I, like many of my peers, went through various crisis as I matured professionally. First existential, wondering what my purpose and value were. Doing that while a discipline is starting to established itself is both a privilege and a curse. A privilege because you are both defining yourself and your broader collective without the shackles of traditions and ingrained habits, making progress easy and fast; a curse because when the vast majority of people “like you” are questioning what you are at the same time, it is hard to find the comfort and support that gives you the confidence to advance.

Peter Morville and Lou Rosenfeld wrote a book that described what the IA practice meant for a particular context. That provided enough confidence for five or six years of truly amazing development in the practice of information architecture. I am happy I was around. However, I have not been happy about my community of practice in the past several years. The level of energy, enthusiasm and possibility I felt and experienced in the first half of the 2000′s became marred by attempts to find a solution to a problem that was not ever really articulated.

Known as “defining the damn thing”, we talked ourselves into a circle trying to describe information architecture and its place in the world. In that process, I watched information architecture erode as a discipline. The forward momento became stagnant. When DTDT is described as naval-gazing, it’s because it accurately portrays information architecture’s adolescence. Our struggle with DTDT is because we were in effect, telling IA to grow up, “be a man”, when it was still a child verging on adolescence. That’s the second crisis, a crisis of identity. Unlike the existential crisis, value was not the core question: we learned our worth and felt (mostly) confident about it.

Identity crisis is the failure to achieve ego identity during adolescence. Psychology research (Erikson) has found that peers have a strong impact on the development of ego identity during adolescence. I, in retrospect unfortunately, spent most of my energy trying to figure out my identity and grow professionally while our collective identity crisis was taking place. I would have been a really happy diplomat. Or engineer. Or software developer. All of which I considered seriously at different points, but because I pursued this path, I needed to push myself in ways I could have never imagined and watched others do the same – and I spent several years frustrated with the lack of progress.

Information Architecture’s crisis of identity reflects our inability to change our self-image. I find it funny that the stage of psychosocial development in which identity crisis occurs, according to psych theory, is called the Identity Cohesion versus Role Confusion stage. Defining Information Architecture and being an Information Architect are different things. We spent years conflating the two. Since our daily reality is the work we do, this work exists in a setting that requires role definition. We thought that role was “information architect” and in trying to make progress figuring that out, we stopped making progress on what information architecture was becoming.

Many smart people have repeated over and over that these are separate issues, but to this day I see people not making the distinction. This is when User Experience Design won the battle. At the same time all this was progressing, User Experience emerged as a term to describe the intent of these efforts we were trying to figure out. User Experience seemed to me like a way to refocus from the dogma of User-Centered Design to a more meaningful overarching understanding that imbues various disciplines with meaning and purpose. I feel this has been wildly successful. But what of the IA discipline?

That’s when our poor framing of the question came back to haunt us. “What is information architecture and where does it belong” was now being asked in this larger User Experience context. And Peter and Lou’s definition for the context in which it was defined was not enough. Also, the same question was being asked of other disciplines. This is where Design with its deep and rich traditions emerged as a great foundation – as a practice – to form the identity that could deliver on this promise.

By declaring and accepting we are all User Experience Designers we embraced User Experience and left Information Architecture behind. Apples and Oranges. But – I hope it’s obvious now – taking the identity of user experience designers could/should have simply broadened the identity of information architect, not dismiss information architecture as a practice. Unfortunately for information architects, this amazing progress of the field (UX) happened while we were having a major identity crisis and extremely ill equipped to distinguish the two.

There is no conclusion to this. I see seedlings of the right sentiment starting to re-emerge in information architecture from people who are not interested in what we call ourselves. That problem will always get in the way and I have come to terms with it. I am an information architect because that’s a meaningful descriptor of my identity – TO ME. I don’t care if I need to describe that meaning as User Experience Designer so I can be understood, but I no longer struggle with the identity. The label is just a translation of meaning into different contexts. I absolutely embrace User Experience as the field in which I practice my work and I draw from a few different disciplines to achieve what I need to achieve. But information architecture is still the principal discipline that guides me. It took me a long time to realize I didn’t have to move away from information architecture to get to where I wanted to go. It is nice to know this instead of wondering about it.

Explaining our discipline succinctly in a context-agnostic fashion seems to be the holy grail for most – I feel ‘making the complex clear’ already did that over 30 years ago. Explaining the discipline in context-sensitive terms, well, that I can’t do and I don’t feel I need to. Describing information architecture (as in DTDT) is the top down way to answer our identity question. As an information architecture practitioner I know damn well that the most meaningful structures emerge from the content, so my base assumption is to continue expanding the boundaries of our practice by DOING THINGS and then calling them something when we need a name for them. That name may be information architecture. Or not. I don’t care – as long as we don’t conflate the practice development and our identity we can start growing again.

