cynical me says:

What do regular-old architects do to protect design and strategic intent while developing architecture solutions for their clients?

sacrifice.

Is the durability of client buy-in and sign-off any better or worse when there are physical models for the client to put their hands on ... or when there's 3D CAD stuff to "fly thru"?

no.

you redo - you lose money.

define "information architect" and "regular-old architect".

i think, with us 'regulars,' it is about the process of adjusting and re-adjusting.
but what it is suggested by 'our' manuals is to get the client literally initial the piece of document, usually a blueprint, perspective sketch, description of sorts, etc. and move on the 'next' stage of the long process, which is also identified in parts, ie; programming, schematic design, design development, construction documents, construction administration, post move in services etc..
after each approved 'phase,' as spelled in most contracts and pro practice manuals, is 'extra' expense for the client to re-tract a decision, granted it is not triggered by a mechanical design flaw of sorts.
we are a highly regulated and defined profession even though we might appear to be wild and crazy.
of course there is more to it, but these are some quick thoughts.
i don't know if this is what you were asking to start a discussion and find about our operational procedures?
also, i am dying to hear the answer to diabase's question from the other side...

richard saul wurman coined the phrase "information architecture" and chaired an AIA conference in 1976 called The Architecture of Information.

back in the day, wurman was looking at what architects might have to say about and contribute to the display and organization of information. he published some ponderous shit on these topics ... but when the World Wide Web exploded in the mid 90s, Information Architecture was nabbed from Wurman and those of his ilk (eg people who trained in regular-old architecture) by a couple of techno-librarians at the university of michigan.

in the time that's elapsed between then and now, "IA" has matured as a community of practice, and is recognized as a discreet discipline, in the same way that interaction design and usability engineering have been broken out of "Human Computer Interaction" as discreet disciplines.

so, information architects are people who often have a background in librarianship, and they design the organization systems and navigation systems for websites and other digital information spaces. info architects also do the up-front design work that aligns website features and functionality with user needs and client requirements.

for the purposes of the IA course i teach at the UM school of information and for the purposes of the book I'm working on, "regular-old architect" is a playful way to refer to people who're trained as architects. designers of the built environment.

hopefully helpful,

dan k.

We spend a lot of time listening to what our clients want so that our strategic intent aligns with theirs. If we think our strategies are too much at odds, we don't take the job.

If despite our vetting process a real conflict occurs, we ask them to trust us, because we are the professionals.

Generally, this works, and after the disputed item is built we (so far) have never heard anything but "You were right".

Note: my partner and I have combined almost 50 years of experience - this strategy might not work for someone fresh out of school.

I hope I don't sound snotty - the term "information architect" makes me bristle just a bit, though I'm getting more comfortable with it. Plus with my 25 years of experience and un-notable record of built work I am definitely a "regular (and) old (registered) architect."

Dan, you are a breath of fresh air. Thanks for the clear and intriguing explanation! Stick around awhile, we like all forms of designers.

dan.k and lb,

My point exactly. I can be prosecuted for working and calling myself an architect despite my B.Arch hons and 7 years of experience.

I note that you [dan.k] carefully position your profession as an offshoot of genuine architecture practice and theory, so you must know of the contention that I and alot of others have over this title.

In NZ, both the term architect and registered architect are protected. Its my choice to remain unregistered, but it does grate to hear frequent borrowing of the term by others. However, I think you have made a good case for your title: hearing Don Rumsfeld being called 'Architect of the War' is too much.

And I'd probably prefer the differentiation to be 'information architect' and 'genuine architect', rather then 'regular-old' - I am only 32 ;)

d

Liberty - You are anything but "regular" and since you are my age, you are therefore not "old".

Changes were more crushing in the old days when you had to erase for literally hours at a time or start over on a drawing that you maybe had 30 or 40 hours into. With CAD, you can stretch, mirror, rotate, update blocks, xref, and all the other tools. It still hurts, just not quite as bad.

Technology and software have actually made it easier for architects, including our firm, to make too many major changes late in the project because we didn't resolve the design fully in schematic design. Its relatively easy to do sketchup renderings that look complete but the ideas and the rational basis still need to be there. Otherwise, there's no design content to extend and execute throughout the rest of the project.

and Steven is right - you lose money.

i do want to become an information architect. or better yet, work with one. definitely, and seriously, a must for every architecture practice. it is like the missing link. isn't this definition few architects are working on? 'buildings that inform'.
you definitely need to work with 'old regular info archies' to make that happen.