Programmers have a tendency to optimize the data architecture towards their specific project, while IAs optimize it between various business units. This does create a tension sometimes, but a good IA goes a long way to smoothing that.
Yes, they're go-betweens. I don't think this was meant to imply that IAs can't be good at what they do. There are plenty of great HR people.
I think the point was that the job of IA is similarly useless, and just like I don't think anyone has ever said "Oh thank the FSM, we have another HR analyst," I don't think anyone has every said "We finally have an information architect!"
> they aren't DBAs, but they seem like it sometimes.
I think that goes right along with the comment of doing several things poorly and nothing well.
A good IA is really tough to find, and it's disappointing to hear engineers undervalue that role. It's typical from clients, but engineers I know that have worked with a good IA turn into advocates going forward.
And no, I'm not in UX.
"I have a lot of varied skills. I studied art and languages. I organize and prioritize information.
"We build web sites. We strive for good user interface. The information architect architects information. Information architects do everything."
What a total BS piece.
In my experience, an information architect is someone who creates wireframes (poorly), creates user interfaces (poorly), uses photoshop and illustrator as their primary tools (poorly), and writes HTML and CSS (poorly).
It's a garbage title for the in-between between designers and engineering and project management that doesn't have the skill of a designer or a programmer or a project manager but tries to give input on the jobs of all three. It's the glue role for the person who was willing to put in insane hours at a service oriented 'startup' that will never exit the startup phase (because that's not what labor intensive service oriented companies do).