It seems certain to me, from experience, that some architects are not the one in control. Some architects play a supporting role. Some merely an advisory role.

It is also certain that even some chief architects do not specify every element of a structure. They instead rely on supporting architects to do most of the detailed specification. Some do not know more about materials and methods than the engineers, but instead delegate tasks to the engineers when that knowledge is required.

And, in both the building and naval architect trades, I’ve known some who want title and authority without responsibility. And I’ve known some who lack the depth and understanding to do the job, even when they have the credentials and certificates to suggest otherwise.

Perhaps the situations are not as different as they may appear from our vantage point in the software industry.

The problem is that ‘architect’ in the real world (building or naval) means that one has passed certain tests and have sufficient experience such that one IS in control. Whenever a building fails or a ship sinks, the architect is the first line of responsibility, AND he is expected to have specified EVERY element of the structure. The engineers (coders in our context) are charged with carrying out the architect’s instructions without error. The review of failure is first and foremost about whether the design (architect’s job) was sufficient or the execution (engineer’s job) failed to meet the design. The architect is required to know MORE than the engineers about materials and methods.

Most of us in systems development only have a half-hearted (and -minded) acceptance of this requirement. Many (most, all, ?) want the title and authority, but few want the responsibility or have the depth of experience and understanding to do the job. Not least because coders refuse to heel.

We really ought to stop using the word.