Overcoming internally-focused system structures, plus Sarah Barrett on architectural scale and other things worth your attention.
Hello! I'm Jorge Arango and this is INFORMA(C)TION: a biweekly dose of big ideas for people who make digital things. If you like this email, please forward it to a friend. And if you're not subscribed, sign up here. Thanks for reading!
While reorganizing my library a couple of weeks ago, I came across a spiral-bound workshop handout from 2003. The workshop, produced by my friend Lou Rosenfeld, was titled Enterprise Information Architecture: Because Users Don’t Care About Your Org Chart.
Lots of ideas quickly become obsolete in tech. But after 18 years, the idea that users don’t care about your org chart is still relevant. Teams still ship systems that reflect their internal structures — and mindful IA is still crucial to addressing the issue.
Few people set out to design inwardly-focused systems. Instead, they inadvertently arrive at solutions that feel “natural” — i.e., that mirror their current structures. Subtly, the systems they design come to reflect distinctions inherent in their organizations.
This phenomenon is often referred to as Conway’s law, after computer programmer Melvin Conway. In a 1968 paper, Conway stated that
organizations which design systems (in the broad sense used here) are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations.
Conway suggests teams should structure design efforts around their communication needs. Organizations should be “lean and flexible” so teams can shift concepts as needed.
This is easier said than done — even with today’s leaner organizations and more efficient communications. Incentive structures play as important a role today as they did in the late 1960s, and significant reorgs lie outside design’s remit.
Still, design can help. Producing effective user-centered systems requires that stakeholders see beyond internal needs and drivers. The process of designing an information architecture is especially well-suited to the task, since it entails
Reflecting insights to stakeholders as conceptual structures that are more broadly relatable
User-centered models may feel wrong at first. They may seem unsophisticated or naive. Design can build confidence in the models by producing tangible artifacts, which can be used to iterate and validate new structural directions with users.
Ultimately, working on a particular subject within a particular structure leads to deep — yet inward-looking — domain expertise. Creating relatable systems requires that we step out of our comfort zones to understand others’ perspectives. IA can help.
Worth Your Attention
A history of the filing cabinet, which “contributed to the rise of a popular nontechnical understanding of information as something discrete and specific.” Don't miss the sarcastic information totem. (H/t Steve Portigal)
Re-thinking the desktop. “Our computers have been applying small band-aids to our own information retrieval problems for years now.” (Via the Ethical Futures Lab newsletter)
Slack's mistake. Jeff Sussna: “Customers judge services, not just by the usefulness of their features, but also by the trustworthiness of their promises.”
Abstraction and implementation. From my blog: We must learn to focus on the level of abstraction most conducive to effective human interactions, while acknowledging the constraints and opportunities afforded by our particular “tower of mutually constituted abstractions.”
Celebratory settings. Microsoft is observing LGBTQ Pride Month by adding a new option to its Office app preference panels.
Wanting. My notes about a new book about René Girard's theory of mimetic desire.
How to read online reviews. From my blog: “If a system can be gamed — and if humans have incentives to do so — then the system will be gamed.”
Organizational communication. A Twitter thread of diagrams that show how information travels up and down the org chart.
Old UX books. Jessica Ivins on the realization that she “was probably missing out on valuable information by reading mostly new books.” Includes a list of recommended older readings.
Systems wisdom. Insights from a lifetime of systems thinking by Russell Ackoff (1919-2009). (Via Patrick Tanguay's Sentiers newsletter)
Sarah makes excellent points about how the type of thing you’re making changes how you approach its design. As she put it, “you have to be really clear about what you’re building, so you know what kinds of rules to use.”
If you’ve read Living in Information, you’ll understand why I’m enthusiastic about these explorations of architectural scale in digital environments. I hope you get as much value from our conversation as I did.
