I need your help.

[mangosteen]

I desire to re-route the connotations of a word, and its usage.

I despise the verb-form of the word "architect", specifically when it's used by some computer-industry Howard Roark wannabe* who wants to talk up their network/software/system design, because they are so far up themselves that they got the full text of The Fountainhead tatooed on the insides of their eyelids.

If I hear someone "architected" a solution, I figure one of two things has happened.
1) It's a random design that they want to talk up because they know it's pretty boring otherwise.
2) It's a design that's looks pretty and was done without any consideration of reality.

Assignment: Picture yourself in a meeting where someone says that they "architected a solution". Assume no political ramifications for mockery of said person. How would you correct their usage?

---

*Such a thing to aspire to. Eugh.

Comments

[jirikido.livejournal.com]

hello Neo, I am the architect. My business card says "Senior Systems Architect". I certainly say I have finished architecting a solution or I am architecting an approach. It is highly conceptual in nature. Then sometimes I'm even involved in the design or logical stage. I don't mind using architected as a verb, and I do separate architecture and design always.

[cos]

Architects design things. The fact that your title or card says "architect" has nothing to do with the objection to using "architect" as a verb. If you use it to mean something other than "design" (which is a very broad word), you're creating unnecessary confusion unless you're only talking to people who you've sat down with and discussed new meanings for your local jargon. In which case the rest of us probably don't care - just don't say it to us :)

[fieldsnyc.livejournal.com]

Actually, architects design buildings.

If you're taking the first step of using the word "architect" to talk about something other than buildings (computer systems, in this case), I see no problem with coming up with another verb to describe that action, which isn't really design, since design has another, already well established meaning that isn't the same as what the architect does. By using "design" for that verb, you're just overloading it and removing its actual meaning in the context.

In this case, what architects are doing is "technical designs and specifications, some PM, coordinating other team members, owning the spec, and probably building a good chunk of it too".

I use "architect" as a verb to describe this collective action. It seems fine to me.

[cos]

1. gut reaction: Yuck! that makes me twitch

2. pragmatic reaction: I'd never have guessed that's what you mean by "to architect" if you hadn't defined it there, and it's not what (some) other people mean by it. So it's obviously not "fine", however it may seem to you.

[fieldsnyc.livejournal.com]

And your alternative terminology is... ?

It's not "design" - that's a completely separate activity.

[jirikido.livejournal.com]

Yes, I find myself correcting people frequently on this point. I'm an architect. I architect things. To me, that means that I conceptualize systems and interfaces that do not yet exist and contextualize existing data systems and interfaces in new ways that have not yet been tried. This work generally happens at a high enough level that implementation details are obscured or outright obfuscated. It involves research into evolving trends, emerging standards and and finding patterns to re-use in other systems that have already been built.

Design is the process of translating conceptual architectural concepts into concrete patterns, networks, systems, components and APIs. I should be able to hand a good design with appropriate requirements to my developers and expect they will create a system from it. Rather different.

[cos]

Yes, I find myself correcting people frequently on this point.

I think that makes the point :) You think that "architect" has this other meaning, and you don't mean "design", for which you also have your own definition of. Other people have no clue what this special other meaning of "architect" is. You're basically using a private word and expecting people to understand it. They're mostly using the consensus definition of "design", which is broader than you seem to want it to be, and they certainly don't know your definition of "architect", because it's not a word that has a consensus definition.

[jirikido.livejournal.com]

Actually no, what I am trying to give is an overview of the consensus of what constitutes the difference between architecture and design in my field (software and sytems). It continues to surprise me how many people try to skip either architecture or design, or mix them up. It's still a relatively new field after all :).

I've been doing it for nearly 20 years and at least software architecture has some shape and discipline now. What pleases me most is that I often have colleagues now that I can have decent and reasoned architectural discussions that don't have to dip into design until the right time.

Now, if you want a term that baffles me, perhaps we can try to define software engineer ;) ...

[cos]

So totally missing the point!

Nobody here has an issue with the word "architecture" as applied to technical fields. Note that it is a noun. And as you say, architects to various things. One of their core functions is to design. People whose job is "designer" also do a variety of things, one of which is to design.

Yes, the field of "software architecture" has taken shape, and the term has some meaning.

No, the verb "to architect" hasn't taken any shape, and has no agreed meaning, nor does it have a useful role. We don't need a new verb for the entire collection of things a software architect does anymore than we need a new verb for the entire collection of things that a building architect does, or than we need a new verb for the entire collection of things that an interior designer does. An interior designer does more than just design, too, obviously. They may manage a project, and buy materials, and even hire people to do parts of the work. A building architect usually does more than just design the building. We understand that, fine.

When you're an architect, you design things. You also do other work in preparation for and related to designing things. Fine. That doesn't make the verb "to architect" have any clear meaning - certainly not one that you should expect anyone to understand (much as that may surprise you, since you assume people do understand it).

[mrf-arch.livejournal.com]

In this case, what architects are doing is "technical designs and specifications, some PM, coordinating other team members, owning the spec, and probably building a good chunk of it too".

I use "architect" as a verb to describe this collective action. It seems fine to me.

What office do you work at? I've been practicing architecture for about 15 years now, and have yet to meet a fellow professional who admitted to using "to architect" in preference to "to design". Although I'm also not thinking of any fellow professionals I've previously met who felty the need for an overaching verb that would include project managing, plan drafting, building systems designing, and spec writing.

[fieldsnyc.livejournal.com]

Are you an actual architect, or a systems architect?

[mrf-arch.livejournal.com]

I'm the kind that makes buildings. :-)

[tayefeth.livejournal.com]

That explains why you don't feel the need to verb perfectly good nouns. You're not trying to convince anyone that you're doing actual work while you stare into space in your cubicle.:-)