I was meant to give a talk sharing my story growing the UXD practice at Comcast for the past many years. I was excited to do this because I felt it could be useful to new managers and because it would help me be diligent about reflecting on that journey, which I wanted to do but had had difficulty committing to. Also, the timing was perfect. So what went wrong?

Bad choices all around

Things that contributed to the failed presentation:

* I was sick and feeling quite ill. 
I contracted a powerful stomach bug from something iffy I ate the night before. Cold sweats and trembling do not inspire confidence in your audience. I had also been on a panel the prior day and had already set an expectation with the audience on what my delivery style and energy level were. I could not live up to my normal. 

* I was intensely tired.
Because I was actively fighting the stomach bug all night long, I was unable to sleep and felt like my brain was in a haze. I was prepared and know the topic deeply, but I had a really difficult time recalling the order in which I had decided to expose the material and which specific points I wanted to make. The cues in my notes triggered nothing. It felt like having memory hiccups. Also, when I am excessively tired, English, my second language, doesn’t flow as well from my lips and I unknowingly omit words mid-sentence. I can’t hear it as it happens, but I know that must have happened.

* I took on unnecessary technical risks.
I prepared my presentation using OpenOffice and on my Dell Mini laptop. It was great for preparing but proved a poor choice when the projector refused to recognize my computer and the presentation would not display appropriately on PowerPoint on the computer I borrowed. All this happened 30 minutes before the presentation. I should not have experimented with non-standard technology since the visual aid was important, but not testing in advance in the final delivery space and setup is, always, a huge mistake (and I know better). Also, I did not have a plan B. Unnecessary anxiety piled on at the worst of times.

* I didn’t synthesize the story well.
This presentation did help me reflect on this journey as I wanted. I was able to gain perspective on the story in a way I had not seen it before. Unfortunately, I diverged too widely in analysis and ended up with less time to synthesize what I found into a cohesive story. I was sufficiently happy with where things were and it would still have been ok if the above factors had not added up, but they did, so the outcome was mediocre when contrasted with what I knew could have been done. Had I worked more on reducing it further to its essence, I could have managed the other issues better.

* Timing was disrupted.
Never allow external arbitrary inputs to break your planned delivery rhythm. Editing and being more concise in language on the fly are very doable, but only when you are feeling very comfortable in the flow of the presentation. I wasn’t comfortable, obviously, so when I was asked to wrap it up, I couldn’t figure out how and conclusion was completely derailed, which made the story seem like it did not have a real end.

I can’t have a do-over, so I’m going to re-craft this presentation and look for opportunities to give this talk elsewhere to see if I can tell the story I actually wanted to tell.

We know quite well the value of Design to business, and Design Thinking to problem solving. But what remains a bit fuzzy for many organizations is the distance between thinking and doing—the proverbial gap between strategic intent and execution. Or, how to make it happen. This year’s design thinking conference will focus on closing the gap—and moving from design thinking to design doing.

What one actually does. I enjoy the conversations about design thinking but they tend to lead to a lot of hand waving and I have found many designers and specially young managers struggling to grasp just what it is they need to do (not just talk about) to produce the positive outcomes discussed in this context.

My talk, which could not have been more appropriately timed, will be a journey through my work at Comcast between 2004 and 2011. I’m going to talk about how the UXD practice was established, how it grew, changed and evolved over the years, and what impact it’s had in the company culture and products.

What aspects of this journey would YOU be interested in hearing about? DMI is recording the video for this session so you’ll have the opportunity to see it later in case you can’t make it to Seattle. Please let me know what points in this story you’d find most useful learning about or any questions you may have.

I’ll post a summary after I’m back. Thank you!

• We’re more inclined to live in DC than surrounding areas (Columbia Heights, U Street, Mount Vernon and Dupont Circle are areas we’re looking at initially), but we would not discard Bethesda, Silver Spring, etc.
• Virginia is a no. As long as they hate the gays more than the average state we’re not living there.
• We want to rent not buy. Annual lease sounds good.
• 1 bedroom with a den would be perfect. 1 bedroom also ok. Studio not so much, we like doors. 2+ bedrooms only if not in the city (as the prices are ridonc)
• Must accept pets (we have 2 cats)
• Parking garage highly desirable (Amelia works odd hours so it would make us feel safer)
• I don’t drive. Walking distance to the metro is important. Red Line is preferable.
• Amelia works at GW and Prince George’s County so easy access to the roads that lead there is important.
• Proximity to supermarkets and entertainment is a big plus.

