What is proposed as “The Ultimate Solution” will work only if you practice AGILE project methodology for isolated or smaller sub-projects. Nothing to use in big programs which require thorough strategies.

The author assumes that all Architects are some kind of retired developers (old fur) who are not up to date in technology. This is wrong. In contrary architects are proficient in latest technologies but they also bring a great deal of experience. Today’s business challenges are not to be solved by technology only. Nor each new technology brings really new concepts to the scenery.

If you have a hammer in the hand, you are wrong if you think that everything can be hammered down. Usually developers tend to think that a Visual Studio or Eclipse tool with appropriate libraries can solve anything (I know because I was one of them in the past) without thinking about the “cost” or fit-for-purpose. This is usually because of the self-pride, which is a good thing actually.

I highly respect smart developers. They’ll eventually become next generation architects, anyway :)

a) You’re incompetent; or,
b) Everyone else is incompetent.

Of course, the correct conclusion is “a”. Ironically, those of you who chose “b” don’t realize this yet (and probably never will).

I have seen the architects who don’t know low level implementation details about the technology being used. So the architecture they create, while logically sound and contains many wonderful design patterns actually is not implementable using the chosen technology. And I have seen smart developers reduced to code monkeys developing something they think is at best wrong and at worst stupid.

In my experience the best approach has been a collaborative one where the development team works together to come up with ideas to create the solution architecture. In terms of accountability, you can have a strong technical lead who is responsible for delivery of the document but that does not mean they have the only input.

If you must have an architect and they are not current with the technology or have in depth knowledge, I think it is important to have a strong technical lead on the project that they trust who can keep the design in harmony with the technology.

1. It is difficult to find a good programmer. I agree that not every project can afford ace programmers. However, it is similar to natural selection – more complex systems require higher qualifications and you can find less programmers capable of working on it. This post discusses the system development level where architecture concerns become important and choice should be made – hire dedicated architect or programmers who can make architecture decisions.

2. Need in the separate role of designer. I argue in this post that we don’t need architects and all the more we don’t need designers :) All the arguments above apply. An architect role has some reasons for existence in the complex multi-system environment, but a designer role just covers lack of core programmer’s knowledge for building a non-trivial system – algorithms, patterns, performance, security, object-oriented and platform idioms. What is left for programmer? Maybe, experienced coach in the team is needed for less experienced programmers, but eventually they should learn all this stuff.