Architypes

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?

Comments

• Anonymous
  September 26, 2005
  Not 100% convinced that solutionaaplication 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
  
  Infrastructure should be at the corporate level - but is often introduced at a project level
  
  
• Anonymous
  September 30, 2005
  I don't think that the distinction lies in their budget or scope
  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.
  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).
  
• Anonymous
  November 03, 2005
  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.
• Anonymous
  November 03, 2005
  The comment has been removed