If you have suggestions for neighborhoods or particular places, please leave a note or email me. Thanks!

This is one of the most significant steps in what has been a decade-long quest. My wife and I met in 2001 while we were living in different countries, at different stages in our careers and pursuing other goals. We made a commitment back then to figure out how to be together and we’ve been working towards that ever since.

The hurdles were many and significant, but we successfully managed to move to the same country, then the same state and eventually the same city, up until last year when she took an International Emergency Medicine Fellowship position in DC (she is an EM physician). We’ve been commuting on weekends to be together ever since. It’s not very fun.

In the intervening years, we accumulated a number of degrees, diplomas, jobs, careers, greencards, relatives, wedding vows, real estate, pets and an innumerable amount of possessions and memories which now fill our home and our hearts. That’s a lot of baggage to commute between Philly and DC every weekend so we discussed this long and hard and decided it was just not worthwhile. We are done waiting. This move means we can finally be together for good.

I am leaving my position as Principal, User Experience Design at Comcast, which seems unreal even as I write this considering how meaningful and important this phase of my life was. I could not possibly express what it has meant to me to have done this for the past 6 (six!!!) years in a few short lines but I will talk about it more in the future. Suffice to say I am thankful for the experience, memories and friendships.

I will surely miss all the people I’ve met in Philly though I am glad to know I won’t need to live here to keep those friendships. I am very excited about living in DC too. I love the city and I am fortunate to already have many friends and family there. Not to mention how great the UX community is locally (I often attend the local events even though that means a hike from Philly every time), which means I can continue my UX community shenanigans just as much (if not more than now).

This is not an easy transition and there is so much to do that I can barely look at my to-do list without cringing, but I could not be happier and more delighted to finally come to the end of this long and hard journey feeling a complete sense of joy and accomplishment.

Thank you all who have been there for me and for us along the day. This is possible, in no small part, because of your love, friendship and support.

I regret immensely that I was so good at conforming. I think it’s because of this “skill”, my ease to quickly adapt and fit others’ expectations, that I ultimately did not pursue a career in diplomacy. Interestingly, I think this same characteristic would have produced a really valuable diplomat.

Over the past months I’ve been reflecting on my life and what I’ve done with it so far. It started from a professional standpoint, as I was trying to articulate what my job should be in the year ahead, and it extended to what I have accomplished as a person in this trajectory. It seemed like an inescapable analysis as I have worked over 50% of my life (I am 31 and I have worked continuously since I was 15).

I couldn’t tell you precisely why I became a user experience designer. I think now that it was an accident due to two factors: First, I came across the tools of design and was blown away by what they had to offer me – both intellectually and as practical approaches to do whatever it is I was doing. Second, I let my infatuation with the practice go as far as it would take me, rather than think of what it was that I wanted for myself out of this practice.

When I speak to other practitioners (and I have spoken to many over the last few months) about how they see me and what I have accomplished, I am humbled by kind words and appreciation. Those who worked directly with me tell me about what impact I had on their own work and how impressed they have been with certain abilities, such as making really complicated stuff digestible, managing difficult people and helping them turn around to a productive path, and being very organized (this last one being the most mystifying to me as I do not see myself this way at all).

Those with whom I interacted with in the design community at large tell me they appreciate certain perspectives I bring to discussions (even the define-the-damn-thing kind), specific advice I have given them through coaching or presentations, and have thanked me for my time above all (I’ve spent a significant amount of time over the past 8 years regularly volunteering on organizations and projects that are about advancing the practice of user experience design).

While it is truly nice to receive this feedback (Notice how all of this was affirming feedback. Believe me, the adjusting feedback comes immediately as things happen, with urgency and fervor, but never when you ask for feedback), I find myself incredibly dissatisfied with what I am doing.

I am proud of what I have accomplished so far and I feel confident about my abilities, but as I look back I believe I have forgotten what it is that I wanted to do. So much so I am uncertain if I knew that in the first place. Maybe I just need reminding, but I’m trying to resolve this now and I am finding it difficult. I’ve received really great advice from very smart people I am lucky to know and before I sat down to write this I decided to re-listen to a recording of Harry Max’s IA Summit talk in 2010. He talks about developing strategies and how designers already possess the tools needed for that job. In the last minute of the talk, Harry shares this:

If you know where you’re going, amazing things can happen. AMAZING things can happen.

