Not quite sure this applies too much in startupland. There does appear to be a shift away from traditional IA practices with most startup designers, but largely because it takes too damn long and really isn't that necessary.<p>Proper IA/wireframing/signing-off-on-steps is good for companies where a clueless management is going to make myriad changes to information hierarchy or UI bits along the way, because you have a "we talked about this already and you agreed" defense when some clueless marketing guy comes over and says things need to be bigger, this link needs to be here because it's his friend's company, etc.<p>A lot of what this article is proposing is missing (organizational hierarchy, an understanding of the order of information) is something that I don't really think is missing in a good tech-company designer's head. He or she is often one of few in control of that domain, and the product roadmap is often known quite a bit in advance. A lot of the polar bear book's 1000+ pages ends up getting turned into heuristics, when quick decisions and fast iteration under multivariate testing is often better off for a young company than sitting back and doing some type of holistic, IDEO-class set of mental exercises.
One thing I have always disliked about UX design is the name. Frankly reading "user experience design" is a much better user experience for me than reading "UX design." The bad first impression always makes me wonder what other garishnesses will be in the project due a need to seem hip.
<a href="http://000fff.org/getting-to-the-customer-why-everything-you-think-about-user-centred-design-is-wrong/" rel="nofollow">http://000fff.org/getting-to-the-customer-why-everything-you...</a><p>For some more thoughts on what is wrong with the field. (shameless plug)