Cut Through the Architecture Buzzwords: What These Terms Actually Mean

My humble attempt to create a guide that makes sense of all those terms people throw around in meetings

Let's Get Real About Architecture Jargon

We've all been there. You're sitting in a meeting and someone confidently declares, "We need to align our strategy with our principles while following standards and implementing patterns." Everyone nods wisely, but half the room is thinking, "What's the actual difference between these terms again?"

The truth is, these architectural concepts get tossed around like hot potatoes in tech organizations, often without much thought to what they actually mean or how they relate to each other. People use "standard" when they mean "guideline" or confuse "strategy" with "principle" all the time. It's no wonder newcomers feel lost!

So let's cut through the noise and talk about what these terms really mean in plain language. No more buzzword bingo – just practical explanations that will help you navigate the sometimes murky waters of technology architecture.

The Seven Architecture Terms People Constantly Mix Up (Plus One)

1. Strategy

What it actually is: Your big-picture plan for where technology is headed in your company. It's like your technology roadmap with a destination and timeline.

Real example: "We're going all-in on cloud over the next three years. By 2027, we want 80% of our stuff running in the cloud instead of our data centers. This should make us more nimble and save money on all those servers gathering dust."

When people misuse it: They'll call almost any tech decision a "strategy" to make it sound important. But real strategies connect to business goals and have timelines. Something like, "we will put a man on the moon(what), before the end of the centuary (by when), and bring him back safely (how).

2. Policy

What it actually is: The rules everyone has to follow, usually because legal or compliance folks are watching. Think of policies as the tech version of "thou shalt not."

Real talk example: "Our customer data policy is non-negotiable: you must encrypt everything, limit who can see it, track who accessed what, and keep detailed logs. No exceptions or the regulators will eat us alive."

When people misuse it: They'll call something a policy when they really just want people to do things their way, even though there's no actual requirement or consequence for ignoring it.

3. Procedure

What it actually is: Step-by-step instructions for getting something done consistently. It's the "how to" manual for important tech processes.

Real talk example: "Before you push to production, you need to run the security scan, test performance with a full load, get sign-off from the change board, deploy during the maintenance window, and verify everything's working before you call it done."

When people misuse it: They create procedures so complicated that people find workarounds or ignore them entirely. Or they don't create procedures at all and everyone does things differently, causing chaos.

4. Principle

What it actually is: Your fundamental tech beliefs and values that should stand the test of time, regardless of what technology you're using.

Real talk example: "We believe systems should be resilient enough to keep running even when parts fail. That means redundancy everywhere, automatic recovery, and designing so a single failure doesn't take everything down."

How to spot a real principle:

As Aaron Dignan puts it, principles are those "special kinds of rules, boundaries, heuristics... words of wisdom that help us make our way through the world." But not every catchy phrase is a principle. Here's how to spot the real deal:

1. It creates tension: Real principles should feel a little uncomfortable or challenging. If your principle is something everyone instantly agrees with ("We should write good code"), it's probably too vague to be useful. Good principles push boundaries and make people think.
2. It guides decision-making: A principle should help you choose between competing options. When you're stuck at a crossroads, a good principle points the way forward.
3. It transcends technology: While tech changes constantly, principles remain relatively stable. "Automate everything" might sound like a principle, but it's more of a strategy tied to current technology. A better principle might be "Value human creativity over repetitive tasks."
4. It's memorable and clear: You should be able to state it in a single sentence. If it takes a paragraph to explain what you mean, it's not clear enough to guide behavior.
5. It creates a distinct identity: Your principles should reflect your unique organizational values. If your principles could apply to any tech company, they're probably too generic.

Jurriaan Kamer in his blog post "How to pick the principles that will actually change your organization" gives some great examples of strong principles if you want to adopt a way of working that is people positive and complexity conscious. aSo these will have a lot to do with, autonomy, transparency, decentralization, empowerment and consent. Here are the examples called out in the post :

• "Distribute authority to the edge of the organization"
• "Create accountability through transparency"
• "Steer continuously through experimentation"
• "Design for resilience, not perfection"

When people misuse it: They'll call something a principle when it's really just their personal preference, or they'll create so many "principles" that nobody can remember them all, making them pointless.

