Who Needs an Architect?

This week's reading "Who Needs an Architect?" by Martin Fowler (2003) explains us that software architecture is one of the most important areas that are involved in the process of creating and developing new software.

One of the definitions Fowler gives is that "the architecture is the understanding of how the system is divided into components and how the components interact through interfaces where something important is that these components and interfaces have to be understood by all the developers". The previous definition make us think that the architecture is something that requires a high level of communication between the areas that are involved in the development.

He defined two types of architects "Architectus Oryzus", someone who's responsibility is to be involved with the project at a high level because this role has to "be very aware of what's going on in the project, looking out for important issues and tackling them before they become a serious problem" which brings the responsibility to the architect to be aware of the project all the time, with a high level of collaboration.

The other type: "Architectus Reloadus" is the person who makes all the important decisions thus the entire crew are not as experienced and they don't have the knowledge to get involved in the base of the software.

I think the real architect of software is a mixture of all those mentioned in the reading, I mean, he would be someone who should know very well the subject on which they are building the system, is someone who is very committed and work with each of the areas of the team because he is always helping to improve their work, is also someone who should know how to reverse the errors that arise in the project.

If you're interested in reading this article, here is the link: Who Needs an Architect?.