I recently read a blog entry by Jason Gorman on "Architecture vs. Design - An Artificial Distinction?" where he talked about the scope of architecture and design being arbitrary and the meaning ultimately resides on your point of view. I agree 100% that almost anything is arbitrary based on your point of view, but being in the software testing arena, architecture and design are two totally different things. The distinction comes into play based on a timeline. In the beginning, software and systems are designed (conceptualized) as to what they are intended to do and what they are supposed to support. The architecture of these applications and systems denote their implementation. Many definitions of design talk about planning. Definitions of architecture talk about structure. It makes me think about the comic strip that came out many years ago where each cell in the strip shows the interpretation of a tree and swing by each of the producers.

As proposed by the project sponsor

As specified in the project request

As designed by the senior analyst

As produced by the programmers

As installed at the user's site

What the user wanted

From conception to delivery you never really know what you'll get. In the end in my world, the proof is in the pudding. Design is one thing, but what you end up with can be something entirely different. When I teach methodology, my definition of architecture is that it defines how components work, how they interact with other components and how we interact with them. Ultimately, architecture determines how well or poor a complete solution will work. There are so many ways to put today's technologies together and depending upon the circumstances, needs, resources, requirements, etc., a system with an elegant design may or may not be put into architectural practice to yield the best possible results. Again, my position on architecture and design is that there is a definite distinction.

Now you know my position on architecture and design, what's yours?