Architect
IT is a very new industry compared to other industries, and as such, there is still a lot of flux as we learn and mature as an industry. One of those areas is job titles. It may seem odd that something as fundamental as a job title is still in flux, but in my view, it is because we do not yet have universal standards. Sometimes—and to a lesser degree—we are breaking new ground and new job titles must be constructed to match new roles.
The job title Architect, though, seems to have nearly universal usage in the IT industry to denote an expert or leader in a specific area. In fact, my current job title is Technology Architect. However, there are problems with the usage of the title Architect in IT, and I want to share some of the issues I see with it.
Architectural Profession Act of 2000
In South Africa, there is a piece of legislation called the Architectural Profession Act of 2000, which defines the rules and governing bodies for architects—not in IT, but in the building/construction space. One of its sections (section 18) specifies that certain titles may only be used by professionals registered with the architectural council. Those titles are:
- Professional Architect
- Professional Senior Architectural Technologist
- Professional Architectural Technologist
- Professional Architectural Draughtsperson
- Candidate Architect
- Candidate Senior Architectural Technologist
- Candidate Architectural Technologist
- Candidate Architectural Draughtsperson
In short, if you, as an IT person, use any of those titles, you are breaking the law.
What Does an Architect Imply?
In IT, we use the term Architect to denote some level of senior status for a person. However, without a standard or governing body, anyone can use that title. When I was a much younger developer, thrust into a late-stage project to lead it, I was sold to the customer as an "architect." Why was that title applied to me? It wasn’t because of my skills or experience—it was to convey that I knew what I was doing and, more importantly for the sales team, to justify charging more for my time.
In the building/consulting space, if you want to be a professional architect, you must study at a university for 5 years to reach the junior architect level—and to be a senior, you need years of real-world experience.
By adopting the same title as another industry, we must honor their usage. If we continue to abuse the legacy of the title, we’ll devalue it in our own industry and make IT seem immature in the eyes of the broader world.
What Should an Architect Do?
We should not only be careful about who we apply the term Architect to but also ensure it’s reserved for those who actually perform IT architecture work—something highly specific that requires specialized training and tools like TOGAF or the Zachman Framework. If you’re not doing that work, you shouldn’t be using the title.
This seems obvious, but we fail at this too often. Imagine calling a plumber whose truck and business cards say "electrician"—would you trust them to fix your pipes?
Summary
In my view, unless you’re engaged in real IT architectural work—and have years of experience in IT and architecture—you shouldn’t use the title. If you are doing the right work, ensure your title clearly distinguishes it from the building/construction realm, such as by using Software Architect or IT Architect.
The IT industry needs to do better with titles—or we’ll continue to devalue ourselves in the eyes of our customers. This is one way to start fixing it.