Principles are great as they tend to endure the test of time, and are not brittle to change. They are also great when you do not, or can not for many reasons be prescriptive. The also treat people as adults and not AI agents that might need VERY specific instructions ;-)

5. Pattern

What it actually is: A proven solution to a common problem that people have figured out works well. It's like a recipe for solving specific tech challenges.

Real talk example: "We use the API Gateway pattern for all our microservices. It handles the boring stuff like authentication, throttling, and routing requests to the right services so every team doesn't have to reinvent that wheel."

How to spot a real pattern:

Not everything called a pattern actually is one. Here's how to identify a legitimate architectural pattern versus a one-off solution someone's trying to elevate:

1. It has a clear problem-solution structure: A real pattern clearly defines both the recurring problem it solves and the solution approach. If someone can't articulate the specific problem the pattern addresses, it's probably not a pattern.
2. It includes context information: Patterns specify when they should be applied and when they shouldn't. They explain the situations where the pattern works well and where it doesn't fit. If this contextual guidance is missing, you're looking at a technique, not a pattern.
3. It identifies forces and trade-offs: Real patterns acknowledge the competing concerns (forces) that shape the solution and explicitly state the trade-offs involved. No perfect solutions exist—patterns make clear what you gain and what you sacrifice.
4. It has been proven in multiple contexts: Patterns emerge from repeated successful solutions to similar problems across different projects or organizations. If it's only been used once, it's an approach, not a pattern.
5. It has a name and is documented: Established patterns have recognized names (e.g., "Circuit Breaker," "CQRS," "Saga") and are documented in pattern catalogs or literature. This documentation makes the pattern communicable and reusable.
6. It's composable with other patterns: Real patterns can often be combined with other patterns to solve larger problems. They fit into a broader pattern language rather than standing completely alone.

For example, look at the "Circuit Breaker" pattern:

• Problem: How to prevent cascading failures in distributed systems
• Context: When services call other services that might fail or become unresponsive
• Forces: Reliability vs. resource utilization vs. complexity
• Solution: Monitor for failures and "trip" the circuit to prevent calls during failure states
• Trade-offs: Improves resilience but adds complexity and potential false positives

Here are some examples:

6. Standard

What it actually is: Technical specifications everyone needs to follow to ensure things work together properly. Think of it as your technology rulebook.

Real talk example: "All our web services must use REST APIs with OpenAPI specs, follow our naming conventions, and handle errors in a consistent way so other teams can integrate with them without wanting to pull their hair out."

When people misuse it: They create "standards" nobody follows, forget to document them, or make them so restrictive that teams can't get their work done and end up asking for exceptions constantly.

7. Guideline

What it actually is: Recommended (but optional) best practices. It's your "you probably should, but you don't have to" advice.

Real talk example: "When you're implementing caching, Redis is a good choice for sharing cache between services, while memory caching works fine for stuff that doesn't need to be shared. But hey, use what makes sense for your situation."

When people misuse it: They treat guidelines as if they're mandatory (making them de facto standards), or they're so vague they provide no real guidance at all. "Make it secure" isn't a guideline – it's just stating the obvious.

8. Architecture Decision Record (ADR)

Why We Need to Talk About ADRs

Let's face it – in the fast-paced world of technology, decisions get made and forgotten faster than you can say "agile sprint." Without proper documentation, the reasoning behind critical architectural choices vanishes into thin air, leaving future teams scratching their heads and asking, "What were they thinking?, What was the long division?"

According to a recent AWS blog post, development teams spend a staggering 20-30% of their time just coordinating with other teams. That's time not spent building cool new features or fixing bugs. And when architectural decisions aren't documented, teams waste even more time rehashing old debates or making inconsistent choices. YES AWS WRITE THINGS DOWN.

This is where Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) come in – they're not just another document to create, but a lifeline for your future self and team. As the AWS article points out, effective ADRs can streamline decision-making processes, improve team collaboration, and significantly reduce architecture rework. Teams that implement ADRs properly can make decisions faster and more confidently, with one to three focused meetings rather than endless debates.

What it actually is: Documentation of why you made a significant tech decision, what options you considered, and what tradeoffs you accepted. It's how you avoid the dreaded "why on earth did we do it this way?" questions years later.

Real talk example: "We decided to use GraphQL instead of REST for our data-heavy applications because it reduced network traffic by 40%, made frontend development faster, and gave us more flexibility. Yes, it's more complex on the backend, but the tradeoffs were worth it for our use case."

