Just been to another meeting where there was confusion over what an infrastructure architect does in comparison to an application architect. I cant understand this, its so obvious to me:
An infrastructure architect provides models and technology for the whole business (networks, mail, web ect). They have a budget allocated by the corporation.
A solutions or application architect provides models and technologies for one part of the business (customer management, Sales, Manufacturing etc). They have budgets provided by the line of Business.
What am I missing?
Not 100% convinced that solution\aaplication architect is restricted to a single part of the business or that the budget comes from the business. There needs to be at least some central control of application architecure otherwise a situation with multiple approaches within the organisation would quickly arise
<br>Infrastructure should be at the corporate level - but is often introduced at a project level
I don't think that the distinction lies in their budget or scope
<br>For example if a project is being built by a contractor (e.g. outsourced) there can still be a infrastructure architect working on the project level to design the networks, mail etc. for that specific project.
<br>On the other hand a company may have an architecture center (to help maintain product lines) and designate architects for projects (and budget it on the corporate level).
I agree on the budget definition comments already posted. As an Infrastructure Architect (primarilly) I still get requests and funding from business groups. Storage is part of the infrastructure and we would all love it to be delivered in one clear strategy but the application still play too large a part in that space.
PS - while we are at it, can someone point out to Microsoft that we don't like being called IT Pro's. In the UK a Pro is a Prostitute...for one thing.