Just catching up on posting after a couple of months of flying under the radar with some intense projects at work.
These are a couple of presentations I did at the IA Summit back in late April that have been kicking around SlideShare.
The first, "The Information Architect and the Fighter Pilot" comes out of a couple of streams of thinking that I've been playing with over the last year, namely the theory of John Boyd, the future of Information Architecture and the role of emergence in the creation of value.
The second, "Backcasting 101" come from a pre-conference session I taught about the Backcasting method that I've "stolen" from the environmental planning field and have been using for strategic planning work in the context of information architecture work.
Enjoy!
HA! I was sure when I saw your backcasting pressie online a while back that you had gotten some of it from environmental planning methods but I didn't have the benefit of seeing you present. Can't remember if i specifically asked Sam L. about that or not.
Just in case your interested in stats, i think there is some interesting applications for social impact assessment methods when it comes to weighting and ranking systems for decision making particularly as it relates to comparing hard business numbers to those fuzzy things known as user goals. :)
Posted by: Leigh | August 18, 2008 at 10:09 PM
Great decks, thanks for posting. MAD's tweet got me to the latest one, & I just kept going. Thought i would pay respects before bailing your blog - 1) You have an Su-27 (or is it 29?) in your deck with US pilot Boyd. Is there a story behind that? and 2)I wish I had seen you pres to 172 slides. Jeez. But another conclusion can be drawn from the total migration and fungibility of method transfer between disciplines and firms. Like Linux, its the apps you build with the simplest of methods. Method migration, if only to advance "practice," may only advance sales to savvy clients interested in comparing toolsets. Not all clients care - most want a good job done on their problem. Another conclusion is that the very same methods - as is - are mixed and shaken differently for each problem. The process that frames methods, not the methods per se. Anyway, a Big Topic for another day. See you, PJ
Posted by: Peter Jones | September 19, 2008 at 05:13 PM
Hey Peter, agree on the comments about methods. I don't think method innovation is needed to provide competitive toolsets for comparative differentiation, I think it's needed to allow people to roll their own bespoke methods, among other things. There's a post in the works. I'll ping you when I get it up.
The plane in question is an Su-34, successor to the Su-24 Fencer. I was (and still am) a total airplane geek; the Fencer was one of my favorites as a kid. No reason the Su-34 was included other than it's cool, and I found a set of really good high resolution shots of the same plane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34
Posted by: Matthew Milan | September 19, 2008 at 06:26 PM
http://www.oversizedwatches4u.com/oversized-alain-silberstein-watches-16.htmlwow, I’m impressed! really. it’s a great project that will help people in many ways.
I wish we could have used such technologies when I was getting education…
everything would have been much easier:)
Posted by: Account Deleted | May 20, 2011 at 03:26 AM