It's been over a week since The Architecture Journal published it's latest issue and my article "We Don't Need No Architects."  The intent of this article was to present some of the common perceptions of architects in the IT community and look at the skills possessed by effective architects.

As could be assumed in any article about architects in IT, the feedback on this article has conjured up some raw emotions - which is honestly appreciate.  I enjoy candid feedback and appreciate the respectful, and sometimes humorous opinions.

The first blog written on the article, even before I knew the journal was posted, was We Don't Need No Architects--Really!.  This rebuttal to my article helps illustrate the raw emotions conjured up by the title architect.  The blog expressed disappointed my article didn't renounce the entire profession of architecture in IT and felt that the skill set that I presented was more applicable to developers.  The blog concludes with an explanation on how the title architect should be eliminated from IT in order to remove the confusion caused by the title.

Other feedback I have received :

The article you wrote on the Architect Journal was very helpful and made me feel proud about my job.  An Architect is assumed to be a a) Another name for sr. developer b) Technical guru who is supposed to know everything c) Or does nothing other than throw in Jargons.  You article threw light into it. Thanks!.

and

We fully agree with your definition of the architect where we came to as well with exception of the patterns part (we do apply this, but it is so obvious one tends to forget to put this in the job description). - I responded to this reader saying that his organization is fortunate to have so many resources versed in patterns.

Finally, my favorite feedback was from a blog that simply describes architects as "over forty and over confident."

Thanks for the feedback!  Select this Link to join a discussion on the role of an archtiect.