> you paid an architect to come up with the blueprint
You didn't pay the architect to work on the blueprint, you paid FOR the blueprint.
The blueprint is an asset, architect's time is not. You are not the employer of the architect, you are their client. The business transaction is money-for-blueprint. Whereas with an inhouse software developer the business-transaction is salary-for-time-spent.
If the software developer does not come up with a working program you can not take away their already earned salary. Whereas if the architect does not give you the blueprint you don't have to pay for it.
And once you get the blueprint you can sell it to someone else, it is an asset. Once the SW-developer-employee goes home you might or might not be able to sell their work-products to somebody else, because maybe the program does not run. If it does not run you can not sue the employee. If the architect's blueprints do not produce a working house you can sue them.
You didn't pay the architect to work on the blueprint, you paid FOR the blueprint.
The blueprint is an asset, architect's time is not. You are not the employer of the architect, you are their client. The business transaction is money-for-blueprint. Whereas with an inhouse software developer the business-transaction is salary-for-time-spent.
If the software developer does not come up with a working program you can not take away their already earned salary. Whereas if the architect does not give you the blueprint you don't have to pay for it.
And once you get the blueprint you can sell it to someone else, it is an asset. Once the SW-developer-employee goes home you might or might not be able to sell their work-products to somebody else, because maybe the program does not run. If it does not run you can not sue the employee. If the architect's blueprints do not produce a working house you can sue them.