Hello,
Long time no type -I've been really busy writing content for my latest courses and this came up during research. Each month I play a game - search Google for the keywords "Information Architecture" and see how many bogus links you find before you get to the real stuff. Today I only got to this Maskery Tom Foolery before I had to stop and write something.
The sad thing is that I don't know the answer to my question - how many pages does it take before one searching for information architecture can get to the real stuff? Last month, it took 19 pages of Google links before I found something that even resembled information architecture.
Why do I call the fluff not so real? There are so many folks eager to super-size IT, IT Roles and borrow or steal the work architecture to make their products look a little more saleable, and specifically those working in pure web site development and content management are the villains here.
I've said it before, but I'll say it again - Information Architecture INCLUDES content management and web page/site structure design. It is not Information Architecture. IA is all that surrounds the information domain within the system or enterprise architecture. It includes servers and software that house the databases, their structures and operational systems. It includes the many types of data and database models, as well as the repositories, scripts and dictionaries used to describe the data and content stored. It CAN include content management software and the infrastructure required to run it.
This page I've referred to above states the following: Below is a schematic of an information architecture
NO - this is not a schematic of an information architecture. It is purely a website navigational map, or as VISIO terms it, a WEB SITE MAP. It is not the architecture - do you see any diagrammatical objects that depict where the information is to be stored, how it is to be stored, and in which technical manner? Do you see any models of the data, or conceptual intent? Do you see any relationships between the data.
Sadly enough, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of companies slogging this marketing type with their product. Super-Size is a McDonalds term, and I'm using it here to refer to the act of making something seem large just to sell more, without much more than added calories. If you want to see more of what this stuff is really made of, see my Information Architecture page.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Connect the Dots - EA and Portfolio Management
Ok - so maybe you haven't heard the buzz about the marriage between EA and Portfolio Management. It's been going on long enough to get the seven year itch already - so why should I go on about that today?
My head hurts - I've been knee deep in the weeds building courseware for about three months and I've come up for air. It's probably the first thing I thought of because I was digging up some articles for a participant in a workshop that was in need of more info on the topic. Or maybe it was because I was drawing diagrams all night and when I was done I couldn't remember if the diagram was going into an article for a Project Management piece on Portfolio Management or an Enterprise Architecture.
To make a long story short - they are the same Portfolio Management. Different constituencies might care for different reasons, but at the end of the day, the same portfolio should be planned. Granted - if the Enterprise Architect gets their way - there will be the project completed that gives him or her the best new models to add to their collection - isn't that what everyone thinks we do? Or is it picking the standards that everyone has to follow????
Actually - it will fill a gap from the charts on the analysis task of the most recent EA program review. And - it will match up to the latest and greatest business initiatives sadly lacking archtitecture. What difference does it make? The EA's and PM's need to work together, and other than a few squabbles about scope - aren't they fighting the same battles? To get sorely needed projects done with precious few budget dollars?
Another thought on the subject - the project manager and the program or portfolio manager are fighting different battles. The project manager wants to get the project done as directed, with as little risk and variance on budget as possible, with the best use of resources as possible.
The EA wants to get the right things done, and usually budget is the last thing on their list, other than the fact that they don't want their EA program shut down. So - we'll all have to get along here. We want to do the right things, ones in the best proportion to keeping the business running, getting the optimal amount of growth in the organization, and transforming that organization to meet strategic needs of the executives and planners.
At the final outcome, both parties will be happy if they solved a business requirement, met an organizational objective and ok, created a few models along the way. Is that so bad?
Happy Architecting,
Sharon
My head hurts - I've been knee deep in the weeds building courseware for about three months and I've come up for air. It's probably the first thing I thought of because I was digging up some articles for a participant in a workshop that was in need of more info on the topic. Or maybe it was because I was drawing diagrams all night and when I was done I couldn't remember if the diagram was going into an article for a Project Management piece on Portfolio Management or an Enterprise Architecture.
To make a long story short - they are the same Portfolio Management. Different constituencies might care for different reasons, but at the end of the day, the same portfolio should be planned. Granted - if the Enterprise Architect gets their way - there will be the project completed that gives him or her the best new models to add to their collection - isn't that what everyone thinks we do? Or is it picking the standards that everyone has to follow????
Actually - it will fill a gap from the charts on the analysis task of the most recent EA program review. And - it will match up to the latest and greatest business initiatives sadly lacking archtitecture. What difference does it make? The EA's and PM's need to work together, and other than a few squabbles about scope - aren't they fighting the same battles? To get sorely needed projects done with precious few budget dollars?
Another thought on the subject - the project manager and the program or portfolio manager are fighting different battles. The project manager wants to get the project done as directed, with as little risk and variance on budget as possible, with the best use of resources as possible.
The EA wants to get the right things done, and usually budget is the last thing on their list, other than the fact that they don't want their EA program shut down. So - we'll all have to get along here. We want to do the right things, ones in the best proportion to keeping the business running, getting the optimal amount of growth in the organization, and transforming that organization to meet strategic needs of the executives and planners.
At the final outcome, both parties will be happy if they solved a business requirement, met an organizational objective and ok, created a few models along the way. Is that so bad?
Happy Architecting,
Sharon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
