Software Designer = $80k pa Software Architect = $100k pa Enterprise Architect = $200k pa
Product for "design" = $3k Product for "architecture" = $10k That is the real reason for the difference the "brand" association of architecture. For me the basic principle, whether building architecture or IT Architecture is that it has to deliver something "concrete" at the end of the day. Whether that is a building which matches the vision of the architect (e.g. the Gerkin in London) or an IT application or Estate that matches the vision of the IT architect it must be recognisable as implementing the original vision. Too much of IT tries to abstract itself away from implementation (often architects) and holding feet to the fire and making people link their jobs to final deliveries is (IMO) important. Steve On 09/07/07, Rob Eamon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Okay, a great bunch of comments in this thread. It has helped me immensely. We have quite the range viewpoints! Here is where I've ended up: * Inasmuch as an architecture defines a model, then that model can be implemented and thus an architecture can be implemented (though I'm still having a gag reflex with that). * Architecture and design are not very distinguishable. I touched on this in my question asking how do others distinguish between the two. Basically the answer was architecture is the top level of the design. * The term architecture, as applied to business services, software, hardware, process, etc., should be eliminated from our vocabulary. Design fills the bill quite nicely. :) Early in the thread I started thinking that "implementing the architecture" might be okay. But I found myself still on the "architecture isn't implemented" side of the fence. What pushed me over to the other side was this Wikipedia article on architecture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture. "Architecture is the art and science of designing buildings and structures. A wider definition often includes the design of the total built environment:..." Architecture = design. "While the primary application of the word "architecture" pertains to the built environment, by extension, the term has come to denote the art and discipline of creating an actual, or inferring an implied or apparent plan of any complex object or system." Architecture = the finished product, not the plans (at least originally) "Architectural design involves the manipulation of mass, space, volume, texture, light, shadow, materials, program, and other elements in order to achieve an end which is aesthetic as well as functional. This distinguishes Architecture from the applied science of engineering which usually concentrates on the structural and feasibility aspects of design." Architecture addresses aesthetics (at least in the Wikipedia version of the truth). Do business services have aesthetics? How about the arrangement of the software assets of a company? Perhaps. People state "it's cleaner to do it this way," implying a certain aesthetic value. I almost always ask for the person to clarify what they mean by "cleaner." More understandable? Exhibits less coupling? Beautiful, ornate, open, warm, airy, etc.--aesthetic terms that are often used to describe the architecture of a building--are not attributes one generally applies to business systems. Do the "-ilities" that are often applied to business systems (flexibility, maintainability, complexity, understandability, etc.) qualify as aesthetic attributes? Probably. Any further thoughts on this topic? It's been a great, if almost purely academic, discussion. -Rob
