Welcome to MWT/[M]Architect
Architecture and Management are closely connected. My thoughts on the relationship between these diciplines is still largely consistant with the battle described in this article. TL;DR the article says management and architecture are in a battle for the control of organisations.
However, intellectual battles in the social sciences rarely resolve with ultimate defeat. As per “pendulum arguments” of all types, they resolve with the introduction of something new to disrupt the pendulum. The new thing is often introduced only when the ossolations between pendulum positions become realtime and therefore chaotic.
MWT/[M]Architect and its place within the MWT Model is an attempt to chart and resolve that battle. But more importantly it’s a way of disrupting the tensions between management and architecture disciplines today / now / in your own organisation. By bringing the future forward in your organisation you’ll perform with the efficiency of future organisations as you compete today.
Why call it [M]Architect? Because “architect” has too many pre-existing notions. To [M]Architect is to perform management and architecture as a single process. IT professionals already understand “Marchitecture” as a derogatory term for architecture diagrams that appear in proposals but aren’t “real” architecture.
I suspect that the reaction to much of the content relating to MWT/[M]Architect will be seen as both “not real management” and “not real architecture”. This is intensional and part of the strategy for alignment.