tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4285729513030543746.post6817037118699974992..comments2024-03-27T00:26:40.551-07:00Comments on Real Time View: Our need for architects ...Richard Bucklehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17723428627971060930noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4285729513030543746.post-91553444446398674502007-11-04T19:00:00.000-08:002007-11-04T19:00:00.000-08:00A very interesting topic, Richard.As you're probab...A very interesting topic, Richard.<BR/><BR/>As you're probably aware, titles like "Architect" and so on don't mean a whole lot to many Aussies. Certainly that's the case for myself and several of the dudes I work with. At the end of the day, we get the job done, and yes that may involve some requirements analysis, architecture design, code design, coding, testing, performance tuning, tweaking, etc. ! (And of course documentation, but I prefer not to think about that one too much.)<BR/><BR/>I'm probably out on a limb here (perched precariously all by myself ! :-) ), but several things cross my mind:<BR/><BR/> - someone has to design the architecture at some stage. Maybe that's an iterative approach, but generally it pays to have at least one person cast an eye on it before too much else happens. So, yeah, we definitely need someone to act as an architect for each project, even if it is not their sole job.<BR/><BR/> - maybe some people are good at only being architects, but speaking for myself, I have a vital need to continue to do some of the "tweaking" as you put it. My reasons for this are not for lack of trust in the others in my group - the opposite is true - they are a hugely talented bunch. The main reason is to continue to stay in touch with the code. Otherwise, if I'm not occasionally reminded of the trouble I caused by architecting something a particular way, it is hard to learn from my mistakes. i.e. it keeps me humble and aware.<BR/><BR/>- having people over-see the architecture(s) is almost always a good idea. Some people are not good at that sort of thing, and don't want to be. Fair enough. Some people are very good at it and that's all they want to do. Fair enough again. For myself, I now, and probably always will, want a mixture of architecture and "dirty hands" roles. Some people are good at specific architectures, and some have that ability to design almost anything thrown their way. Companies need to have enough flexibility so that they can cope with all of these possibilities - I'm not sure if many do :-( At the end of the day, though, it is in their best interests.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4285729513030543746.post-81273216953798843742007-10-31T07:11:00.000-07:002007-10-31T07:11:00.000-07:00Richard,This is a great blog today. Especially to ...Richard,<BR/>This is a great blog today. Especially to me as it is my birthday. I love the processes and the research architecture involves, but most of all it is the discipline and rigor it can bring to an organization that moves me.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17920799225961371615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4285729513030543746.post-33289546549805998192007-10-30T18:51:00.000-07:002007-10-30T18:51:00.000-07:00Richard, It's great to catch up on your blog every...Richard, It's great to catch up on your blog every now and then. It's kinda like catching up with you without really catching up with you, so to speak.<BR/><BR/>What's rewarding about the blog is the way you wield out the past showing the relevance for today in your usual quirky ways – and yes you are still the legend. It makes me think that too many folks forget the links and foundations of technology and where the journey has gone by looking only at the fascinations of the moment. I see this often in many forms from talking to mates about what TV to buy down to having the occasional heart to heart with old colleges who struggle with what really is the best technology solution for their businesses – like I can tell them!. <BR/><BR/>I guess the problem lies in not appreciating the full potential from platforms and systems that you may already have at your finger tips because it’s simply not fully understood or admiring what you mate has without knowing what it really does. <BR/><BR/>As a former IT Boss (now retired) of the Australian operation of a US corporation, I often wondered whether that problems with many of businesses today (caveat: not all businesses, and how the heck would I know anyway these days) are in part driven by a lack of real understanding of today’s solutions, and whether you think this can ever really be addressed. <BR/><BR/>I remember the comment being made in an article I was reading on a flight, not so long ago, discussing how one of the most important publications for businesses (in OZ) was the Qantas Inflight Magazine. Their argument being that the captains of business fly often and read the mag and see something that looks good as a “must-have” for the image of their company, such as the latest CRM, SQL platform or whatever! They then latch onto this and drive it into the business, good or bad. Unfortunatley in these cases architecture and design gets lost and replaced by marketability. <BR/> <BR/>Like you I love archtiecture and design, more specifically its mechanics. So, for me technology is great but often driven by idiots. Now does that sound familiar? (Cars you clown). <BR/><BR/>Cheers<BR/><BR/>Greg.<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>Enough of this, baking beckons me again. Hope to catch up with you soonGreghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12947580677351174110noreply@blogger.com