Creating an Architectural Board to maintain the concept of the profession of Software Architecture.

http://docandersen.podbean.com

https://docandersen.wordpress.com

http://scottoandersen.wordpress.com

My Amazon author page!!!!

http://lukeoandersen.wordpress.com

http://chuckandersen.wordpress.com

http://NickOandersen.wordpress.com

So my friend replied to yesterdays blog agreeing with my now expanded scope of the reasons why there isn’t anything new in Software Architecture. He didn’t like the word immaturity, but who does.

He had an additional point that I was moved by. It actually got me thinking that his point might in fact be the number one reason there is nothing new in Software Architecture. I asked him if I could share the idea. He said yes so here it is.

Everyone has their own Architectural Theory.

When he first proposed that (we actually spoke on the phone this time rather than 24 emails) concept I was shocked. I have a lot of friends who have created their own architectural frameworks and ideas.

They borrow bits from many other theories and create their own. They often attribute the source so that is good. But the reality is they are making the waters murky rather than helping. His concept that strikes me is the creation of a body whose job it is to create and accept architectural concepts. It would reduce the number of theories out there by increasing the complexity of having an approved theory. Today all you have to do is say “look this is my theory of architecture and it’s the best one.”

It goes to my thinking about the Internet (the great Internet board) that I posted awhile ago. The concept that there has to be more than simply saying look at me for something to be published (this blog of course, a great example as it is simply a look at me).

Professions have boards and bodies whose job it is to maintain the profession. Not the people as any one person is well not critical. The profession as a whole entity is the important thing (which goes against the concepts of socialism but is the reality of a profession).

So,

I present this to the architecture board as a pundit/critic’s view of the architecture profession.

What say you board?

.doc