|
newton.saber wrote: Someone who is an Arhitect but doesn't really have the development chops to back it up isn't an Architect at all.
I agree. Software architecture is highly technical, not just conceptual. Anyone with a CS background can work at the conceptual/design level, but it takes a high degree of technical knowledge to know how to do that in a way that will actually work as needed in the real world. Plus, programmers are not likely to listen to an "architect" who can't speak their language and understand what they are doing. I know I wouldn't.
It's like someone being semiconductor architect without ever having been an electrical engineer, something's fishy about that. A software architect without a programming background is someone I'd consider a glorified project manager, or a misplaced academic.
Part of the problem, I think, is that it's a prestigious title but rarely needed. Any experienced programmer can do basic architecture, it's part of the skill set, and it's all that's needed on most projects. It's really only the large, complex projects that require a specialist to come in and work on the architecture. And that's really how I think of it, architecture is a specialized programming job in the same way that being a DBA is a specialized IT job, someone you bring in when the needs are beyond what the programmers can/should do on their own. But everyone seems to want the title, whether a full-time architect is needed or not.
|
|
|
|
|
You can find the original free .PDF version of the book I mentioned in my previous post here[^].
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
newton.saber wrote: how do you prove Architect abilities to a prospective employer.
That's easy.. you show them that you already have the title someplace else. The implication is that, since you weren't born with the title, someone, somewhere thought you deserved it and christened you with it. Whoever that was, they trust them.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
patbob wrote: you show them that you already have the title someplace else
I'm hoping you just forgot the emoticon for laughter.
Those are the "Architects" many of us have worked for in the past.
I once asked a onsite Architect, "How long have you been doing this?"
He answered, "A little over 1 year."
"Oh, but how long have you been coding?"
"Just a year. I became an Architect when I learned C#," he said.
"What were you doing before that?"
"I was a accountant and knew the business."
He had the title though.
|
|
|
|
|
I work for a biotech company and we have the same thing going on here. We have chemists who have some C++ and C# experience who are "architects" because they know/understand the chemistry algorithms. They can't design code very well. It takes professional SW engineers to fix the bad code.
|
|
|
|
|
And so it goes...
Good luck to you.
|
|
|
|
|
newton.saber wrote: What value do you think a Software Architect really brings?
Shorter development time.
newton.saber wrote: What skills do you expect from an Arthitect?
Mostly knowledge on different software-architectures. I'd also expect him/her to be able to explain the SOLID principles.
newton.saber wrote: Can the value a Software Architect adds be put into words / definitively measured?
No.
So, how do you recognize one? Well, that's a problem for the headhunters - and given the effort they put in it, I'd suggest "simply ask" 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: able to explain the SOLID principles
100% agree. At least that's a start at some kind of metric.
Great input. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think you need to be an architect to know that. Any developer worth his/her salt should be able to explain that.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Ravi Bhavnani wrote: Any developer worth his/her salt should be able to explain that.
Agreed. However, it is amazing how few Architects even truly understand them. And by Architect I mean the ones with the titles who aren't Architects. 
|
|
|
|
|
Ravi Bhavnani wrote: Any developer worth his/her salt should be able to
I gave up on that a long time ago.
Smile a lot, don't argue 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Hey,
these are 2 different positions and you need Architect only for huge system in enterprise domain.Usually you have Solution Architect, Domain Architect and Enterprise Architect, according to the complexity of the solution and the enviroment.
In small team or organitation sometime the Solution Architect is also a developer but you are in limit situation where may be you don't need a architect becuase you application is not too huge.
Cheers,
Antonio
|
|
|
|
|
What's the difference between said three titles, outside the difference in the title?
What does each have to contribute?
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: What does each have to contribute?
Good question. I would like to hear more too.
Also, the proliferation of names/titles throughout the industry is also why it would be quite helpful if there was somewhere to go that defined these more clearly. But, alas, I understand the difficulty / impossibility of that and how companies would surely mess it all up.
|
|
|
|
|
Companies do not like to share such info.
It might benefit the competition, and it might hurt the reputation of the company if it proves to be "just a title".
So, they should just keep hiring architext and keep their fingers crossed 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Companies do not like to share such info.
So true.
|
|
|
|
|
newton.saber wrote: Also, the proliferation of names/titles throughout the industry is also why it would be quite helpful if there was somewhere to go that defined these more clearly
Salary.com and places like that do an ok job.
However, I do not think I have seen many very good definitions of a software architect, because everyone has a different opinion.
Also, I worked at a company, where every developer on the server team had the title "architect" over their domain. There was one developer per domain, UI, database, network etc.
Finally, I have noticed the trend lately that companies use the term "Architect" much less for software and are now using "Staff" or "Principle" Engineer.
Unfortunately, at some companies "Staff" means low-level, while it's a prestigious position at others.
|
|
|
|
|
A related question: what is the difference between a software architect and a software designer? I have seen titles such as "Software Design Engineer" and other like it.
Then, what is the difference between architecture and design? (It may be just a question of philosophy.)
Also, how does a software architect differ from (compare to) a construction (building) architect? Is there a list of what a construction architect does?
-- modified 27-Jan-15 18:58pm.
|
|
|
|
|
James Lonero wrote: Then, what is the difference between architecture and design? (It
may be just a question of philosophy.)
There is none; the difference is purely etymological. Multiple people needing a word to describe something new, borrowing from the existing, and inventing a new title.
Both are used to describe the same, a position where one is responsible for the overall structure, robustness, validity and consistency of the system, as well as for the interaction of various components. One would call that "design", the other "architecture". Both words describe the work of a developer that is tasked with getting the stuff of the other devs to work together nicely.
