Architect = UX
Why software architect is a misnomer?
In the world of software, architect is a misnomer.
In 1992 Dewayne Perry and Alexander Wolf drew parallels between software architecture and building architecture.
They’re not the same!
Building architects are professionals trained in the art and science of building design. An architect is more concerned about how a building looks and feels than the engineering aspect of it —that job is left to the construction engineer.
Example: Lotus Temple
Take the Lotus Temple in Delhi, India as an example:
The architect was Fariborz Sahba. This is an example of the model that architects build:
The purpose of the model is to communicate and visualize the design, study proportions, analyze light, and acoustics among other things.
Architecture is an art.
Construction/structural engineers translate that design into something that will be built:
Can an architect do construction/structural engineering? Yes, and the combination of two skills (art and engineering) would be great but that’s not how it is done typically. From Sydney Opera House to Burj Khalifa there’s an architect and a structural engineer involved.
UX
The closest match to the role of the building architect in the software world is the UX/UI designer.
UX as an art and discipline, is concerned with the look and feel and behavior of software.
Engineers bring the design to life. UX and engineers work together and it is possible for UX to have programming skills and vice versa (I call it UX Engineer back in 2015 and the term has caught on in recent years).
Software Architecture
In the world of software, there are many titles that carry “architect” in them:
System Architect
Domain Architect
Solution Architect
Application Architect
Security Architect
Data Architect
Platform Architect
Integration Architect
Digital Architect
API Architect
Cloud Architect
Network Architect
Enterprise Architect
etc.
Most of these roles are concerned with composition and topologies. In a different article, I argued that this concern alone is not a full time job, and practitioners tend to devolve into Ivory Tower Architect (ITA):
Alternatives
If architecture is only one part of what you do, there are better titles that communicate the diverse skills and value proposition.
Personally, I like the Staff+ titles (Staff/Principal/Distinguished/Fellow). Although Will Larson counts architect as an archetype for Staff+ roles in his book. I believe it’s an anti-pattern for the reasons that we touched here.
If you do only “architecture”, maybe you can consider “topologist” instead?
System Topologist
Network Topologist
etc.
I know it doesn’t sound too common but it communicates what you do. If architecture is the only thing you do, it might be tempting to go with the Staff+ titles but please don’t. It just confuses people. Read more here:
Distinguished Engineer (upcoming)
The lack of the word “architect” in those titles is a signal that they do far more than that.
My monetization strategy is to give away most content for free. However, these posts take anywhere from a few hours to a few days to draft, edit, research, illustrate, and publish. I pull these hours from my private time, vacation days and weekends.
You can support me by sparing a few bucks for a paid subscription. As a token of appreciation, you get access to the Pro-Tips sections as well as my online book Reliability Engineering Mindset. Right now, you can get 20% off via this link. You can also invite your friends to gain free access.