The reason architecture was brought into question in Fowler’s paper is because when you are doing evolutionary-based design (ie. bottom-up design, where you articulate first-class entities as they reveal themselves, a lot like how I build my own org-mode headlines), then you aren’t designing a whole gestalt system of components all in one go, what an architect typically does. Instead, you are guiding the growth of the system, identifying boundary points as they reveal themselves. You are more a gardener than an architect.

Clearing the weeds and design or system calcifications, defining BoundedContexts and ApplicationBoundaries, refactoring as necessary.

The reason architects are needed in buildings is because they’re not structures that can be trivially changed. Most likely, you won’t be able to change your mind later, so you get it right the first time.

For software, refactoring is always possible, though it has a cost. So it’s more sculpting and closer to art than traditional engineering disciplines.

The value-add of the “architect” is refactoring direction.

Design == refactoring/gardening/cultivation.

Intermediating between chaos|entropy and order.

Defining the taxonomies as they grow, and managing them sanely such that they are well articulated to the people who use them.