Conference thebay::joyoflex

   Hey, I work in the Storage Architecture Group.  For a long time, my
   personal name was "Warehouse Designer."
   
   
   I have noticed the proliferation of the use of the word "architecture."
   We now have a Finance Architect, a Storage Sytems Architect, a Database
   Systems Architect.  What next?  Oh, I suppose we'll have a Personnel
   Architecture headed by a Personnel Architect.  Won't it be fun?
   
   Any other "ahcitechs' out there?
   
   
   							Terza
   
   

    I agree that the verb "to architect" isn't accepted by many, and I do
    try to avoid using it. However it isn't new, I've heard it for at least
    five years; and it does serve a purpose, it describes in a single word
    what an architect does. The author of .0 seems to have latched on to
    the correct meaning in spite of his objections. 
    
    If somebody doesn't know what an architect does, then I agree that the
    verb "architect" is "potentially confusing". So is the noun "architect"
    under those circumstances. Among those I know who understand what an
    architect does, I don't know anybody who finds it confusing.

    Consider the following definition: "architect, verb, 1) To specify a
    style and method of design and construction, 2) To specify an
    architecture." 
    
    It's certainly better than "architecturize". If you have a better word
    to describe what I do for Digital and the VAX architecture, I would be
    very happy to use it.

    All very well, but consider the following ...
    
       The architect architected a magnificent piece of architecture.
    
    Surely this should be more like
    
       The architect *designed* a magnificent piece of architecture.
    
    What an architect does is DESIGN.

    Of course I know what it means ... and I know to many that is
    sufficient to deem it as valid language ... but that doesn't mean
    I have to like such an abomination and cannot decry its usage.
    Moreover, it doesn't mean that I cannot suggest that it shouldn't
    be used.
    
    Now I suppose someone will back-form a noun to replace the current
    noun for a person who architects ... an architector ? or how about
    an architecturalist ? or an architecturologist even ???  Where does
    it stop ?????
    
    stuart

    I humbly beg to disagree.
    
    An architect doesn't necessarily just "design".  For example, I "design
    architecture". There is a very significant difference in the
    specificity. Consider: 
        
    New aquaintence: "What do you do at Digital?"
    Me: "I architect multi-processor VAXes."
    
    This conveys a more specific and different meaning than if I say,
    "I design multi-processor VAXes." That means I design implementations
    of VAX multi-processors rather than the architecture itself. 
    
    I could of course say, "I design the architecture for multi-processor
    VAXes", and that would solve both problems, albeit with more words.
    In fact, that's what I do say.

    re .3
    
    An "architecturologist" is a doctor who has carried specialization
    to an extreme.
    
    Dan

>    New aquaintence: "What do you do at Digital?"
>    Me: "I architect multi-processor VAXes."

    Does this mean you design the cabinetry for these multi-processor 
    VAXes ?  Sorry if I am being a bit pedantic here, but this is an
    example of where borrowing a term, such as architecture from
    another world and applying it in a subtly different way can result
    in a lot of confusion.
    

>    I could of course say, "I design the architecture for multi-processor
>    VAXes", and that would solve both problems, albeit with more words.
>    In fact, that's what I do say.

    I am glad that you don't architect .... but that you design.  I
    now have a much clearer picture of your job.
    
    Pedantically yours,
    
    stuart

    Re: .6
    
    Then perhaps you can explain my job to my mother.

    Hmmmmmmmm As a member of a CSC, I should recommend a number of
    excellent courses offered by Digital's Educational Services ....
    
    Did you tell her you architect ... or design computer architecture?
    
    I have a hard enough job explaining computer to my parents.  All
    they hear are excuses for human ineptitude blamed on a computer.
    To them a computer is the root of all evil!  How do you explain
    your job to them when the term computer might as well have only
    4 letters ?
    
    stuart

    Regarding computers IN SOMEBODY ELSE'S HANDS as the root of all evil
    sounds like a perfectly reasonable operating assumption until events
    prove differently. I commend your parents on their perspicacity. 

    "Architecture" as applied to computer systems has been in use since
    1964; Gene Amdahl used the term in a paper in the IBM Journal of
    Research and Development titled "Architecture of the IBM System/360".
    
