What is an Architect?
Me on my motorbike, in the Spanish Pyrenees
I’ve been giving this an in-ordinate amount of thought lately, and for those of you who don’t know me, it is because I finished up at my last job in April (lead enterprise architect at a UK television company), and fulfilled a life long dream of jumping on my motorbike and travelling off around Spain for a few months practising my Spanish (see photo to the right). Needless to say, while travelling I didn’t give this question a single moments thought, but when I have returned, and have had to start considering what I do next … now this question is really bugging me!
Ok – let’s start with why I became interested in being an ‘Architect’ (used in the purely information technology sense) many years ago:
- They were the person on the project who knew more about the overall problem, and more importantly, the solution, than anyone else.
- They needed to understand and be able to communicate both the solution and how to get there – upwards to the stakeholder, around to other team members.
- They needed to make difficult choices – what tools, what technology, which people?
- They need to deeply understand good project management practices – what use designing a solution if you can’t get anyone to implement it?
- They need to understand estimating, financials etc. – because if you can’t articulate the cost of one solution vs another you will never win an argument.
I could say more, but I think these are the specific things I thought an architect must be able to do, and are all things that attracted me to wanting to be one some day.
Now, my problem. I’ve been called numerous times in the past couple of weeks by people who have seen my CV, and who want to talk about me applying for a job as an Architect: Chief Architect, Enterprise Architect, Enterprise Data Architect, Solution Architect, Technical Architect, Applications Architect etc. etc. and they all seem to have quite rigid definitions of what these things are, which all seem to go against all of my (hard earned I think!) understanding of what makes a good architect.
So, as I re-read the Agile and SOA Manifesto’s the other day, I thought that I would have a go at writing a quick and simple Architect Manifesto to explain what I think is most important for an architect, and what I have always looked for first and foremost when adding new architects to my team or projects.
The Architects Manifesto:
- Collaborative over rigid hierarchy and formality
- Flexible over rigid adherence to frameworks
- Business oriented over technology driven
- Simplicity over complexity
- Open over closed
- Grounded over blue sky
- Technology agnostic rather than technology bound
- The whole picture over just some of its parts
- Bears with fur over shaved bears (link)
Would appreciate your thoughts or comments!
I guess the thing that is grating on me at the moment, is that there are a lot of people out there looking for ‘architects’ when actually what they are looking for is just a senior developer who can actually talk to your stakeholders. Yes, it’s important for an architect to be able to get their hands dirty, but to get the most value out of having one they should be looking at the bigger picture, 2-3 steps ahead of the people writing the code – not writing any code themselves (unless it’s an emergency!).
Don’t get me started on how many people these days are asking for (or calling themselves) Enterprise Architects, when the reality is that all they want is a software architect who can operate in big ‘Corporate IT’ environments. Maybe I’ll save that for another post next week!
9 Comments to What is an Architect?
Leave a Reply
Tags
Twitter Updates
Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

Eh eh, that reminded me the other day. My boss asked me – “So, did you found the problem?” I replied “Well, yes… but I wasn’t looking for the problem, I was looking for the solution…”
I only disagree with one point: Business oriented over technology driven.
A
No, architects, in the sense you describe, are technology people. They should act as the bridge between the business and the technolgy. Nor business oriented nor technology driven, but something in between flexible enough to bend, within limits, accordingly to the strength and to the actual direction of the wind. Like a bridge does…
Thanks for the comment – I agree that at no point should an architect be choosing sides between ‘the business’ and ‘technology’ – but rather they just should be working towards the right answer for their company or client, and to be an articulate bridge is definitely one of their most important roles.
To take it one step further, in a perfect world no one would even refer to ‘the business’ (as many many in technology departments around the world do!) as a separate entity. What I was trying to express in the post was that in a world where business and technology are separate (a fact of life in all organisations I have worked for), it is important to state that the goals of the business are paramount over siloed technology ambitions (e.g. to upgrade everything to the latest version of the .NET framework).
Architect is largely a meaningless term these days. When I graduated (quite a while ago) we all wanted to be system analysts. All we knew was that the job title sounded impressive and they seemed to get paid a lot. Architect is the new Systems Analysts. These days, anyone who is too much of a prima donna to be called Developer wants to be an architect. This makes the whole discussion over what an architect is completely pointless, as everyone has their own definition (a definition which includes what they want to do, and excludes what they don’t want to do). Manifestos fall into the same bucket. It’s a classic example of job title inflation, which The Economist had a nice article on the other week.
Go out and solve interesting problems, have fun, and don’t get hung up on titles.
Peter, couldn’t agree more – and actually after reading your comment what really struck me is that in writing this post I was really asking myself a different question … With the over-use and, as you say, inflation of the term architect these days, why would I want to label myself as one?
It reminds me of a company I used to work for where everyone wanted to be a controller or director of something (or in the US a VP) and once you got the title you had to have an office – even if you were only the controller of toner in the third floor stationary cupboard.
Thanks for the pointer to the economist article ( link: http://www.economist.com/node/16423358 )
Excellent thoughts. I could not agree more with your views.
I just wish the IT industry had more capable people who have progressed based on merit and actions, rather than hollow suggestions.
Everyday I have to play the role of Technology Leader, Strategist, Business Analyst, Negotiator, Project Manager, Scrum Master and Lead Developer.
Clifton,
Excellent post.
Although I am not an architect (of any variety) I have spent enough years working at the interface between business and IT to see too many technology driven, closed, constrained etc. projects/applications which did not deliver the goods.
An excellent list of points. Especially liked:
# Business oriented over technology driven
# Simplicity over complexity
# Open over closed
# Technology agnostic rather than technology bound
Julian
I agree completely with this. I am only missing one aspect in your manifesto: Value driven. I see to many architects that forget to take the value for the stakeholders into account an therefore create architectures in to much detail and to broad, so costing more and take more time then needed to facilitate the stakeholders.
Agree, though I guess this is what I was trying to express in the third point (that it be Business oriented) – though in hindsight and from what I can see from some of the other comments, this has been interpreted slightly differently than I intended by some people.
I was trying to articulate the idea that an IT Architecture does not exist without a business to ‘apply’ it to, and so in a chicken vs egg debate, the business must always come first, and hence value – as measured by the business – must always come first.
I’ll have a think about re-wording it slightly to make it clearer – any suggestions?
Hi Clifton,
Excellent post, Like the Following points,which is not there in the original manifesto …
# Simplicity over complexity
# Open over closed
# Grounded over blue sky
rare combination which can’t find in many individuals …
Nadh