Why are these roles necessary?
Do they add any real value to the organization?
Architects feel like relics from the outdated waterfall era
5 replies (most recent on top)
Best architect ever was Mike Brady.
The way I see it, the only types of architects that's useful:
- Niche Architects. Specialists in niche areas such as security, OIDC, accessibility... They work horizontally supporting the niche needs of all use cases.
- Solution Architects. Semi-specialist who are familiar with Fidelity's inhouse built components. They consult on how to use those in-house built components to solve use case problems. They're tied to the product team who build those Fidelity components.
What's not helpful and probably the source of tension between architectural and engineering team are below types:
- General Architect. Those supporting use case team solutioning with general tools such as generic AWS stuff. Use case engineering team can do it themselves!
- Product Architect. Those supporting product team building in-house components. The product engineering team can do it themselves!
The Generalist and Product Architects need to be either laid off or embedded into the teams and become normal engineers.
You're welcome Joe.
Turn Fidelity Architecture & Engineering (FAE) into a service arm where architects have to find gigs from BU use cases team. Those currently adding zero values would immediately be exposed.
Most of them add Zero value to the firm!
Current architects are non-producers.
You want them to make a difference, have them own a deliverable.
For example, they should create and maintain common frameworks and component libraries used across technology.
So much money saved and risk reduced with this. Currently everyone rolls their own and they vary in quality, etc.
Currently, architects act like ivory towers and preach with minor details, but never implement. Waste of talent and money.