In a recent presentation, I heard the presenter emphatically referring to someone else code as “crap”; in the same presentation the presenter started to talk about architecture —and like most of the conversations I have heard recently that include the architecture concept— clearly implied that architecture is —above anything else— about the structure (internal structure in particular) of the system.
In my research about the subject of architecture in other professional design fields I have found that architecture is mainly about usability and when those other professionals have seen what we in the software industry do as architecture then they could emphatically say “crap”.
Not surprisingly, the work done on the subject by Philippe Kruchten: "4+1" View Model of Software Architecture, has been misinterpreted as an ultimate conclusion of what is software architecture whereas that work could be considered as a start —not an end— of our understanding of architecture practice in software. In that work, what gives purpose and meaning to all the technical views is their connection with the "+1" view: use cases. Therefore, further understanding of architecture in our field goes on the usability path.
For those interested, the role of an architect is –also- being discussed in MSDN, here . My first reply