IDblog: My left field idea

My left field idea

Nearly two years ago (November 2001), Lou Rosenfeld got a bunch of folks from a variety of disciplines together via email (and later at a number of conferences) to discuss organizations, infrastructure, and information architecture. Fairly early on, there were a handful of folks who were very interested in a new organization for IA (which subsequently became AIfIA) and another handful who were interested in what we referred to as the "interfaith council" -- a group meant to share what were clearly overlapping interests (DUX2003 came out of some of those discussions).

Now it's August 2003, and Tog wants to create a new title and a new organization: the Interaction Architects Association. I'm not sure that the title change will be worth the hassle, and I think that creating a new organization is not for lightweights. But I wish Tog luck, and if this new org's dues are as reasonable as AIfIA's, I'll join. But Tog's new organization is unlikely to solve what I see as the bigger problem...how to get business to make more (and better) use of these kinds of skills.

I've participated in both the early IA discussion and this more recent discussion for one real reason: I'm far more interested in the effort that will raise the visibility (and value) of all of these related skills, whether you call them UX, ED, ID, IA, usability, or whatever. I like the way that Lyle Kantrovich put it:

A rising tide raises all boats.

But up to this point, most of the "big picture" discussions have generated more quibbling than results (and I'll cop to being a grade-A quibbler myself). No single group has been able to position itself as the "umbrella" for these activities. Most often, terminology (whether it is experience design, user experience, information design, information architecture, usability, interaction whatever) carries some baggage with it that others are unwilling to carry.

So that's one problem. The other is I suspect that none of the individual organizations have sufficient resources to "raise the tide." I agree with Challis Hodge when he says:

What we need to be talking about is an organization that can wage a serious and professional marketing and development campaign--in the context of business.

What we don't really need (though I wouldn't mind them) are more conferences, lists, journals, etc., where we are primarily preaching to the choir. And my apologies to Mark Hurst, but as I wrote earlier, I'm not sure we want a field (or an organization) to "disappear" either. In short, I think we need to raise our visibility (and our perceived value) among the people who hold the purse strings.

So here is my left-field idea to do that.

Have AIGA spin off their experience design community as a new organization.

AIGA-ED's baggage is two-fold. One, its graphic design brand (a good part of the reason that AIfIA happened as a new org rather than as part of AIGA-ED). Two, its cost of entry (which is higher than competing organizations). AIGA is working hard to reposition itself, but spinning off AIGA-ED into a new org or initiative or institute (where individual member dues are not the primary funding, see below) may be a real win-win. AIGA-ED's healthy brain trust would very likely have more freedom to get more buy-in and create new partnerships and activities, while still retaining a useful tie to the parent organization.
Find other organizations to co-sponsor this new organization to give it credibility, visibility, and additional resources.

I can think of three other organizations that would be good candidates for this co-sponsorship: CHI, UPA, and the Corporate Design Foundation. These three have fairly broad appeal (they aren't specific to a particular medium or product), they are relatively established, and they have good links to potential corporate sponsorships (read $$). They also bring their own brain trusts, whose skills are very complementary to AIGA-ED's.

Other organizations that are more niche-like (smaller audiences, narrower focus, fewer resources, etc), like AIfIA, STC, HFES, ASIS&T, etc., could join this initiative as member organizations, but it would be the co-sponsors who would provide the primary, joint leadership.
Avoid naming this new organization with any buzzwords. Instead, use either a non-specific name (Yahoo or Amazon, anyone?) or an acronym that is more general.

Save the buzzwords for a mission or vision statement. Even if you don't name every discipline, a statement such as "Helping business increase market share and return through experience design, usability, and related disciplines" (or some such) is more inclusive and probably an easier pill for folks to follow.

BTW, this is not my idea. It's Marc Rettig's, who participated in Lou's discussion years ago, and who wrote: "avoid labels as organizing frameworks ... organize around shared problems and goals ... and things that last."

I like the idea of naming it the XYZ Institute, where XYZ is the name of some very early pioneer in the field (in the same way that the programming language Ada got its name).
Locate this new organization at a university with strong design, business, and technology departments.

When the government funded the Software Engineering Institute, they chose to house it at Carnegie Mellon. Besides the obvious logistical advantages, a good school's human capital (both faculty and students) would be extremely valuable to this kind of initiative. So I'd look very closely at a strong academic partner. CMU would be a good one, but there's also the Illinois Institute of Technology, whose design program is already sponsoring events in this space (see HITS 2003).
Get outside sources of funding...lots of it.

