I was once offered to be promoted to the role of software architect. The strange thing is that it would have made no difference to my role, except in name only. I told them not to be silly and to leave my title as Senior Developer (despite my Soft Eng degree - no one respects the 'Engineer' designation in the software world).

My role was simply as a team leader - but I alone in the company used to indulge in any design for our products. This resulted in our team producing far more robust and flexible products (through the normal methods of tiered architectures, half decent OO design and modular components).

This was eventually noticed and they wanted to give me a fancy title to describe what was essentially good (I wish I could honestly say 'best') practice design methodology.

In 8 years of professional development I have only ever met one other developer who paid any attention to design at all (apart from those unfortunate enough to have me as their boss).

Despite all the emphasis on trying to apply methodical approaches to application development over the last 2 or 3 decades, it seems very little of the academic work ever filters through to the commercial development world.

I still end up working for companies whose project plan consists of a day for design, 3 months for implementation and 1 week at the end for testing before the release date. I have so far always managed to ignore such plans and take 2-4 weeks for design, continually test during implementation (using automated tools) and shorten the coding time respectively. Leaving hopefuly 3-4 weeks after implementation for yet more testing and any bug fixing.

It is for this reason people keep wanting to call me an architect.

I'd be happier if my Engineering degree was respected personally, but there are so many developers out there calling themselves software engineers without an appropriate degree it makes the title worthless.

using the term architect in the software design sense is soooo pretentious. It's all about people with low self esteem trying to give themselves a percieved (by them anyway) boost in status, an air of professionalism.

We've just been through a round of redundancies here and its intersting that all the hands on IT bodies survived and pretty much everyone else got the noose. We've all got job descriptions like Systems Developer, they all had Proigramme Manager, Architect, Designer in their titles.

We had a big discussion here about architecture earlier in the year with lots of tail chasing about how to replace our existing systems with a really big and clever EIA SOA solution that to be honest we just didn't need.

We don't describe ourselves as architects, more jobbing bulders, our solutions have a 2 year planned life span as technology changes and the moving target of the business requirement mean after 2 years its needs overhauling anyway. We don't spend forever building them just get them done, in a reasonable amount of time, at reasonable cost in a tidy fashion and try to keep the ongoing support noise down.

Seems to be working for us.

The whole ivory tower architecture thing just leaves us cold. If you develop and you're any good you architect anyway.

I've been an architect for 5 years (having been a SysAdmin and DBA for the 10 years before that) and I don't think I could define it either. One of the things that goes to make up a good architect, IMHO, is experience. It's all about taking what you've done before and applying it to new and different situations. I've come across people who went straight from a particular company's graduate recruitment programme into their architecture practice with no 'practical' experience in between, and they were perfectly fine architects.

But all the best architects have a number of years of experience under their (almost entirely male) belts and can look at new technology and see how it will fit into existing infrastructures to "add value" (ugh). I guess that's the key, isn't it? As long as new stuff keeps getting pushed out there by the vendors, we will always need architects to do something with it.

Hey! It's all Microsoft's fault! I knew I could work the argument round to that somehow...

As a former IT architect, and writer about the software/IT architects(www.ivencia.com/softwarearchitect), I am bound to claim that an architect is as necessary in IT as in building. I have worked on many IT systems for many companies, and those hurling together software without any oversight from an architect are creating incomprehensible messes.

However, as pointed out in this article, we are still in the beginnings of understanding software creation, and being an architect is a challenge I have now given up, to focus on my own software products while contracting to support this endeavour. I move ever backward to the view expounded and ignored 30 years ago by Fred Brooks that the mind which creates should be the centre of its own universe.

Nigel Leeming

"The first and most important perhaps, is that nobody appears to be absolutely sure what is meant by architecture, in the context of IT."

No? Ok. If you say so it must be right. I read it in teh intratubes.

"Let me rephrase: there are plenty of individuals who appear confident about their own definitions; the trouble is that there is a plethora of highly overlapping and contradictory definitions. Take for example the wealth of difference between systems architects, software architects and enterprise architects at that consensus clearing house Wikipedia."

Firstly, there are plenty of induhviduals spouting about IT, computers, and networking. Most of them are pretty much clueless about working systems.

Secondly, people giving themselves titles is meaningless. Running code rules all.

Thirdly, Wikipedia is hardly the best place to reference a philosophical issue.

Suggestion, Jon ... Get an IT job in the real world. After you've worked it for a dozen years or so, come back and try to contribute. You might have a clue by then.

