Architecture Management vs. Architecture Development

There is a very difference between the management and the development of an architecture. I mean, if you're an architect spending more time with checking artifact lists, revising policy documents, verifying smb. else's creations to satisfy an already given and well documented framework and prooving that your architecture fits whatever standards using a PowerPoint presentation (yawn), you're likely to manage instead of developing.

Architecture management in some more or less small form is a necessary evil of every architect. There is a level of documentation and public work which is absolutely needed to keep an architecture on living. But it's no candidate for a cult. Sure it's much easier to manage compared to development (he? not only concerning the architecture, I guess ;-)), but it's very deadly for an architecture.

Just imagine a building architect which has never made a plan for a building or it'a sanitation. Got him? He will end up sitting in a government office writing things like: "in our village all roofs have to be orange and must have the same form. Tear down your house to fit our standards now!" Know what I mean? This is management.

Those of us who mentally quakes imaging such a rubbish know what architecture development is: creative work, technology scouting, permanent improvement, pilot subprojects to proove a concept, prototypes and fights for admission to go on etc.

So, please don't misuse the terms architecture or architect only to have them being written on your business card. If you are managing an architecture developed by somebody else or even by yourself a long time ago, use smth. like standards manager or so. If you don't develop the architecture with a very hands-on part there is nothing to be called architecture in your function.