A developer develops an application whereas architect interfaces the management, and the development team. Well whetehr you are a Java developer or an architect, i think it is good time for both. So many conferences keep taking place for Java developers. Waiting to chcek out the Sun Tech Days 2010 conference in Hyderabad where experts are going to share ideas on new technologies there. lets see what happens.

Architects should lead from the front, they should be the evangelist for a project. A good Architect takes ownership, and treats the project as if it were his or her 1st born. I believe a good grounding in development is essential, and at least a couple of real projects under their belt from a code perspective is the best way to ensure that the Architecture goes from Vapourware to Software.

An Architect should be able to Walk the Walk as well as Talk the Talk. They do not have to be code guru's able to remember the minutiae of detail of a given API, but they do need to know how long something will take to code and test, and pragmatic to know what's possible within a timeframe and budget.

An architect is a person who should have Comparative knowledge of technology. its not only about a java architect but also other software technology architect also. A developer can also fix the production level problem
and they can make a decision to develop an application. but a good design is very good maintainable which can be given or monitored by architects or Sr developer. The role architect is more suitable where following situation arises.
1) Big Project,
2) Mission Critical,
3) Shady Requirements,
4) New Team,
5) Tight Deadline,
6) No Contingency Plan,
7) Clueless Management … :x

Thanks,
Rajaram

The architect in IT industry is very different from the one in the other industries, other industries have little change, but IT industry is very different, new techniques and new frameworks are always created quickly.

If you are a 'coach' in the basketball game, the rules don't change all the time, so you can be a good coach even if you don't play well.

In IT,'rules' always change, first you should be a player, know how to play, then you can be a good coach. If you don't code in person, you don't understand them well, you don't know their weaknesses and strengthes either,
how can you be a good architect!

I am totally agree with RMA. In a medium/large company, they always need a 'coach' in order to get all correctly done, otherwise, in production, you should implements some changes that could affect the company economy, just because 'the application has not a good design' and then, is when an Architect is called, to fix that 'bad design'.

Regards.

Hi to all,

Architect is the designer. He/she know how the system works flow and how it will be implement. Thats why we have a Functional Specs... Gathering Info and then from that info into a System Design. Blue Prints - Technical Specification....

Developer is the creator. Who will make some coding parts, debugging, testing, and slight documentation. Will follow the Technical Specification.

If the Architect will do some major coding... I would rather resign as an architect and re-apply for a developer. Why? .... its up to you to answer...

Lets state a scenario, a Basketball game.. The architect is the Coach and the developer is the player. Not All Coaches are good in playing basketball, but they know how to implement it any ways... that's a simple scenario. I hope we got it...

hehehe :D

RMA

Yes. I do agree with Mr.Sudhakar's comments. An Architect must be a good communicator, understand the stakeholders needs, coordinator for the development team, understand & evaluate the technology and suggest the better fitment of the application.

It's obvious that over a period of time, if you are out of coding, you will forget but it doesn't mean that you can't do programming at all. It's the expertise that drives you but not coding alone. For example, a General Manager - Marketing isn't needed to be a salesman. He might have already come across all the odds and reached the position. He need to be a Mentor for the marketing staff but not a typical salesman.

This is my conclusion.

Regards,
Raj

Hi

Very good Blog, with purposeful discussion, in my opinion 'Architect' is one who interfaces the management, Client and the development team. He should have clear understanding of this entire domain; Coding is only a part in the whole picture. An architect needs to have clear understanding on areas such as...

1) Client Requirements
2) Management/Organizations strategy
3) Technology
4) Ability of the team and
5) Good communication and leadership skills

Mere senior developer may/may not handle all this roles. An Architect role require more than development.

Yes, I too agree that staying out of Technology and asking developers to develop something just for the buzzword sake doesn't do anything good and this is where he (an Architect) has to apply all the other skills he should posses.

Thank you.

Regards,
Sudhakar

:grin 'Quick somebody get me one of those Software Architects'...

So I'm one of those 'Coding Architect Types' currently interviewing, a friend of mine (great guy, good depth of knowledge, not terribly experienced though), hooks me up with an interview at a small company (who just got bought by a BIG company). Talking to my friend's boss, he is hiring 6 people to get a substantial application written and deployed into production in 6 months. So I start interviewing him a little:

Q) 'What positions are you looking to fill?'
A) 'We are just looking for talented Senior and Junior people, we'll all work together to get the job done, we don't care about titles (i.e. Architect) here'

Q) 'How far along are you in requirements gathering?'
A) 'Well, I have a preety good idea of what it needs to do, but we haven't gotten sign-off on whether it's going to be J2EE or .Net'

Q) 'How will the team be made up?'
A) 'We have some guys who are experienced with front end, some guys who are experienced with the middle tier, and some guys who know a little about databases. We'll all work together to get it done.'

Q) 'How seasoned are your team members? Have they worked together for very long?'
A) 'Three guys have been here for a while, I just hired (As a senior developer), we're still looking for the remaining two individuals'

Q) 'How business critical is this application?'
A) 'Mission critical, now that we are owned by we need to scale to support the increased demand.'

Q) 'What's your contingency plan?'
A) 'We'll just work hard to get it done. I don't want to think we can't get it done on time, we HAVE to get it done on time.'

Q) 'How many big projects have you been involved with?'
A) 'I was heavily involved with the design and implementation of our current system' (which was done in PHP)

Q) 'If I came to work here, who would I be reporting to?'
A) 'I would be your direct supervisor.'

Q) 'What is your (job) title there?'
A) 'After the buy-out, I became 'Director of Software Engineering''.

...By now you've picked up on where this is heading. I was asked to come back for a second interview, declined. This is where the lack of leadership for someone called Architect is sorely needed (as posted by chinmay), however, this project is doomed, here's the rundown:

Big Project,
Mission Critical,
Shady Requirements,
New Team,
Tight Deadline,
No Contingency Plan,
Clueless Management ... :x

a fast learner, good teacher, good leader...

50:50 or 80:20 doesn't matter, I do agree creative visionaries are more important. With this characteristics imply that the architect is a smart guy and hard working.