Pardon me while I continue designing an upgrade for a RealWorld(tm) corporate network ... one I first designed ("architected?" ::shudders::) about 15 years ago ...

Please - When you know the answer to this, will you tell the recruiting industry.

I loosely call myself a "Broadcast TV Technology Architect" - I've been building and equiping TV Studios and TV Transmission systems since before the modern IT era had even started.

Now, as a freelance contractor, my CV is widely distributed, but most recruiters see "technology" and "architect" in my CV and immediately assume I'm an IT or software architect (& I've no idea what a software architect does) & I spend a lot of time attempting to explain the differences to those who call me up. This isn't helped by the fact that the technological aspects of the (significantly large) TV industry has never had its own "job category" (including here on the Register's web site) and so people like myself continually have to register as belonging to all three of the IT, Telecommunications and Media Sectors.

I graduated as a Systems Analyst, then about three years ago I saw some spotty youth on a TV show being asked what he did for a living, he said he was a Systems Analyst. Then he was asked what that involved and he replied that he answered the phone and once he could determine what the nature of the call was he connected the client with the appropriate extension.

So where am I meant to go, on that basis I'd have to be some kind of Grand Wizard High Mage Deity of IT just so it seems I'm not in charge of paperclips and ink cartridges. I blame the fucking recruiting agents although they're probably calling themselves career enhancement conultants nowadays the rat bastards.

You're only an architect if you're a member of the Chartered Institute of Architects.

The Architects Act is quite clear on this. And yes, I did tell Microsoft.

..is senior solution architect.

But at heart I'm just a techy coder that has been doing it for 20+ years and I need a proper title to make me feel important.

I help out where I can which means:

estimating

coming up with the initial technical solution

being the customer facing techy

matching busines requirements to technical requirements

getting that over to the boys in the engine room

picking up development sticking points and finding ways to keep development moving

negotiating technical workarounds with the customer

CR impact analysis and estimating

code reviews

translating progress reports to customer talk for the project manager

picking up the crap bits of coding that no one else wants to do and either doing them or

making doing them a bit less painful

provide a sympathetic ear to everyone who wants to have a bit of a moan about the project on

all technical aspects

communicate progress to the project manager

deal with the technical people at the suppliers

get the beers in on a Friday lunchtime at the 'progress meeting'

So I guess the 'chief builder' moniker fits. To continue the metaphore I've been there done that and taken the pain. Whether it's a tricky bit of bricklaying or a putting in a new window frame I'm expected to know (or to be able to find out) how to do it.

I do work with architects who are 'not technical' and I wonder how they survive. They usually end up as another layer of project management. Cheif builders who have never laid a brick...

It's just a term used by some ponces to try and get themselves bigger pay packets.

That is all.

In my experience, architects are internal consultants who - at best - try to keep a high level overview of what's happening in the company and ensure that there is as little overlap and waste (of resources and cash) as possible.

At worst, they're the twits that can't do a real job and are paid to read whitepapers because it's too hard to fire them.

To be fair - I know a couple who fit into the 'at best' definition and do really bring a lot of benefit.

AC, 'cause there's a twit in my steering board

A commercial director speaks...

"Well I enjoy driving my Porsche across Windsor great park, or down the M3, and these IT bod just seem to take the piss out of my lack of people skills. To be frank, I don't know whether they're laughing at me, or with me, so it's good to have someone who isn't really technical, so I don't have to invite any of the workers up onto the third floor."

A recruitment consultant speaks...

"Enterprise architect, yes, this a better person than an ordinary architect who is a better person than a programmer, for a job. Actually, off the record, only about 2% of us actually have a clue about the industry, so these job descriptions are everything. How else are we going to know how good a person is, unless they tell us? It's a way of matching the role to the candidate, J2EE, Tapestry, 4 good size bedrooms, UML, good links to local transport that kind of thing."

An enterprise architect speaks...

"It is important to leverage the kpis and document the business processes, that we might meet the structural onload quality demand required by the key players to solve their service needs in a strategic, holistic and compliant way."

A completer finisher speaks...

"It's someone who wasn't bad, but was never really that good, and worked towards management because he couldn't compete. It's so much easier saying "We'll go J2EE than actually doing it." Women become "business analysts", Men become "Technical Architects". Neither have ever finished anything.

My view.

There are so many people calling themselves architect these days. It's all toss. The key to whether anyone's any good is whether

a. They're experienced.

b. They're self motivated.

c. They're really really clever.

and not what they call themselves, or worse still, what a load of IT illiterate business people call them. Everyone knows who the good people are, and they've got referees from everywhere they've ever worked. All the rest is just guff.

