The other night on Twitter, I wrote:

Note to current and future colleagues: If I ever put the term ‘architect’ in my job title, I encourage you to punch me in the face.

My Twitter posts, which are public, automatically propagate to my Facebook timeline, which is private. I hadn’t considered “How will people react?” when I tweeted, and I was surprised by the range of reaction across Twitter and Facebook. It ran the gamut from “I’m amused” to “I’m surprised” to “I agree” to “I’m offended”. Whenever you have a range of reaction like this, it usually means you’re on a point that people either find interesting, or care about, or both. Given this, I decided to write my thoughts down more fully.

I don’t have a full thesis worked out in my head, so I’ll explain my feelings through a series of stories from my career.


I distinctly remember meeting Simon Johnston. It was approximately 2003 at IBM Research in Hawthorne New York, for an IBM Academy study on some software engineering topic. At the time I worked in the old Application Management Services division and Simon had recently joined IBM through our acquisition of Rational Software. I distinctly remember meeting Simon for two reasons:

  • I was blown away by his degree of sophistication and articulation when he spoke about software engineering and architecture
  • I remember him telling me – in a very polite way – that I was basically a bozo for calling myself an architect

At the time I was about 25 and had been out of college for two years. In that part of IBM, the career progression for software developers was well-defined: you want to get promoted out of development and into architecture. At the time, my primary work goal was always “get promoted, get promoted” so I had managed to move from development to architecture in just a year and a half. Simon’s point was that I hadn’t done anything interesting enough to call myself an architect. Also, at the time I was the breed of architect who spends all his time talking about business requirements and drawing the occasional UML diagram, while eschewing code. I don’t recall his exact words, but Simon made the point that good architects – i.e. non-bozos – are highly technical, work very closely with development, and still write important code.

I hadn’t thought about it until just now, but Simon’s description of architect in 2003 pretty much describes his role today as CTO of Amazon Fresh.


I had an unusual start with the Rational Jazz project, as I described a few years ago. The Jazz team were the descendants of the Eclipse team and thus OTI, a late-1990s IBM acquisition. OTI had a wonderful development culture, which I learned about once I joined the Jazz team and over time embraced fully. The Jazz team leadership had a small presentation called “OTI Culture” that distills the essential values and principles. It’s short enough to include here:

“People, not organizations, build software.”

  1. We succeed because of our people.
  2. Our culture attracts top people and empowers them to succeed.
  3. Our culture is the impetus for our success. Without it we could not exist.

Our Culture

  • If it helps ship products, it’s good. If not, it’s bad.
  • He who ships gets to speak.
  • Do the right thing.
  • Get it done or get out of the way.
  • Ask: Why are we doing this?
  • Having fun is survival, not icing.
  • The team succeeds or fails together.
  • Everything we do reflects on all of us – a matter of personal pride.
  • A responsible, caring organization attracts responsible, caring people.
  • When we ship, we all ship.
  • You can’t build good software without emotion – you have to care.
  • What the leaders are, the people will soon become.
  • You do not learn by agreeing with people.
  • Convictions are meant to be acted on.

Now think about these principles in the context of architects you might have known. Did their work help ship products? If you were a developer, did the architect empower you to succeed?

On Jazz, there were several people who you could call architects, even though they didn’t call themselves architects. They were John Wiegand, Erich Gamma, and Scott Rich. Each of these guys were essential to helping us ship products and each of these guys empowered developers to succeed. I don’t think it was even a conscious thing – it was baked into their DNA.

The trick was that they only hired really strong developers, not blubs. And because of this, they could confidently delegate quite a bit of technical decision-making – even architectural decisions – to these developers. Their role was to establish priorities, provide light guidance, and to spot patterns and connect dots across different components. By delegating technical decision-making, we were able to move faster, developers felt more of a sense of ownership, and decisions were made closer to the code, and thus reality.

For instance, my first job on the Jazz team was to create our web UIs. Because this was 2005 at IBM, I started with … oh god I hate to say it … JSF. Let’s just say that in two months of work, it didn’t go well. One Friday afternoon Scott pulled me aside and said that he, John, and Erich had talked, and they were observing that the web UIs weren’t progressing fast enough or with enough pizzazz. He suggested that the team take two weeks to experiment with alternative technologies that were popular outside IBM and come back with a recommendation. They only gave us two requirements: we had to come up with an extensibility story to enable future products and it had to be cool. We looked at several technologies and ultimately chose to have a go with a single page Ajax/REST architecture that was inspired by Gmail, which was new at the time – in fact no one at IBM was using non-trivial Ajax in a product back then. Scott, John, and Erich supported us to give it a try, and it led to a great result that probably tens of thousands of people still use every day for their work.

To me this is a great example of architects being helpful. Give developers a clear problem statement, provide gentle course correction when something’s not going well, but otherwise let the developers do their thing.


A couple of years ago I was at the O’Reilly campus in Sebastopol for some meetings prior to Foo Camp. Mike Loukides was nice enough to pull me into a demo where some O’Reilly web developers were showing an early version of O’Reilly Atlas to Tim. During the demo, I realized that Peter Norvig from Google was also in the room. I’d never met him before but I’d certainly heard of him, since he was and is Director of Research at Google. A few hours later during a Foo Camp barbecue, I introduced myself and asked him how a super senior guy like him was able to keep it real and stay technical.

His answer was as simple as it was brilliant. Beyond doing his own coding for work and fun, he said that he regularly performs code reviews with his researchers. He said this has bi-directional benefits. For him, it helps him keep current on emerging techniques and technologies since his researchers are always on the cutting edge. And for his developers, he’s able to provide insights based on his deep and broad experience and also connect dots across projects and researchers.


The reason I wrote that negative tweet is because recently I’ve been running into a bunch of architecture astronauts. If you’re a little younger and not familiar with this term, take a minute to read this classic 2001 article from Joel Spolsky where he coined it. Maybe read it twice – it’s important.

My job these days is essentially the same sort of architect as John, Scott, and Erich were on Jazz. But I don’t feel comfortable calling myself an architect because there are so many architecture astronauts running around and I want to avoid guilt by association. Also, somehow I feel that calling myself an architect would be somehow gauche – like I’m sure Wes Anderson doesn’t refer to himself as an auteur and I know John Allspaw doesn’t use the phrase DevOps much.

All that being said, every day I aspire to be the sort of architect that Simon, Scott, Erich and John are. I try to avoid the trap of endless meetings and PowerPoints. I try very hard to stay connected to the code and the developers. Finally, where it’s within my sphere influence, I try to nuke the astronauts and empower the developers. Hopefully, my sphere of influence will continue to expand.