Add a comment

 

Re: The frustrated architect

IMO, your role is more of a PM or PL. I believe the architect should get the requirements and analyze how to deliver the solution for them. The architect should know what are the best tool for the particular job and create the blue prints for it while deciding what patterns are more appropriate. The architect shouldn't worry about budget, the architect should be given a budget (or a margin that he can work with) and resources. With the requirements and aproximate budget at hand, he should build the specs that accomodates all the variables of a given project and plan the deliverables. He then can work with developers (and could even develop) and setup the environment. The architect should also monitor the products delivered by the development team and spot the problems and provide the solutions for them. The architect should also be the reference point for the developers when they need advice. Having roles of Business Analyst, Requirements Analyst, Project Manager and Architect at the same time is an overkill. That's what it sounds like what you're doing. Sometimes we can't scape from it because we're simply the man and we're given all these responsabilities, but it doesn't mean that's the role for an architect. When the architect has many more roles than it should, then he cannot focus on the task he's specialized at and may end up not being so efficient at it. I've worked on projects that I was the business analyst, the requirements analyst, the project manager, the architect and the developer. Believe me when I say I couldn't be the best at any of them.

Re: The frustrated architect


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).