I am reading "The Software Architect's Profession: An Introduction," by Marc T. Sewell and Laura M. Sewell. I am not writing a book review with this post. Instead, I would like to highlight some similarities between the two disciplines. Whether we are building with brick and mortar, wood, steel, or computer code, the roles and processes are analogous. The role of the architect is important for both, but when it comes to software, the architect often goes unfulfilled.

Compared to architecting and constructing homes, hospitals, and skyscrapers, architecting and developing software is new to many of us. In our minds, whether we understand the processes required to erect the Empire State building or not, most of us  possess an intuitive understanding of the distinct roles of the architect, scientist, engineer, builder, electrician, and plumber. We realize that buildings provide shelter, make our lives easier, and consist of rooms specific to living activities. We have living rooms, family rooms, meeting rooms, workout rooms, kitchens, ect. If we want to add on a garage, screened-in porch, or modify an existing room, the architect needs to plan for this in his/her design.

When it comes to software and the processes required to plan, design, develop, and test, many of us lack the intuitive knowledge of what is, or should be, necessary to build software. Just like a building, software makes our lives easier and consists of rooms, such as  chat rooms, document libraries, art studios, financial planning, shopping, and home buying to name a few. If we want to add on a new room or modify and existing, the architect needs to plan for this in his/her design.

It becomes easier to see how buildings and software are similar and how the roles specific to each appear to be obvious and necessary. A building needs an architect, a builder, an electrician, and so forth. Software, similarly, needs an architect, a developer, a tester, and so forth.

Ask yourself this, "how many buildings (homes, schools, hospitals, malls, ect.) can I think of that were built without an architect?" Hmmm... I probably cannot think of any, or I should hope the answer is zero.

Now ask yourself, "how many software applications were built without an architect?" This one I can answer more easily - several. I try to convince myself that so-and-so was "acting" as the architect on this or that project, but the nature of it is, too many software projects are built without a dedicated architect.

Why is it that we feel like a building requires an architect, but that software can get by without it?

Is it because over centuries and millennia, we have been exposed to the processes required to construct buildings on a daily basis? Whereas, since software is comparatively new, the processes and roles required are not fully defined, or engrained in us, or we have yet to see centuries worth of catastrophic errors from omitting these roles?

"Blaming software failure or difficulty on 'changing requirements' is merely symptomatic of the lack of true architecture." As owners and builders see what is being built, they realize what is incorrect and begin to make modifications to align their initial expectations with the reality before it is too late.

"It is equally erroneous to blame software failure on poor management. Even the best managers cannot produce a satisfying result from a bad design or a lack of design."

Without this post becoming tiresome and long-winded, this book draws some good comparisons between the nature of building structures and software and the roles necessary for each.

Do you have an architect in your organization? Is he/she only an architect, or is he/she sharing this responsibility? Why?