Why the Term 'Architect' Doesn't Cut It Anymore
Some time ago, there was a lengthy debate on the Agile Sweden mailing list regarding the term "Architect", and what it means. My position is that the term has become synonymous with the paper or PowerPoint architect, and I therefore try to stay clear of it. Other people haad other opinions.
Neal Ford has changed his title, and describes why in a brilliant way:
Neal Ford: From Architect to Wrangler: [...] "The title of 'Architect' for software developers has gotten so diluted that its meaningless anymore. In fact, its almost pejorative because so many 'paper' architects give it a bad name. I've gotten 'Oh, dude, I'm so sorry' looks from people when I tell them I'm an architect, assuming that I've had a head injury or something and can't do real development work anymore.
[...] It's a shame that, because we have no real industry-wide certifications, the nominally most advanced title has been co-opted by so many people divorced from reality. I've had to defend decisions made for SOA initiatives in front of 'Architectural Review Boards' by people who last wrote code in COBOL. Can they really make good decisions about modern technology if they never touch it?
(Via Planet TW.)