People get hung up on the word "Architecture"

In the inclusion of the word "architecture" in different a set terms seems to lead to some confusion that as the terms share the "A" word that ipso facto they have a lot in common.

People seem to think that the operative word in each of these terms - Enterprise Architect, Systems Architecture, Service Oriented Architecture, Solution Architecture, Infrastructure Architecture - is "Architecture" and this implies some kind of commonality of person, approach, skill set etc. When in fact the orientation is differs considerably and the the focus should be on the non-A word e.g. "Enterprise", "Systems", "Services", "Solution", "Infrastructure".

If we talked about "Designing an Enterprise", "Designing a building", "Designing a car", "Designing a town" - we would not think that per se these activities share a common method, common skills, common tooling. We may recognise that at the highest level there could be some common principles and that lessons could learned, and some techniques transferred, between these - but that would be about as far as we would go.

The "A" word means master builder. Historically a "master" would start as an apprentice, work for many years under a "master" progressively learning what worked and what did not (and developing extensive experience in the domain and materials) - and would eventually become a "master" themselves. Now people seem to disphemistically degrade the "A" by applying it to any design activity.

It seems to me that often the "A" is used to imply an air grandiloquence