Software architect 2009

Becoming a Better Tech Leader with Coaching. Remotely Operated: Managing Scattered Teams. Microservices — the Letter and the Spirit. Leading with Empathy. Building Quality in for Blockchain Systems. Data Mesh: an Architectural Deep Dive. Building Tech at Presidential Scale.

Soulful Socio-Technical Architecture. View an example Enter your e-mail address. Select your country Select a country I consent to InfoQ. Hello stranger! Get the most out of the InfoQ experience. Tell us what you think. Email me replies to any of my messages in this thread. Community comments. Watch thread. So the usual best of the best of the best type job description by Michael Kimber ,. Like Reply.

Back to top. A list of business skills by Alex Panzin ,. Re: So the usual best of the best of the best type job description by Sreedhar Lakkavaram ,. Its quite apt. Re: A list of business skills by Jason Kilgrow ,. Re: A list of business skills by Stefan Tilkov ,. Trade-off Analysis by Kelvin Meeks ,. Re: Trade-off Analysis by Gary Chia ,. Re: So the usual best of the best of the best type job description by Mihai Campean ,. Good summary of soft skills for an Architect by Darrell Johnsrud ,.

Re: A list of business skills by Kevlin Henney ,. What I want to be when I grow up by David Clarke ,. On the basis of what has been discussed above by Sid Khan ,. Re: A list of business skills by Paul Hokanson ,.

The presentation aims at information technology and software engineering professionals, in particular software architects and software architecture researchers. For the industrial audience, the book gives a broad and concise understanding of the importance of knowledge management for improving software architecture process and building capabilities in designing and evaluating better architectures for their mission- and business-critical systems.

For researchers, the book will help to understand the applications of various knowledge management approaches in an industrial setting and to identify research challenges and opportunities. Previously, he was working as a researcher with National ICT Australia NICTA , where he carried out research in software architecture design and evaluation, architectural knowledge management, and process improvement. His current research interests include software product lines, architecture design and evaluation, architecture knowledge management, and tooling support.

His current research interests include software process improvement, agile software development, knowledge management in software engineering, and in particular management of architectural knowledge. Her research interests focus on software and service architectures, architectural knowledge management and software systems modeling. His research interests include software architecture and empirical software engineering.

Before joining the Vrije Universiteit, he worked as a researcher at the Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica Amsterdam. He co-authored over refereed articles, and is, together with Paul Clements, the editor of the Software Architecture Session of the Journal of Systems and Software. Skip to main content Skip to table of contents. I'm a big proponent of software architects having the responsibility and authority to ensure that the projects they are working on come to a successful conclusion, but it does raise an interesting question of why project sponsors don't typically hold software architects accountable.

Perhaps it's because the dynamics and roles of everybody on the project team aren't well understood in most cases. For example, what's the working relationship between a project manager and an architect; or the developers and an architect? Or maybe it's because our agile approaches tend to favour sharing the responsibility throughout the entire team, which can end up with the project lacking a single coherent and consistent direction.

In order to address this, maybe we need to go back to basics. Why aren't software architects explicitly given accountability at the outset of a project and what incentive is there for them to accept it? Simon is an independent consultant specializing in software architecture, and the author of Software Architecture for Developers a developer-friendly guide to software architecture, technical leadership and the balance with agility.

You can find Simon on Twitter at simonbrown Accountability probably isn't the problem, being somewhat akin to shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. I don't think bad design decisions come from a belief that you'll "get away with it" but may arise from only considering the problem with respect to your direct involvement on the project.

The reasons why a "building architect" is accountable are clear: their registration with the ARB or AIA indicates a level of ability and reliability that their client expects to be upheld.

Software architects' roles are far less well understood. We always seem to come back to this point eventually! While I don't necessarily believe it's a Good Thing for architects to be unaccountable for their design choices, I can imagine some reasons why they aren't:. There's a lot more that could be said about agile's positive and negative impact on responsibility and even achievement so I'll save that for a separate article :P.

This is perhaps all just part of career growth: team members improve and take responsibility either as a group or individually and in so doing inherit the responsibility for decisions already made. This is not to say that this is necessarily a Bad Thing, either! We're not involved in civil engineering and just as we don't require the same time and cost for our projects we wouldn't necessarily expect to be held accountable in the same way. Not least to avoid Analysis Paralysis. Feeling accountable is not the same as being accountable.

I'd like to agree, though, that anyone worthy of the title would feel accountable, even if they were never actually held to account.

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. Blog Presentations Books Training. Accountability Inherent - Building architects are accountable for there work when their specification fail while software architects are not.

An example of this is the case of an architect stealing a design for the Freedom Tower or the example of MIT that sued well known architect for defective structures. About the author. Why is it important that software architects be held accountable?

Comment from remagio on 03 March GMT. Jason, Interesting your question but what does it mean? Do you think that architects cannot be accountable about what they design? I ask the question "Why is it important that software architects be accountable?