirements: users don't require large intranet -            search/navigation: searching and navigating a small ...
Read more

Enterprise 2.0 Research

Image
There's not too much fundamental research on Enterprise 2.0. Deloitte recently published interesting research done on enterprise 2.0 implementations and their return-on-investment. In the EU research has also done as well. Study is being done for the European Commission and it was carried out by Tech4i2, IDC and Headshift. What was the goal of the study? Goals of the study To provide a clear definition of Enterprise 2.0 is, describe the market and the positioning of EU industry, also in comparison with US and Asia; To analyze the take-up of Enterprise 2.0, the organizational requirements, and the role on the transition to a knowledge based low-carbon economy; To collect evidence on its macro-economic impact, as a market opportunity for the European Software industry and as a productivity tool for European business; To identify and analyse both the direct and contextual challenges, including the need for Next Generation Access and the legal barriers; To analyse an...
Read more

Innovation in Turbulent Times

Image
I love reading articles about innovation. And every now and then you read one that is very interesting. "Innovation in Turbulent Times" by Rigby, Gruver, Allen (in HBR, June 2009) is one of them. This article takes fashion companies as an example for continuous, year-by-year innovation. And how successful fashion companies are usually led by two people: a left-brainer and a right-brainer. "If you don't have highly creative people in positions of real authority, you won't get innovation. Most companies in other industries ignore this lesson." They extend this to show that successful non-fashion companies have the same kind of leadership. And this kind of leadership is usually also characterized by a long-term relationship. I think this concept can also be extended to teams and projects as well. More often than not, people are good at one or the other: thinking up great concepts or ideas, or, making them. In teams and projects we can learn from this as...
Read more