One of the first notations made in my notes from the ZapThink session (see Zapthink LZA Reviewed) was a subtle disagreement about the relationship between Architecture and Technology. ZapThink asserts that “Architecture is not about technology.” They paraphrase “physical”* architects stating that buildings are and should be designed “for the space.”

What the Classics Say

While this is not untrue, a review of classic architectural writings reveals a fuller and more enlightened perspective. In point of fact, Architecture is about the spaces and the structure and the foundation. Physical Architecture does in fact concern itself in no small manner with the structure and foundation of the building. Without a solid and proper foundation, even the best and most suitable “spaces-based” Architecture will fail. The spaces based viewpoint might come from the fact that in the world of physical Architecture, structures and foundations are usually a known quantity, as a great deal of experience has been recorded over the past few thousand years. However, whenever a new material or technology is introduced, inherent unknowns often produce failure. With this failure and its study comes further understanding.

Software Architecture

In our world of software and systems Architecture, the foundation is the technology upon which one builds. Without an experienced based, solid foundation, even the best system will fail. Unfortunately, we do not have the advantage of thousands of years of direct experience to tap in our decisions of foundation and structure as do the physical Architects. Many modern software Architects start and end with what they already know, or let developers, politics, or circumstances decide. This is a short-sighted path. At createTank, we’ve seen success in recommendations based upon information from two primary sources:

1. Direct experience on hundreds of major projects in all variety of form and function.
2. Interdisciplinary Architectural research.

In this way, we can put to good use those abstract principals refined over thousands of years of physical Architecture, made concrete and applicable through direct experience doing modern, “dirty hands” work. When combined, these sources provide a more holistic architectural perspective. We are not perfect, nor claim all answers, but the proof is in the pudding, and one well built system is worth a thousand white-board rectangles.

The createTank perspective

Architecture is not only about technology, but it does concern itself with technology. That is, Architecture is not only concerned with the space, but also the structure holding up and indeed defining that space. This is the technology aspect of architecture. Without a solid foundation and structural components, any building or structure will fail. Enterprise Architecture’s virtual constructs are no different. The best design, the best architecture, will be hampered by a weak foundation, whether in the O/S, software language, or framework chosen. This is stated in confidence, because although the actual system may indeed function well, lack of scalability, maintainability over time, or agility to integrate with other systems will catch up in time and prove expensive or fatal.

Summary

In the end, ZapThink is not necessarily wrong in their assertion, the assertion is just incomplete. It is easy to understand as they are trying to highlight the business value of SOA. However, downplaying the role of technology in SOA to such an extent is unsettling. Walls are important in physical architecture, and technology is important in your software architecture. It might not be continually considered the most important component of your architecture, but an architecture should only be considered healthy when the foundation (its technology) is trusted solid and sound. Walls and structure, as too, technology, hold up and define the space or functionality designed. In essence, a good architect MUST understand the technology involved, including which technology best fits a given problem, in order to create the best possible system. This is absolute. In your projects, you would do well to place stock in the hire or counsel of an architect with extensive experience in the technologies involved and with the ability to communicate the lessons learned therein at multiple levels.

…the traceries had caught the eye of the architect…up to that time…his eye had been on openings only…Now, the great pause was at the moment when the space and dividing stone-work were both equally considered — John Ruskin, The Seven Lamps of Architecture, The Lamp of Truth, Section XIII.

^* “Physical Architect” is used here to jointly differentiate architects of physical structures (e.g. buildings, houses, industrial complexes, skyscrapers, etc.) from architects of more virtual structures (e.g. software systems, software applications, enterprise IT systems, etc.).