nosewheelie

Via InfoQ comes Ted Neward’s Hard Questions About Architects.

The second interview started off with the usual pleasantries, and then the technical grilling began with:

“What are the best practices that you would put in place on a project?”

I replied “I’ve come to realise that there is no such thing as ’Best Practice’ in architecture – everything is contextual.”

Well, it went down like a sh*t sandwich!

Ted replies (in part).

For some companies I’ve worked for, the “architect” was as you describe yourself, someone whose hands were dirty with code, acting as technical lead, developer, sometimes-project-manager, and always focused on customer/business value as well as technical details. At other places, the architect (or “architect team”) was a group of developers who had to be promoted (usually due to longevity) with no clear promotion path available to them other than management. This “architect team” then lays down “corporate standards”, usually based on “industry standards”, with little to no feedback as to the applicability of their standards to the problems faced by the developers underneath them.

I’ve been thinking of the role of architects for some time, having worked with some good ones (well one) and some bad ones. A graduate recently posted to an AJUG list seeking mentoring (a good call BTW) saying that their career goal was to become an architect. I’m puzzled by this personally, as I don’t see a need to “escape” development in order to advance my career. To be fair to him, he wasn’t seeking to “escape” either, however I’ve observed a general perception in the industry that developers feel that to advance their careers they must “step up” into management or architecture. Surely there are other ways to improve.