James Lonero wrote: Also, how does a software architect differ from (compare to) a
construction (building) architect?
A building-architect is an architect by definition, where the software-architect is usually just a title.
James Lonero wrote: Is there a list of what a construction architect does?
No, but each country will have a degree, and one may assume some basic knowledge of local building regulations.
In software, we cannot even agree on whether top-down or bottom-up is better, where the builder will simply exclaim that there will no work done on the roof before there's a foundation for the building. Building a house is often rather predictable
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I'd also add Application Architect to that list. Many senior engineers who contribute heavily to the design of your application and interfacing systems are partially filling that role. If you are regularly interfacing between the business and your team, designing ahead of time to meet foreseen requirements, and finding ways to reduce your app's technical debt then you may be an Application Architect depending on a company's definition. It is very dependent on the scope, complexity, and size of the solution and organization to justify these roles.
A Solution Architect is overseeing the architecture of the set of applications which form said solution. I would normally think this is a dozen or more apps to qualify for this next distinction. Our solution contains 80+ applications. Someone at this level would definitely not be coding feature content.
I would then jump to Enterprise Architect but I can see a Domain Architect having a place in larger organizations which have teams of architects.
Then there's Systems Architect which is an ICT position.
For those wondering generally an architect isn't delivering feature content because their responsibilities would cause them to be a block on the critical path. They are generally too busy interfacing between the business and engineering and while they may still write code generally it's big picture prototypes and system infrastructure. If they were to pitch in to help a team I'd think it would be limited to unit tests or basic items from the backlog... something that wouldn't interfere with the developers.
|
|
|
|
|
In addition to all of the above, IMHO, there is an element of 'politics' that a software architect has to play - this gets termed differently in different countries; from what I know, this is called 'lobbying' in the US.
Sometimes, he needs to get different parties/departments to agree on the proposed solution, and this is more often then not, a 'politics' game.
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent point.
Excellent communication and persuasion skills are required to be a successful architect as the scale and stakes of a project increase.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, this does definitely happen. Where I am from this is generally considered -- though often ignored by -- work for the Development Manager.
|
|
|
|
|
Amen to that. There was a time when software developers were not allowed to approach the clients to get answers to their questions. All queries had to be submitted in writing to the system architects of the developer who would liaise with the system architects of the client. Heaven help you if you forgot a question or didn't get an answer to one of your questions; you had a deadline to meet. When not chasing answers to questions, our time, as system architects, would be spent demonstrating what we perceived as the big picture to client representatives (including congressional committees).
The difficult may take time, the impossible a little longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Big Question:
Yes. That depends on the scale of the project. The larger the project, the more time will be spent communicating and coordinating and less time developing.
The architect is the contact point for communication. They do not always have the answers, but they know who does. More details below.
Code Project:
It's a great place for developers all around. Yes there are architects here. I believe the longer you develop and constantly maintain a single project, the more you tend to develop architect-type skills. So there are plenty of architects.
Interesting Question:
Architects provide stability, predictable development schedules, and are critical toward developing and delivering the product the customer wants (not necessarily asked for, and your manager or company may be your customer).
Details:
--------
Recognize that this is a role in the SDLC. An organization or project may not be large enough to require a sole position for architect. However, it is still a function that must be provided to create software.
A Software Architect is a technical role, responsible for the functional, structural and design integrity of a software system, this includes ensuring that the software remains viable into the future. Essentially, they are the steward of the code. They do not own it, they are simply responsible for it.
The activities a Software Architect Performs:
- Primary technical interface with the customer.
- Primary technical interface with management.
- The architect understands and communicates the technical challenges required to implement features to management.
-- Management can then make informed decisions.
- Coordinates the technical aspects of development, but does not actually direct development.
-- Project managers manage the budget and schedule
-- Team leads direct the work of developers at the level where the work is created.)
- The architect does not decide the features and direction of the product. Marketing, business development and management decide that.
- An effective software architect will be an accomplished software engineer.
- They are a mentor
- They will also still "live" in the code.
-- While they might not be a core producer of code, they will still be able to jump in and contribute as necessary.
-- Your ability to manage the technical aspects continue to diminish the further you are separated from the technical aspects.
- Software is such an abstract product. It is an idea articulated into a format a computer can understand.
-- Therefore an architect has access behind the curtain, and possesses the ability to assess the function and quality of the software.
- The architect will have broad knowledge.
-- The experts and domain specialists have the deep knowledge of a topic.
-- The architect
The architect needs to know how to
- A software Architect becomes more important as the size and diversity of a project grows.
-- A single developer or small team can coordinate relatively well.
-- As the size of the project grows the architect acts as a coordinator of communication between teams.
-- This allows separate teams to be responsible for their own components and their proper integration is coordinated by the architect.
- The architect may directly influence the design all of the way down to each individual developer.
- The architect does not dictate the implementation.
-- However, since they are responsible for the code they should be watching for maintenance issues and should help guide the developer to a more maintainable solution.
Someday (maybe soon) this will appear as a more detailed essay on my blog, which feeds to CodeProject as well.
And that is an interesting last question about can it be articulated into an ad. I believe it can. When I write the essay I will include a sample advertisement.
You didn't ask this, but how do you determine that you are interviewing a competent architect? Proven results over time. If they have a short tenure at each position and product, you cannot learn that much.
It may take 6mos to 2yrs to complete initial development.
You will need at least an additional 12 months of constant additions before you start to feel the maintenance pain of code rot. So that is something to look at.
Coming into a legacy product may account for something, but it does not dismiss the possibility of the "This is broken, I'm just going to rewrite this" attitude.
Regards,
Paul
modified 26-Jan-15 12:25pm.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
