The role of the architect is very project dependent. Smb. being architect in one project doesn't automatically earn the licence to become the architect of the next one since it strongly depends on the domain qualification as well as different political constraints. You can only have an extra bonus for being considered as the architect of the next project having been the architect of the previous one - of course, if you did your job well :-)
But often there is a situation where smb. simply gets named by the management as the one and only architect without having that broad qualification to fit the role but having a good management support. One forgets that the architect is a role in a project but not a fixed position at all. It is definitely not sufficient to be named as architect. It is absolutely necessary to do this job, to take responsability and to go ahead. And it is necessary to have the experience and the right qualification to do it - I don't mean a degree, I just mean the right soft and hard skills.
But here an other thought: it seems to enhance the prestige somehow, even if the real job stays abandoned. One seems to think that being called architect makes one more attractive for girls, or whatever they think. Hey, you're not a rock star - you are a developer having experience and qualification for basic work - maybe, or you've just been named by the boss to fill out some white space on your business card. There is no glamor, no shining, just a sort of more abstract developer work.
Don't forget: named and qualified is a bit different concerning an architect. A lot of doing follows the naming, and if not, it isn't even worth thinking about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment