asks @EnterprisingA . Well, obviously architecture is not the avowed enemy of innovation. As Jon points out, they ought to be on the same side, because there are some strong shared values.
But surely the real question is not whether they ought to be helping each other, but whether (good intentions notwithstanding) they actually do support each other's efforts more than they (inadvertently) hinder and interfere with each other.
I think there is some evidence for the proposition that Architecture and Innovation don't actually collaborate as well in practice as they ought to in theory. This does not necessarily mean a critique of Architecture as such, but a critique of current "best practices".
Jon talks about the TO-BE architecture, but I am also interested in the TO-BE practice of architecture.
It seems as though 'existing architecture' encourages incremental innovation. Most I.T. workers tend to only work on top of existing architecture... while computer scientists create 'new architecture'.
ReplyDeletePlenty of room for both! Just gets sticky when I.T. thinks they're scientists and vice-versa...
To set this in context, please feel free to read the article that Richard refers to at Is Architecture the Enemy of Innovation? courtesy of The Enterprising Architect
ReplyDelete