Have I mentioned variability yet? #

Insert delighted cackle here. Heh. #

Information architecture is not set in stone. Done well, it will live longer than the raw data, which is moving and accumulating through time at the speed of time and the amassing of a quantity of information driven by the quantity of people. But as the data shifts, as our data substrate and understanding grows, the information architecture changes with it. If we approach each information architecture project as the infrastructure it is, we have certain ideas engrained in our culture.

We tend to look at big infrastructure projects as one-and-dones. We built a glorious roadway system in the middle part of the 20th century that is crumbling around us. We built an energy transmission system that is allowed to keep chugging along until it fails, like in the California Camp Fire (2018) or the Texas cold snap (2021).  Old water mains break, and can failed more spectacularly through additional mismanagement like in Flint, Michigan (2014).

The behavior around each instance is interesting. But the key bit, that transcends motive?

We spent all this time and money on these things, generations ago. Their function was a trusted stability point. They worked. The perception was they would continue working, just like the sun would continue to rise in the east, just because they didn't break quickly. Maintenance disrupted what needed to function optimally; don’t fix what isn’t broken.

Don’t doubt that information architecture is an infrastructure project. It has no definable ROI by today’s standards. It won’t add to a business’s bottom line monetarily, completely siloed from anyone else looking to prove that they are doing good, productive, profitable work. It touches everything, it can’t be silo’ed; it just feels easier, makes it easier to shift processes, and trace problems — all things that business tells us will end in firing if the disruption is traced to you, or end in firings if shareholders want more profit (easier should, in their minds, mean less cost from employees). It will also need periodic upkeep to keep doing it’s job, just like a roadway. 

Just like a roadway, scads of people will use it without really thinking about the work that went into the initial building, the maintenance, and how long it will survive. They use it, so frequently it’s a stability point in their world — inconceivable that it’s not already perfect or might break, impossible that they might need to continue paying for it, annoying that so many other people are congesting it’s built pathways.

Use of the infrastructure can degrade it, whether physically or by finding it doesn’t meet needs. 

Repetitive use of infrastructure, like when someone has driven to work the same way a hundred times, can confabulate easy with, "I’ve built all the workarounds I need." What’s known is familiar, calming, and can be a moment of peace in an otherwise chaotic day, even if it’s only held together with hope. 

There will also be a cohort who see the existing form as less risky than all the variables involved in change. Why close half of a busy roadway for anything in less than clear, existing failure?

Information architecture is abstract. While it has a lot of sympathy with how with think about roadways, it has one very clear difference: it’s intangible. We don’t have to set aside millions of acres to work on it as a holistic beast. Nor is it like the busy city blocks that will back up traffic all day if a few feet are closed. It’s great if we have a huge whiteboard and a stack of cards and post-it notes, but reality is all we need is our preferred tools, an active mind, and access to information and data to build shared architectures. For our individual ones, we just need a mind with a halfway decent memory.

What I’ve shared here isn’t prescriptive. It’s a few symbols and patterns and some knacks to help think about people as people, and not grandma, a black woman, a Hindi construction worker, a Muslim activist, or an old white man. It’s not even getting into the really complex stuff, but just an introduction to what pieces I most tend to pick from as I work on an information architecture project. People are intrinsic because they are the context for information. People are intrinsic because most of the information we’re interested in is supplied by other people. Information has meaning based on context, within itself and for whom it’s intended.

Most information architecture projects are not holistic. They don’t need every piece, but can be pulled together for targeted use cases. What we most need to remember is that people are multivariate. For instance, this book as a whole is structured as a linear experience, front to back, and a network still exists within. Simple and complex, light and dark – not as binaries, but as spectrum nodes. Given enough time, thought, and iteration, information architecture can be as complex as it needs to be.