Solution Architecture has a reputation for producing output that is largely engineered for function, overlooking the creative responsibilities of architecture to produce an aesthetically pleasing outcome.

Wikipedia eloquently describes 'Architecture' as the marriage between the art & science of designing physical structures. When confronted by well-designed architecture, one detects the sophistication & quality of design through all senses and it isn't judged purely on the function of the structure. 

This careful attention to the completeness of design is rarely encountered in information and technical systems architecture. Why? Well, the common failures may be summarised by three simple points of balance:

• Design vs. engineering; because solution architecture is typically a function of IT, the tendency is to hire technical engineers as solution architects; design, as a qualification & outlook, is ignored and it shows in the product - the engineering of the technology may be excellent, but there is a lack of coherency in the wholeness of the product and absence of the characteristics of design
• Experience vs. function; too often time, budget, skill / experience of the architect, and a focus on the imperative of function results in a solution architecture that incompletely (if at all) addresses the experience aspect of architecture - it's functionally complete, but it simply doesn't feel right!
• Myopia vs. vision; without vision and imagination, the architecture will focus on the immediate context of the problem, and relying solely on the conditions brought to the attention of the 'designer', without the stimulation of creative insight and innovation - it does what was asked explicitly, but ignores what was implied or needed.

Architecture is a creative science (yes, those words can be used together!). The distinction between engineering & architecture must be recognised in information technology and business systems design so that the right people are employed to produce architectural design that are complete in both function and aesthetics.

Dedicate time & effort toward making a design product feel right, and the audience will applaud the result as well as appreciate its function. Apple have demonstrated this very effectively with products that not only function well but, more importantly, feel beautiful and the response from the market qualifies this approach. In fact, it seems that experience has been more important than function, since there are many available competing products that are functionally superior ... they just don't have that, well, "je ne c'est quoi".

But actually we do know what - don't we?