Nick, While we're getting "bookish", let's not forget Christopher Alexander who describes [1] how:
[design/architecture] is the synthesis of form This is by definition a creative as well as pragmatic task. It applies to every kind of "system", whether economic, political, commercial, technical, etc. It frustrates me a lot to find people thinking that only *technical* or *software* systems are ever designed/architected. The same design/architecture issues occur in many other contexts, not least the creation of value chains/networks and business organisations. True solution architects, I believe design the system as a whole, including all of the business [structure and process] and technical elements. -Mike Glendinning. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notes_on_the_Synthesis_of_Form --- In [email protected], "Nick Gall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Rob Eamon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Steve Jones" > > <jones.steveg@> wrote: > >> > >> Ah but then does engineering == design? > > > > I don't think he was arguing for that. And it may have been me that > > inadvertently made that implicit connection. Clearly, both architects > > and engineers perform design activities. > > Anyone who creates anything "performs design activities". Herbert > Simon's "The Science's of the Artificial" is a profoundly insightful > book regarding "design activities". I urge everyone to read it and > reread it regularly -- each reading offers deeper insights. > > > I was exploring a possible distinction between architecture and > > design and thought that perhaps "creativity" or "subjectivity" were > > distinguishing aspects. Nick showed that that wasn't the case, at > > least as it pertains to "engineering design." > > Agreed. Creating a design that satisfies the most constraints with the > least compromises is deeply creative. > > > I'm still leaning toward "aeshetics" being the difference and am now > > exploring the notion that architecture includes a visual aspect. This > > would mean that building architecture is not conceptually equivalent > > to IT architecture. Further, as Nick as been positing, IT > > architecture = IT design. They are synonyms. > > But as I pointed out, though the building domain chose "architecture" > as their label for the "aesthetic" aspect of design, the product > domain chose "design" as the label for "aesthetic aspect, as in > "industrial design". I suspect that somewhere, the word "engineering" > has even been used to refer to the aesthetic aspect of design, though > I can't think of an example off the top of my head. > > -- Nick >
