In IT, there are various roles such as Architect or Designer and the line between these two definitions seem to get blurred. I find that it often means different things for different people and companies. This can also make understanding a potential candidates strengths hard as there is no clear formal definition, so whilst a person might have the title of network designer, that person may be performing more of a network architecture function, and vise versa.
In the IT industry the term designer and architect largely follow the broader known definitions used in other industries, but unlike other industries which may have very clear descriptions, in IT these are often used interchangeably. However I believe there is a significant difference between the two which, based on my own experience I will try to discuss here, and maybe provide some insight, and perspective. I also think both skills are critical to a successful IT department in any mid to large size organisation.
ISO/IEC 42010:20076 defines “architecture” as: “The fundamental organization of a system, embodied in its components, their relationships to each other and the environment, and the principles governing its design and evolution.”
TOGAF embraces, but does not strictly adheres to ISO/IEC 42010:2007 terminology. In TOGAF, (based on my 9.1 certification and knowledge) “architecture” has two meanings depending upon the context:
- A formal description of a system, or a detailed plan of the system at a component level to guide its implementation.
- The structure of components, their inter-relationships, and the principles and guidelines governing their design and evolution over time.
My thoughts on the role of an architect is to optimize, the often fragmented legacy processes, technologies and capabilities, which is responsive to change and enables the delivery of the business strategy. It enables the effective utilisation of information and technology to assist the business in achieving a competitive advantage, and enhancing the user experience both internal and external to the business.
IT architecture focuses is on the broader, holistic view on how systems inter operate with each other and the principles that they should adhere too. It typically defines the choice of framework, capabilities, scope, goals, and high level methodologies which will be utilised.
IT designers focus is to plan for how the systems will be organised, how the components of a system will work and integrate, how the system will be implemented and the specification which should be met during, and at the end of the implementation and or integration.
Whilst these may seem in large part like the same thing I believe IT architecture is more objective focused, analyzing the requirements, the system and how it will be measured, whilst design is more subjective, as it is based more on the usage of a system, and how it will operate and be managed.
Simply put IT architecture often involves looking at all the features, from a business and IT perspective, how they inter relate, the inputs and outputs of how the system will be supported or utilised and the broader implications to the business as a whole. Design is typically more focused on the system itself, and its technical aspects, features and constraints.
That said, as mentioned, both skills are important as an architect may focus on the overall aesthetics of the system and the integration with the business a designer is typically looking for the purest technical solution. Architecture faces towards strategy, structure and the abstract. Design faces towards implementation and practice, towards the concrete. Therefore when combined a design defines how a chosen architecture is applied to the given requirements.
Architecture without design does nothing: it can too easily remain stuck in an ‘ivory-tower’ world, seeking ever finer and more idealized abstractions and solutions with the risk at realizing practical outcomes .
Design without architecture tends toward point-solutions that are optimized solely for a single task and context, often developed only for the current techniques and technologies, and often with high levels of hidden ‘technical debt’.
Having skills in both disciplines can sometimes be challenging but for effective and efficient IT in a mid to large size organisation, both architecture and design are essential to arrive at appropriate, useful, maintainable solutions when both are in use and in appropriate balance.
Final Thoughts
I have worked from a technician to designer to solution architect to domain architect and seen the benefits and limitations of all of these roles. I believe, perhaps slightly egocentricity, that having experience in all areas help round out what is needed for the organisation. Whilst in large organisations these roles are typically filled by different people or groups they can be a single person or group.
Whilst it is often important to deliver to the goals and objective of a specific project, being able to ensure this aligns with the organisation’s overall strategy and leaves minimal tech debt (gap) is more ideal. I have briefly discussed this in a previous post IT Architecture Process
I guess the answer is that both Architecture and Design are important, one may be more so depending on the situation, and they are often not disparate skills, however more focus or weight can be applied to one area over the other, it really depends on what problem is trying to be solved.