    The term has a well defined meaning, quite distinct from design,
    among those who practice the art.  Architectures are not "designed".
    
    len (manager of the distributed systems management architecture
    group).
     

    But didn't Gene Amdahl use the noun form of "architecture", not the
    verb form of "to architect"? This discussion is tied up with the
    verbing of the noun "architect" or "architecture", not with the
    definition of "architecture" itself.
    
    ps: I know *some* architectures are not designed, but others are.

    re .11 re .10 - yes, he didn't "verbify" the noun.  I was sort of
    responding to the sentiment in .6 that "architecture" as a borrowed
    word was confusing and the sense of some other replies that it was
    of recent vintage.
    
    As an architect, to say that I "design" architectures doesn't feel
    right.  The most natural verb for what I do is architect.  An architect
    architects architectures, a designer designs designs (hmm, interesting
    asymmetry there).  Actually, what I do involves "architectural models"
    or "meta-architectures", the things that multiple architectures
    must have in common.  If you think as an architect you have trouble
    explaining to your mother what you do, consider my situation.
    
    In my view, there's a hierarchy of levels of abstraction:
    
    	models or meta-architectures
    	architectures
    	designs
    	implementations
    
    We have no problems talking about modeling, or designing, or
    implementing.  What's the big stink with architecting?  I get the
    impression that for many contributors to this conference, all
    neologisms are bad, that the language as defined at some point in
    the past is sacred and unchangeable, and that old words must be
    applied to new needs no matter how ill-suited they might be.  People
    who seem to value "subtle" distinctions (e.g., infer vs. imply)
    seem unwilling to draw a distinction between design and architecture,
    when those of us practicing these arcane arts know there's an important
    distinction, a difference that can engender some quite unpleasant
    engineering consequences when ignored or misunderstood.
              
    len.
    

    
    Does an architect perhaps design frameworks?  (I'm sure someone
    will object to the use of the word `framework', but...)
    
    Why confuse things by creating yet another new word, when words
    already exist to describe a concept?  The trend seems to be to invent
    a word for every occasion, rather than using a little effort to
    find a combination of existing words that mean the same thing.
    
    Of course, if it turns out that there is no other way to describe
    what an architect does, then we'll just have to put up with 
    `architecting'!  Another danger, if this happens, is that `to architect'
    might be too abstract.  A building architect, and a software architect
    will give different views on what `architecting' means.
    
    Mat.
    *:o)
      

    Sorry, this hand-off really gets my goat:
    
    �								People
    � who seem to value "subtle" distinctions (e.g., infer vs. imply)

    [note - I'm not objecting to the whole sentence; I know when I'm
     out of my depth]
    
    There's nothing subtle about the infer/imply distinction.  If A
    implies something (say B), someone taking note of the implication
    may infer B from A.  That's not subtle, but the more people call
    it `subtle' (and the more placidly other people accept the notion) 
    the sooner the distinction will become defunct.

    This isn't relevant to the `architect' discussion.  As I said, I
    know when I'm out of my depth; so I try to stay out of discussions
    that I know I can make no useful contribution to. But I don't
    dismiss them out of hand, as being conducted by "People who seem
    to value `subtle' distinctions (eg, architect vs. design) ...".
    
    b

    Did you note the enclosing of 'subtle' in quotes?  Might you not,
    perhaps, have inferred from that that I too do not find this a
    "subtle" distinction?
    
    len.
    

.1>   I have noticed the proliferation of the use of the word "architecture."
.1>   We now have a Finance Architect, a Storage Sytems Architect, a Database
.1>   Systems Architect.  What next?  Oh, I suppose we'll have a Personnel
.1>   Architecture headed by a Personnel Architect.
   

Almost, but not quite.  A few weeks ago, we had a lecture by a visiting
Personnel type.  He didn't mangle the English language any more than most
people in that area do, but one term did catch my attention.

In discussing what his group does, the guy mentioned that they are responsible
for a Reward Systems Architecture.  (Maybe it was Rewards System Architecture;
I can't remember).  So people in Personnel aren't Personnel Architects,
they're Reward Systems Architects.