SEI's came from the DOD, whose dependence on software made them willing to invest in a group whose purpose is to "help others make measured improvements in their software engineering capabilities." There's some interesting overlap here, and there's probably lots of other opportunities, such as NIST's ATP program which "funds high-risk, high payoff projects from all technology areas." And of course, there is always the benefit of partnerships with (large) corporate sponsors.
Spend as much (if not more) time doing outreach as member service.

This is related to my earlier comment. The DUX conference was a good one, but it's not being held again until 2005...and even then, it is geared primarily towards practitioners. I believe that if we are to make real change in the numbers of companies that want (and will pay for) our services, we need to be having more conversations with C-level executives, hence my rationale for including someone like CDF or DMI in the partnership. In the same way that the Software Engineering Institute is more about management practices (even those that are labeled engineering practices) for developing , this new organization should be focused more at getting out the word about management pratices that help organizations improve their products and services.

That's it so far. My fundamental premise is that we'll have more success working together on a common goal than we will with a dozen different organizations focusing more on our differences. The original "interfaith council" used the religious symbolism intentionally...it's not about creating a single religion (or user experience field), but rather finding what we agree on, working to advance that, and then helping to educate about the differences. The rising tide and all that!

So now, it's your turn. I think there's a pony in this rhetorical BS, so I'm posting this to see if I can get some bright folk out there to help dig it out :). What do you think?

08:17 PM | linkme | home

Comments

So far, this has had the highest signal:noise ratio of the Interaction Architect discussion. Of course, I'm biased - when I first blogged Tog's spiel, I suggested that the real need is for UX disciplines of all sorts to understand and work with business better.

I wonder how AIGA-ED would see leaving the fold - there was talk early on that the affiliation with AIGA was temporary, and that ED would spin off when it had grown up. However, talking to some folks over the last year, the will to make that move isn't really there.

A compelling vision (something more than UXnet's directory plans) might provide the motivation to overcome the current inertia. Some of the seeds are in what you've written here...kudos to you.

It would take a tremendous amount of work to organize and then a lot to actually operationalize its mission (like executive education and advocacy, influencing government policy and legislation, working with analysts and media). A dedicated organization would be a big step forward for the UX disciplines.

-- Posted by jess on August 12, 2003 12:23 PM

I think this idea has tremendous promise. Whether it is based on one of the current organizations, or is a new entitity, it offers us the opportunity to "meet" in a place where (hopefully) all disciplines, backgrounds, approaches and points of view can be respected.

I have often wondered if "we don't get no respect" because we spend more time fighting among ourselves than we do showing the world what we can (individually, collectively, collaboratively) do.

This is the closest thing to the vision that we pursued through UXnet that I have seen.

Whitney

-- Posted by Whitney on August 13, 2003 11:57 AM

First, there hasn't been much 'feedback' (even a wiggle) to past recommendations that there be a 'split'. If AIGA-ED were to spin off the AIGA would need to go away and then what would be the label?

There was some good energy around UXNet; but to accomplish the goals that Beth has suggested requires that we abandon the "U" reference, which highly limits the breadth available to the profession (a deeper discussion that goes beyond this response -- I have a related article if I get it finished). X equals the 'E' in ED. ED is too easily confused with education. That leave possible permutations like xDnet, etc. I still like the Carrie Rich recommendation for Experience Design Professionals.

-- Posted by Paula Thornton on August 13, 2003 08:31 PM

I like it; I like your suggestions a lot. I don't know which organizations should be the co-sponsors or take the lead or split off, or what to call the new organization, but I'd like to see it happen.

A major goal for my year as president of Silicon Valley STC is to engage cooperatively with other organizations, like we did at DUX2003, like we intend to do when SIGDOC comes to town in October. I have more questions than answers, but you have my support. Just give me an idea of where to go, I'll head there.
-F

-- Posted by Fred Sampson on August 16, 2003 10:55 PM

Beth,

Lots of good ideas here.

One thing that I don't think we (in the most general sense) are putting enough emphasis on are our *external* target audiences, namely business executives, government budget controllers and academic gatekeepers. In order to communicate credibly with these groups we need to sound credible - particularly to business executives who can move the needle for "us" very quickly. Making presentations to folks of this ilk is something I do on a fairly regular basis, and I can tell you that terms we find valid in an emic sense (like, perhaps, Tog's new Interaction Architect) are meaningless to them and only muddy the conversation.

One of the things that I have found so valuable about the term "Information Design" is that business executives are immediately intrigued by it. They intuitively know the value of "information" and are interested in any approach that makes information work smarter for them. With "design," it takes "information" out of the harsh IT light and contextualizes it more lightly, in people. Just by using that term to define "this" broad space you are talking about above, we gain instant credibility and interest with them.

