Many thanks for this!

There’s a short(ish?) answer to that last question, which I’ll put here, and a longer one, which I’ll attempt to put into a separate email (or post, perhaps).

The short answer comes in essence from my extension to Len’s list: that architects work from the values to the logic, whilst designers go from the logic to business-value. In that sense architects of almost any stripe are closer to (in fact are) strategists than to the MBA-wielding types, who in most cases I’d place at best in the finance equivalent of the IT-architect bracket – i.e. a business-designer rather than business architect, a context-specific specialist rather than a true cross-disciplinary generalist.

That means that the architects act as the custodians of a body of knowledge that describes what the enterprise is, _why_ it is what it is, what kinds of structures are thought / felt / whatever to best fit those needs at the present time and into the future, and how things go together to make that happen.

So a slightly glib one-line answer to the CEO, perhaps, would be “Because we remember your future.”

And in a far less glib manner, Len Fehskens has a lot of very good and very sensible things to say about the professionalisation of architecture – follow that link to his ‘Rethinking Architecture’ PDF whilst it’s still accessible, it’s well worth reading.

More later, anyways – and thanks again
- tom g.

There is one very real issue with this approach to architecture and it relates more to the profession than any question that there is actual business value here. The issue is that architecture is a profession and not a set of deliverables. That implies a great deal and comes with some specific baggage. A profession is defined partly by a body of practice and partly by a body of knowledge but fundamentally it is a large group of people who recognize each other as similar. In addition it is an inclusive entity where individuals (even of different specializations) offer a similar value proposition (what I call the common differentiator). Surgeons and orthopedic specialists do radically different things on a daily basis yet fundamentally they have the same value proposition to society.

We should setup a time to discuss your views with the IASA working group on architecture skills, roles and specializations. We welcome individual contributors and definitely won’t be asking you to pay. In addition would like to setup another time for us to talk.

Now back to the point. There are indeed models that have come out of architecture that are valuable to the entire enterprise much as there were models of the enterprise that came out of finance. The difference is these models were then adopted to the basic business curriculum of an advanced business professional (an MBA). Similar situations exist for operations, marketing, sales, etc. But the point is, as useful models come from a set of professionals to the majority of business people, they do not modify the basis for the original profession. I believe that what you are describing is leading to this situation. It leaves off architecture and enters into pure MBA territory.

For architecture to remain relevant, or more appropriately to grow in recognition and capability, our professional basis must UNIFY software, business, infrastructure and information architects. The active term must become architecture and NOT what someone puts in front of it.

Think of it this way. As the CEO of a company I may ask you the question, “Tom, why should I hire architects?” Notice I didnt ask why enterprise or software architects but architects in general. We soar or sink as a group.

Paul Preiss, IASA