Simon is a hands-on software architect who works within 
Do you need an architect?
One of the things that I mention every time I do training or mentoring around technical architecture is that you don't just wake up one day and become a TA. From my experience, it's much more of an evolutionary path where you gradually take on more and more TA responsibilities.
Last night I ran a training session where we looked at what an architect might do during a typical RUP style project. With the full list of responsibilities defined, it was interesting to see that everybody in the room was already doing some of them. As I said, it's an evolutionary path to becoming a TA.
However, more interesting was that the same people said that some of their projects don't have a "technical architect". After the initial shock, this got me thinking. Do you really need an architect on a software project? Is it more important to have the responsibilities covered off by the team as a whole rather than having a single person looking after them? Is having a single point of contact and responsibility essential? Provided the role is performed (e.g. there is a defined architecture, quality assurance is being performed, etc) there are pros and cons either way.
What do you think?
Re: Do you need an architect?
Do you need one? I think having a single point of responsibility is hugely important. Where does the buck stop otherwise? Agreed that it is important to "get the job(s) done" and that they might be performed by a number of individuals, but having an architect to lead is valuable. Who is going to provide the technical coordination otherwise? How do you avoid warring factions on a project?
I may or may not be referring to a specific example, Simon! :-)<style type="text/css"></style>
Re: Do you need an architect?
This will also mean the team has more personal investment in the project and a greater understanding of the requirements. But spreading knowledge around the team your also reducing the truck number as know single person is the "holder of the vision".
What is probably required is a chairman, someone who will make sure that everyone is picking up all the lose ends and that meeting are run in an efficitent manner, rather than becoming talking shops. This role however requires no technical or domain skills just the ability to deal with people.
Re: Do you need an architect?
I like to think of 'architect' as a role rather than a person. As such a functional team fulfills the architect role either through having a dedicated architect (or architects) or by taking on the architectural responsibilites within the team.
That said, in my experience development teams do tend to be more dysfunctional around the architect role - possibly due to a misunderstanding of the responsibilities - and would have benefitted from the addition of an architect (or at least someone who understood the responsibilities).
Re: Do you need an architect?
There should be a technical resource with the big picture that knows whats important at the moment and who and how it is solved.
The role can be managed by two persons or in a project lasting for years it is a good idee to change roles from time to time.
It's not enough to have a project manager with people skills!
This is my experience.
Re: Do you need an architect?
No. We don't need another architect.
Traditionally an architect would design the whole building before giving the plans to the builders. In IT the word also carries a lot of BUFD baggage, an approach I am not interested in unless said architect carries a working crystal ball.
I think an architect is a combination of roles. If the architecture evolves then they can help guide that evolution. They can be a technical lead, tutoring the team and offering advice when things get tough. They can guide the client through the development process and help understand their requirements. They han help recruit new team members.
They cannot go into hibernation and produce an 'In-theory-this-plan-will-solve-all-our-problems-for-evermore' document.
