I think most would agree doing architecture is the process, architecture is the final product but can also include the process, and that unbuilt design is also still architecture... often called paper architecture when it’s intent of the design was not to be built in the first place.

So I think you have it mixed around.... but there is a lot of wiggle room and people have different opinions

I always thought of architecture as both the process and product of planning, designing, and building. But like natematt said, it’s definitely more of a subjective topic.

In my subjective opinion, the creation of a project is the basis of architecture. There is nothing to build without it ;)

IMHO, the act would be "designing".  The end result is "architecture".  To me, only if it is built is it "architecture" because that was the purpose of the project and turning it over to the owner to use is the end result of your efforts.  Additionally, an architect's stamp is necessary for the building... anyone can design and not all designs could be built.  Architecture is describing something built IMHO.

Architecture (built) 

vs 

Architectural Practice (the process of designing and administering projects with the intent they are built). 

You could extend this to "critical architectural practice" (the process of designing projects with the intent that they impact thought within the architectural profession, but are not necessarily built)