This is covering some familiar ground but I was recently asked why I get excited by 'architect' roles?

Basically, it's because I think the whole concept of 'architecting' is missing from management theory (and therefore most organisations). I think architecting is basically creating a delineated shared understanding of how a bunch of people collaborate.

I see architecting as an alternative (more mature) collaborative model to the manager/managed relationship. We talk a lot about moving away from command-and-control organisations but it's darn near impossible to change an organisation by just saying what you're not allowed to do. You have to provide an alternative behaviour.

Economics tells us that the alternative to 'command' is 'market' but I don't think it helps organisations to go to a strict laissez-faire market model. I think the middle-ground is to build something I'd call a 'collaboration architecture' which structures the 'market' of ideas (and of activities). Such a collaboration architecture conceptually comes before the usual planning, monitoring, controlling steps of management. So you find that even the project manager starts to collaborate with the team (!) in terms of the collaboration architecture.

In a way this is just accelerating that normal storming, forming, and norming of team dynamics; but in a way which provides something tangible (and therefore reusable!).

I have a particular interest in the IT Services industry where these sort of roles are called 'systems architects' or 'enterprise architects'. While there might be lots of people in the industry with the right skills, what is always missing is the acknowledgement of the role itself (and how it differs from something you might call high-level solution 'design').

People with the appropriate skills need to think deeply enough about those skills so that they can be scaled to any sized endeavour.

So, think deeply!