Add a comment

 

Re: Why aren't software architects held accountable?

I was waiting for someone else to mention this, but, as no-one has, I'll weigh in:
  1. The rate of change of the technologies are very, very, different, IMO. Building Architects work with components and approaches that are generally tried and tested (by engineers). Yes, there is innovation, but not at the continuous re-invention rate that the software industry works to.
  2. Also, the priorities of the industries are very different. Software usually has speed of delivery as its primary focus, construction usually has inhabitant safety as one of its prime requirements. These differing requirements lead to differing approaches to accountability. However, that is not universal across the software industry - I would bet that if you examined the level of accountability of the architects of the Boeing 777 flight control computers, say, you would find that they were held highly accountable.
This post has prompted me to re-read the investigation into the Ariane 5 rocket failure, which seemed appropriate as a example of a situation where a software failure (or rather a chain of errors) led to the loss of US$370 million worth of equipment. In the light of this article, it is interesting to assess which errors were due to architectural mistakes: http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/perdita/Book/ariane5rep.html

Re: Why aren't software architects held accountable?


Title
Body
HTML : b, strong, i, em, blockquote, br, p, pre, a href="", ul, ol, li, sub, sup
Name
E-mail address
Website
Remember me Yes  No 

E-mail addresses are not publicly displayed, so please only leave your e-mail address if you would like to be notified when new comments are added to this blog entry (you can opt-out later).