Todd – you’re right of course, but I was trying to capture the scope of a true architect’s work. I think the influence you have as an architect is most likely a function of how well you do your work, so I left it out.

Steve – hmm! Interesting. It’s about time we got to grips with this isn’t it?

Sam – Glad you agree it’s a strength not a weakness. “Architect” is a set of competencies that can be embodied in someone who’s doing another role, I agree. Likewise CIO.

It’ll be interesting to see how the various attempts out there to “define” and “certify” the role get on.

Oh and you might also want to check out Richard Hall, who provides his version of a conversation we had on the same diagram.

Todd – you’re right of course, but I was trying to capture the scope of a true architect’s work. I think the influence you have as an architect is most likely a function of how well you do your work, so I left it out.

Steve – hmm! Interesting. It’s about time we got to grips with this isn’t it?

Sam – Glad you agree it’s a strength not a weakness. “Architect” is a set of competencies that can be embodied in someone who’s doing another role, I agree. Likewise CIO.

It’ll be interesting to see how the various attempts out there to “define” and “certify” the role get on.

Oh and you might also want to check out Richard Hall, who provides his version of a conversation we had on the same diagram.

At first I thought this was a weakness in your model, but I’m thinking that it might actually be a strength. Despite conventional wisdom, I’ve worked with several project/programme managers who also effectively acted as architects in their role. Some even thought in a similar way.

Of course they didn’t intellectualise and articulate it in the same way as architects do (about themselves), but the desired outcomes were still the same. As one of my colleagues likes to joke, only an architect could make something so simple seem so complicated.

I view this as a similar pattern to how I’ve worked with several ‘CIOs’ who weren’t even in IT (let alone head of it), but who led business-IT alignment and innovation agendas. Again they didn’t articulate it in the abstract conceptual way that we in IT often do, but does that really matter?

Regards,
Sam.

At first I thought this was a weakness in your model, but I’m thinking that it might actually be a strength. Despite conventional wisdom, I’ve worked with several project/programme managers who also effectively acted as architects in their role. Some even thought in a similar way.

Of course they didn’t intellectualise and articulate it in the same way as architects do (about themselves), but the desired outcomes were still the same. As one of my colleagues likes to joke, only an architect could make something so simple seem so complicated.

I view this as a similar pattern to how I’ve worked with several ‘CIOs’ who weren’t even in IT (let alone head of it), but who led business-IT alignment and innovation agendas. Again they didn’t articulate it in the abstract conceptual way that we in IT often do, but does that really matter?

Regards,
Sam.

I like your hypothesis, however, I question whether you can take out scope of influence. I think you could drop one of the other two, but it seems that an increase it the breadth of scope is mandatory. It’s an interesting hypothesis, and I hope you get some debate on the topic.

I like your hypothesis, however, I question whether you can take out scope of influence. I think you could drop one of the other two, but it seems that an increase it the breadth of scope is mandatory. It’s an interesting hypothesis, and I hope you get some debate on the topic.