In the last couple of days there’s been a big debate on the IAI mailing list about the definition of ‘information architecture’ (again), and partly that prompted me to think of the definition of my own role (again), working as an “information architect” (that is, officially, my title) at an advertising agency.

• Information architecture (IA) deals with the organization structure, labels and navigation of web sites, intranets, online communities, and, in my work, campaign microsites. That is only part of my work.
• Interaction design (IxD), which defines the behavior (i.e. the interaction) of a web site, campaign microsite, intranet, online application or community is another part of my work.
• User experience design (UXD) – all aspects of the user’s experience when interacting with a web site or other online product – encompasses both IA and IxD.
• Marketing strategy and planning inevitably form another part of my role, even when there are actual strategists and planners working with me.

When I worked in Finland, I got used to working under the title of concept designer. After my move to Canada I’ve had to get used to the idea of being called an information architect instead. One benefit of being a concept designer was that it made it quite easy for people to understand that I, as concept designer, in order to create the concept for the site/campaign/application needed to be part of the initial ideation process. I got together with the account director and project manager and art director and key developer right from the beginning to create and discuss ideas for the concept. There was a healthy amount of collaboration between different members of the team. Concept models were generally well brewed and the concept designer’s role worked hand in hand with pitch work/sales.

Here in Canada it’s been difficult to get people to think that the IA should be informed and involved from the beginning of ideation. Here there’s less collaboration and co-ordination around the IA’s, and everybody else’s, work. That, together with the fact that my work doesn’t consist of just information architecture but also much more, is a reason why I think it would make strong sense to call my position here something else than ‘information architect’.

The downside of the Finnish model of ‘concept design’ was that it didn’t always pay as much attention to detail as it should’ve. Wireframes weren’t always created as well as at least bigger site projects would’ve required, which left visual designers and developers dealing with the details and nuances of the designed concept later. The concept design model worked well for smaller, quick marketing campaign projects, which often form the bulk of digital advertising agencies’ work, but not so well for bigger site projects, which we also got to do.

I draw my information, examples and material from various sources including marketing magazines, the Information Architecture Institute, the Interaction Design Association, and user experience design books of all kinds. While I think that the Finnish concept design model worked slightly better for the work of an IA/IxD/UXD at an ad agency, it wasn’t perfect either, as I point out above.