    Maybe an architect specifies?
    
    At the macro level, architecture;
    at the mecro level, design;
    at the micro level, coding.
    
    Hm.  At one time, the primary macro characteristic of a building
    was what kind of arches went where, right?  Once upon a time,
    height didn't vary much.

    Re .14 and .15
    
    Just how subtle is the difference between "imply" and "infer"?
    Take him a break, eh?

<><><><><><><><>  T h e   V O G O N   N e w s   S e r v i c e  <><><><><><><><>

 Edition : 2827             Thursday 13-May-1993            Circulation :  6959 


VNS COMPUTER NEWS:                            [Tracy Talcott, VNS Computer Desk]
==================                            [Littleton, MA, USA              ]


 Digital - Digital's business architecture: a framework for change
 	{Livewire, Worldwide News, 12-May-93}
   (Note:  This is the first in a series of articles on Digital's new business
	structure.  The series is also appearing weekly in 'digital today,' the
	U.S. employee newspaper.)
 
   Digital is in the midst of radical, irreversible change that's sweeping from
 the highest levels of management to the farthest field office. It is a
 fundamental reorganization -- at once exciting, uncertain, and painful. Why
 are we doing this? 
   Digital has been slow to adapt to the changes that have rocked the
 information technology marketplace since 1987. There have been breathtaking 
 improvements in price/performance, a proliferation of small, powerful 
 computers, a drastically shortened product cycle, and fierce, sustained 
 global competition. One of the results of our being slow to adapt is poor 
 fiscal performance: Digital has not retained a profit for five years.
   The new IT marketplace is complex and volatile.  It is moving away from the
 traditional systems business in two strikingly different directions: toward a
 volume driven commodity-type product and services market on the one hand, and
 toward a value driven solutions and systems integration market on the other. 
   Attributes of the commodity market are intense competition around costs,
 price, and price/performance. The commodity market is considered the low-end
 "box business," e.g. PCs, printers and components. 
   The value driven solutions and systems integration market requires
 business-specific solutions that add clear value to a customer's enterprise.
 That means helping customers re-engineer their business processes, improving
 their information technology infrastructures, tying together multivendor
 systems and helping them take advantage of rapid technological development
 while protecting their investments. 
   Both these markets are characterized by open systems and client/server,
 multivendor environments. 
   Last fall, Digital began reorganizing to reflect this new marketplace. A new
 business architecture has been defined which more effectively focuses on our
 customers, whichever market they're in. The company has been divided into nine
 business units. Five address the value driven solutions market, and the other
 four address the commodity driven market. 
   For value added solutions, the business units are:
   -Consumer and Process Manufacturing, led by John Klein 
   -Communications, Education and Media, led by Paul Kozlowski 
   -Discrete Manufacturing, led by Frank McCabe 
   -Financial, Professional and Public Services, led by Bruce Ryan 
   -The Health Industries, led by Willow Shire.
         
   For the commodity driven market, the business units are:
   -Components and Peripherals, led by Larry Cabrinety 
   -Personal Computer, led by Enrico Pesatori 
   -Storage, led by Charlie Christ 
   -Multivendor Customer Service, led by John Rando. 

   The business units will operate worldwide, supported by 13 territories which
 will implement business unit plans. In so doing, the territories will provide
 the products and services that customers require. All other functions will
 support the business units. 
   During his recent DVN address, Digital President and CEO Bob Palmer pointed
 out that the business units and territories were "a dynamic thing." As the
 market develops, the number of business units may vary. Explained Bob, "A
 corporation is like a living organism. It's something that lives and grows,
 and if you're successful, it's healthy and expanding - and that's what we want
 to be." 
   (Next time: The Roles of the Business Units)
   (For more information, contact Barry Mike at DTN 223-1025 [MEMIT::MIKE])


<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
        Please send subscription and backissue requests to EXPAT::VNS

    Permission to copy material from this VNS is granted (per DIGITAL PP&P)
    provided that the message header for the issue and credit lines for the
    VNS correspondent and original source are retained in the copy.

<><><><><><><><>   VNS Edition : 2827    Thursday 13-May-1993   <><><><><><><><>