And so, it’s profoundly useful not just to recognize that you have these cool tools at your disposal, and not that you can do strategy and you can do design and you can do this and you can do that. None of that on some level really matters. What matters is that if you have a sense of where you want to go, and you hold a crystal-clear vision of it (not in that “The Secret” kind of way, but more in that kind of “just get clear about what you’re about” and get clear about what success is for you, and get clear about what successes is for your organization), you have the tools that you need, the gaps are relatively small.

If you can identify what those gaps are, go close them. Learn the tools, read the books, it doesn’t really matter. You’re way ahead of where you think you are right now. Way ahead.

And, what matters is asking good questions, showing up in a non-judgmental way with an open heart and recognizing that you are now a participant in the process of creating the kind of world you want to live in.

I rewound that minute and listened to it 8 times. And another two times so I could transcribe it here (I HIGHLY recommend you listen to this talk. The transcribed part starts at 1:28:41).

I feel like it speaks to my frustration so clearly I could not find better words; I feel as well equipped do get stuff done as I could possibly be and yet, the “just get clear about what you’re about” seems very fuzzy. I feel no joy or enthusiasm in being this “ready to attack”.

So, that’s what I have been working on.

Please donate today and help us make this happen.

If we agree that quantifiable data, specifically the ever popular web analytics, provide you with rich detail to tell you WHAT is happening, it is comforting to realize that it is the type of data gathering that we already do – design research – that provides the qualitative color to answer WHY said things are happening.

What I am finding, however, is that it is more valuable to START with the quantitative work and get to the WHATs and ask WHYs based on those findings, rather than trying to figure out WHYs in exploratory mode (even if the WHAT’s are going to emerge at one point or another in this quest).

My point is that it’s not sustainable as an approach. It’s inneficient to start digging deeper to answer the WHY questions if you don’t have a baseline of WHATs identified.

The problem is that it is not intuitive for designers to start where they are uncomfortable. We are super comfortable with qualitative approaches – they are our go-to tools because that’s what makes sense for design research. However, quantitative research instruments really help narrow stuff down, but they do require you to understand those pesky numbers in order to a) dig in and get to concrete answers and b) understand what it’s saying so you can ask “why”.

In short, WHATs before WHYs are more efficient than WHYs before WHATs, but that requires designers to start with unfamiliar tools to then apply familiar tools. If it was the other way around I think it would be much easier for designers to bridge both approaches and come out the other end with more useful insights.

In other words, since we don’t particularly feel an attraction to numbers (to put it lightly), why would we start there? It’s such a leap from how we think about problems that it is counter intuitive. I don’t believe designers reject the notion of starting with Quant approaches (WHATS) to expand with Qual approaches (WHYs), but it’s inherently counter-intuitive to think that way.

How can I help designers do this when it goes against their nature? That’s what I’m working on right now. More on this later.

I was excited to go but apprehensive because I was meant to present on a topic that is new to me and I had not had an opportunity to have other conversations about it across the community. Also, after seeing the first two days of excellent content one is bound to feel nervous about their own stuff! It ended up being great – I talked about key performance indicators and measuring success in the context of user experience (slides forthcoming – I’m writing notes because they are not good enough on their own as they were only triggers for my talking points).

While preparing for this talk I expected to have few people show up, precisely because of the reason why I am investigating this topic in the first place: designers don’t like numbers. I didn’t think the topic would be attractive at all (thus my “out there” title and description). The feedback I received and the types of questions asked during the event were really interesting and helped validate some suspicions about how our community sees metrics and numbers.

My main goal was to put something out there about KPIs and measures of success for UX so that we could start a conversation and really explore this topic. I have grown tired of how this topic ALWAYS ends up going into a “what is the ROI” conversation and never advances our ability to express what success means to us. Measuring success to show our value to others is a secondary goal, measuring success for ourselves seems far more valuable to me, which is why I am going to continue to explore this and try to focus the conversation on that goal.

The main theme I saw emerge from the feedback I received is that people felt validated; that I brought up the questions they all have but had not seen articulated in the community — which is precisely what I felt when I started looking into this 4 months ago. We can’t really learn and expand our understanding as a community if we don’t figure out what questions we’re trying to answer. And that is why, in my opinion, we always fall back on the pointless ROI calculation discussions.

I am very grateful for all who came, participated and found me later to discuss the topic. I am very excited about seeing what’s next.