My experience of building architects is that they are obsessed by regulations (and white, flat walls), but seem to lack any sense of pragmatism. The (small) building projects I've been involved in have usually been made more difficult and impractical by the architect, and 'architect' is perceived as something of a 4 four-letter word. As for IT architects, they have no regulations to fall back on or guide their design (though this is slowly changing), there is no defined role for them (which may be slowly changing), and they generally lack pragmatism and the 'architect' perceived as something of a 4 four-letter word by the people that actually do the work. Good architects exist, but that's down to an individual's experience/attitude, not CPD or anything structured. Maybe this will change once we mature as an industry, but it's not a job title I would like to have ever(though it probably pays better).

I'd love to have what it takes to write "IT Architect" on my CV.

Chris

Digital Information Framework Implementation Facilitator

Along with "consultant", "manager", "designer", "specialist" and pretty much every other job title used in the IT industry. Usually these words are given to people instead of pay-rises, in the mistaken belief that they will give an individual prestige and respect - in the same way that third-world despots embellish their dictatorships and try to convey some respectability by awarding themselves other gratuitous titles and honours. The problems only arise when the recipients of these bogus titles start to take themselves and their honorifics, seriously.

In reality getting to be a proper architect is a 7-year training programme, just to get into the profession. Obtaining an honours a degree (which is a high-stress, demanding course, with a high dropout rate) is merely the first step in the process. You also have to enter a professional body and maintain their rigorous standards. As we can see, any similarity with the standards required for a software "architecture" job are purely imaginary.

ITAs (1) are the expert system engineers, that coexist in so many ICT companies with an insanely high number of losers that "design" systems on paper.

As a side note, ITAs (1) usually refer to the losers calling them "ignorant technical a**holes" or ITAs (2), and this leads to confusion.

The damage is compounded by the fact that an ITA (1) can easily spot an ITA (2) in five minutes, but bosses tend to mix them up.

Bosses and non techies may use the following theorem: ITAs (1) are the ones summoned up when the ITAs (2) run away (nothing works, customer gets suspicious, phone rings).

This is a classic case of the self appointed.

Zachmann and all the others == Who, what, why, when.

If only they'd included "What if" then I'd consider them brilliant. Unfortunately they haven't so they're little more to me than the money spinning book writers such as, well everyone knows who they are but I'll give a few examples.

Design Patterns - decorator (problem : you need to add a variable to a class you can't change : solution : subclass it and add the variable there. Buy our books!) Singleton : (problem : you wish to store one instance of variables in code that doesn't scale or work across process boundaries, solution : ignore the history of global variable misuse and do it anyway. Buy our book.)

Datawarehousing : (A datawarehouse should be good, liked, accurate, flexible, easy to use and secure. Oh! and you should work towards domain key normalisation! Buy my book. )

I spend my life watching porjects fail, looking for a book that tells the stupid what not to do, rather than what to do.

From experience an IT Architect is someone who designs a system but doesn't understand how it works or what functionality...

That then leaves the workers to attempt to perform their job in the limitations imposed by the design.

We had a guy who gave himself the title "System architect"...

The problem is we'd already given him a title

"Twat"

i initially trained as a "real" (built environment) architect, but like many who start down that path didn't continue in that industry, as i actually wanted to earn a living wage before i turned 40 :P

there are definitely parallel roles in built architecture and IT architecture (of all kinds): you have to understand requirements, design a solution, document the details, draw up a plan of deployment, oversee the development, and arbitrate variances that crop up during the build process.

the problem in the IT world is exactly the problem that the british Architects Act tries to resolve - lots of people are calling themselves (or are labelled by employers & trainers) "architect" when they are not qualified to be so named - so we end up treating the title with suspicion. for example, in one organisation i know, the business analysts decided they didn't want to be "BA's" anymore & so started calling themselves "solution architects", even though they never actually produced a solution or any architecture... they just thought it sounded cooler :P

having said that, it doesn't mean that there aren't people in the IT industry who are worthy of the title (or at least worthy of the role the title implies), just as there were plenty of worthy built-environment architects before the various institutes of architects appeared on the scene (i think Inigo Jones got on quite well, for example)

for now i just call myself "consultant" - that's a weaselly enough word, but it's also bland enough to avoid being *too* pretentious...

Some insightful comments here but some real drivel from people who call themselves professionals - but then "cowboy" was a profession some time ago as well..

No wonder we have such woeful project histories and the whole show is moving to India :-)