ADR (Architectural Decision Record) and TOGAF (The Open Group Architecture Framework) are linked in that ADRs are a valuable tool for documenting and managing architectural decisions, which is a core part of the TOGAF Architecture Development Method (ADM). TOGAF uses ADRs to record the history of decisions, ensuring transparency (key for high performing teams) and consistency within an enterprise architecture

How These Actually Work Together (When Used Properly)

Think of these concepts as different layers of decision-making that build on each other:

• Strategy and Principles are your foundation. They answer "where are we going?" and "what do we believe in?"
• Policies, Standards, and Patterns form your framework. They establish "what rules must we follow?" and "how should we approach common problems?"
• Procedures and Guidelines are your finishing touches. They specify "how exactly do we do this?" and "what's worked well before?"
• ADRs document the journey, explaining why you made specific choices along the way.

The Building Blocks vs. Patterns Confusion

One of the most head-scratching distinctions in architecture is between "building blocks" and "patterns." Here's what people get wrong:

Building blocks are the LEGO pieces of your architecture – the components you use to build solutions:

• Architectural Building Blocks (ABBs) are capabilities you need, like "Identity Management"
• Solution Building Blocks (SBBs) are specific products you've chosen, like "Okta"

Patterns are the instruction manuals showing you clever ways to use those LEGO pieces. They don't just tell you what to use – they explain how, when, and why to use it in a specific way.

Think of it this way: building blocks are ingredients, while patterns are recipes. A building block just sits there waiting to be used. A pattern says, "Here's a proven way to solve this problem using these building blocks, here's when you should use this approach, and here are the tradeoffs you'll make."

A Real Example That Ties Everything Together

Let me show you how this works in real life with a single example that connects all these concepts:

1. Strategy: "We're moving to the cloud over the next three years to be more agile and cut costs."
2. Principle: "Our systems should keep working even when parts fail. Period."
3. Pattern: "We'll use the Circuit Breaker pattern so one failing service doesn't bring down the whole system."
4. Standard: "Every service must have health checks that our monitoring can use to detect problems."
5. Building Block: "We need service mesh capability (ABB) and we'll implement it with Istio (SBB)."
6. Policy: "All production services must be available 99.9% of the time or heads will roll."
7. Procedure: "To provision cloud resources, you must use our infrastructure-as-code templates, get them reviewed, scan for security issues, get approval, and deploy through our pipeline."
8. Guideline: "Consider using feature flags so you can turn off non-critical features when the system is under stress."
9. ADR: "We chose Istio over Linkerd for our service mesh because it has more features and integrates better with our Kubernetes setup, even though it's more complex."

See how each concept has its own distinct role? When we use these terms correctly, they actually help us communicate clearly instead of just sounding impressive in meetings.

Straight Talk for New Architects

If you're new to architecture, here's some honest advice:

1. Start with principles you can explain to anyone. If you can't explain your principle to someone outside IT, it's probably too complex or not actually a principle.
2. Document your decisions before you forget why you made them. Creating ADRs isn't busywork – it's saving your future self (or your replacement) from massive headaches. The AWS blog recommends keeping ADR meetings short (30-45 minutes), focused on a single decision, and following a "readout" style where participants first read the document and provide written comments.
3. Don't reinvent the wheel – use patterns. Smart architects steal... er, I mean "leverage existing knowledge." Learn the common patterns in your domain.
4. Build with LEGO, not cement. Design modular components that can be reassembled, not monolithic systems that can't be changed without breaking everything.
5. Make your standards easy to find and follow. If your standards are buried in a 200-page PDF nobody reads, they might as well not exist. As the AWS blog suggests, centralize your ADRs in a location accessible to all project members.

The Bottom Line

Let's be honest – half the battle in technology architecture is just clear communication. When we actually understand and correctly use terms like strategy, pattern, and standard, we stop talking past each other and start building better systems.

The next time someone throws around these terms in a meeting, maybe gently ask them to clarify what they mean. You might be surprised to discover they're using a "principle" to describe what's really just a preference, or calling something a "standard" when it's actually more of a guideline.

By getting our terminology straight, we can focus on what really matters – creating technology that actually solves business problems instead of just generating impressive-sounding buzzwords.