To manage conflicting changes in a project's IA strategy, I would start by understanding the stakeholder's concerns and reviewing the project's goals to ensure alignment. I would use research and user insights to support the current IA and organize a collaborative session to discuss both viewpoints and explore solutions. If necessary, I’d create prototypes to show the effects of proposed changes. By assessing the trade-offs and potential risks, I would aim for a balanced solution or a phased approach, ensuring decisions are well-documented and communicated to keep everyone aligned.

I'm concerned about my stakeholder's well-being, as it seems they might be experiencing amnesia. Perhaps they've been under a lot of stress lately, or maybe they're just having a particularly challenging day. It's particularly concerning that they don't seem to recall our collaborative efforts in defining the strategic goals and reviewing the research together. I remember our countless hours spent brainstorming, card sorting, discussing, and refining our shared vision before outlining the strategy. Let's revisit those discussions and work together to find a solution that aligns with their current understanding of the project's goals.

Hear them out, and go from there. Have your strategy backed by data and research, but don't let that make you arrogant. There are many paths to the destination here. Listen, consider and respond appropriately. Their concerns may improve the strategy altogether.

AI can be utilized in various ways, I would prioritize understanding the stakeholder’s concerns before implementing the strategy. To ensure a smooth adoption and to get buy in, I would develop a phased strategy that gradually introduces the technology, allowing stakeholders to build confidence in its capabilities. For example, instead of having the AI automatically send replies to customers, I would initially use it to draft responses for review. This approach would continue until stakeholders are comfortable with the quality of the AI-generated content. This sort of approach can derisk the project and make stakeholders more comfortable.

To navigate conflicting changes in the IA strategy: Understand the stakeholder's concerns through active listening Promote open communication and transparency Seek common ground and explore compromises Manage expectations and assess risks Document and implement agreed solutions Follow up with continuous engagement Key steps include: Schedule a meeting to discuss objections Share rationale behind current strategy Encourage collaborative problem-solving Identify shared interests and compromises Communicate project constraints and timelines Update project plan and stakeholder engagement plan Regular check-ins to monitor satisfaction This approach addresses concerns professionally while maintaining positive relationships and project momentum.

It’s absolutely fine for a stakeholder to challenge the IA strategy as nobody knows the business better than they do. If they raise this challenge, they likely have a valid point. The key here is to put yourself in their shoes, listen to them. In many cases your ego plays a major role so it’s important to avoid letting it influence the discussion. To approach this constructively, go back to the previous research to understand why the stakeholder believes the change is necessary. Arrange a meeting to present your findings, take their feedback into account and aim to find a middle ground. If the budget allows, consider an A/B to validate the changes. If not, outline the pros and cons of both the stakeholder’s suggested IA structure and yours.

Employing reverse thinking and first principles thinking can provide clarity. Reverse Thinking involves flipping conventional assumptions to spark creativity. If we typically design with the belief that users prefer hierarchical navigation, consider the opposite: what if they prefer a flat structure? This shift can uncover innovative solutions. First Principles Thinking breaks down the IA strategy to its fundamental truths. By questioning each element we can eliminate unnecessary components and focus on what truly matters. Both strategies encourage questioning assumptions, focusing on essential objectives, and exploring innovative ideas, leading to a more resilient IA strategy that aligns with stakeholder concerns and project goals.

When faced with conflicting stakeholder opinions, I first focus on actively listening to fully understand their concerns and perspectives. By doing so, I show respect and ensure that I don't miss any important details. I then foster open communication between all parties to clarify issues and avoid misunderstandings. I encourage collaborative problem-solving, guiding stakeholders to brainstorm solutions that align with our project's objectives. If direct discussions don't resolve the issue, I might bring in a mediator to help us find a fair compromise. Finally, I make sure to document all decisions to provide clarity and prevent misinterpretations as the project progresses.

Work with clients to understand who the stakeholders are up front- then do the work to align on goals. The goals need to be reflected back in a presentation or brief to ensure everyone’s accountability. Including your own team. Later, your data-driven findings inform the info arch as you develop it. Psychologically - make sure every stakeholder feels seen/heard in the process — Great clients are the result of inclusion, accountability, perspective and most of all, great relationships.