Now, I don't want this post to re-open the ID discussion; rather, I want to use this example of why ID is such a good entree into easily communicating with perhaps our most important market, and use it as a catalyst for talking about other possible words/phrases.

In my experience, particularly valuable is the word "information." It buys instant credibility (in the context of what our company does to help business) with even the most crusty CEO's, in a way that "Experience Design" or "User Experience" (for instance) never could.

I had a wonderful conversation with Keith Instone on these topics, and he suggested "Information Experience" as a possible way to capture our industry. Maybe - there is some good thinking there. Are we, perhaps, just "the information industry"? Or "the experience industry?" Or "the design industry?" Or is it "the information experience industry?" Either way, we need something that can be the platform for a successful elevator pitch (simple, clear), a sharp tool for selling our key external audiences on us (targeting the right pressure points), and is scalable to remain relevant and appropriate decades after it is established.

The construction industry. The medical industry. The financial industry. Those terms are well accepted and carry a lot of meaning beyond just the letters and words. Until we are similarly consolidated and generally recognized we will continue a very frustrating uphill battle of limited relevance.

Again, Beth, I think a lot of your ideas are really excellent. But I think we need to begin by understanding our goals and objectives (presumably to become more valuable, relevant and credible externally), and from there really carefully build ourselves so our most powerful and top level statements are speaking to the external cultural gatekeepers who will ultimately decide if we are to enjoy more mainstream viability or not.

Best,
Dirk

-- Posted by Dirk on August 19, 2003 08:01 AM

Dirk: Like the thoughts (well developed) and I come from an Information background (one of the reasons I passed through IA along the way), but during that trek I've discovered that people are more about 'doing' than 'being informed'. Being informed is only one type of 'doing' that they engage in. Any model we adopt needs to pass the test of the various scenarios. The "information" model does not. Information is supportive to a 'doing' model.

Or, information is a product. I've recently shared an example I found that illustrates the non-human aspects of focusing on the product too soon (eventually those specialized skills are required). In reading the story of IDEO (The Art of Innovation) they gave a very clear example -- although they didn't notice it -- of the problem with a product focus. They engaged in a brainstorming session (which they detailed) around creating a better water bottle for bike riders. Which they did. However, they missed the true potential. Imagine, they could have been first to the market with the now familiar 'bladders' if instead they had brainstormed around "delivering fluids to people whose hands are otherwise occupied" (stated in the 'doing' frame of reference).

-- Posted by on August 26, 2003 08:43 PM

My Left Field Artifact: While the leadership of AIGA-ED repeatedly insist that it is not their intent to be focused on visual design (in spite of their association with AIGA), I just noted this. On the upper right side of the discussion list on Yahoo!, they associate the group with the category "Graphic Design".

-- Posted by on August 26, 2003 09:25 PM

Paula wrote:
"I've discovered that people are more about 'doing' than 'being informed'. Being informed is only one type of 'doing' that they engage in. Any model we adopt needs to pass the test of the various scenarios. The "information" model does not. Information is supportive to a 'doing' model.

Excellent points, Paula. Lets start to segment our objectives:

Externally, we need to communicate in a way that:
* Is easily understandable (does not need a lot of explanation to stand up)
* Is perceived as valuable (does not need a lot of validation to be recognized as valuable)
* Is differentiating (clearly identifies us/what we are doing as special and important in a way that "competing" spaces - like niche technology and/or more traditional marketing - are not)

Internally, we need to communicate in a way that:
* Pulls together the relevant, disparate communities
* Focuses all participants on the big picture and remaining progressive and global in our focus (like the excellent IDEO example you referenced)
* Is scalable and inclusive over time

I wonder if we need different labels depending on external or internal audience?

Externally, "information" sings. What else would sing, and why? Remember, it needs to be intuitively understandable and immediately valuable.

Internally, you are absolutely right: information is limiting and not focused on the "doing." So, what is correct?

Just brainstorming, not for either audience in particular but for what "we" do, in a generally macro way:

* Solve problems that involve people
* Vision and architect a successful future
* Create engaging experiences
* Build knowledge and wisdom
* Design business to increase revenues and decrease costs

These are just top-of-the-head thought starters; looking for engaged dialogue.

Best,
Dirk

-- Posted by Dirk on August 29, 2003 11:51 AM

Beth - best idea i've heard about the umbrella org for ages, i'll take two - how much are they? ;-)

-- Posted by on September 4, 2003 02:26 PM