Trajectories for Architects and Developers
Trajectories for the relationship between the Architect and Developer roles in software development.
With the amazing AI tools released like M365 CoPilot, Amazon Bedrock and IBM ICA we’re seeing the Software Development change. Here’s some possible trajectories for Architects and Developers.
1. Architect Eats All Dev Work: “Design Over Code”
The Scenario: The role of the Architect expands to encompass a significant portion, or perhaps even a majority, of the detailed design, implementation planning, and potentially even some core coding/prototyping work traditionally done by senior Developers.
Implications:
Architect Role: Becomes highly detailed, prescriptive, and hands-on. They are responsible not just for the what but also the how at a lower level.
Developer Role: Could become more focused on pure implementation (translating detailed specifications into code), testing, and maintenance. The creative or decision-making part of the implementation detail is diminished.
Focus: Emphasizes upfront, rigorous Design and comprehensive documentation/modeling. The belief is that thorough planning prevents costly errors and rework.
Potential Drawbacks: Can lead to a “ivory tower” mentality if the Architect is detached from the code realities, resulting in designs that are hard or inefficient to implement. Developers might feel disempowered or less engaged.
2. Developer Eats All Architect Work: “Code Over Architecture”
The Scenario: The traditional Architect role diminishes or is eliminated entirely. The responsibilities for strategic decision-making, system-level design, technology selection, and architectural governance are absorbed by senior (or “Lead”) Developers or development teams.
Implications:
Developer/Lead Role: Becomes highly empowered and T-shaped (deep technical skills plus broad strategic/system-level thinking). They are responsible for both the coding and the architectural direction.
Architect Role: May disappear, or morph into a consulting/governance board role that provides oversight rather than hands-on design.
Focus: Emphasizes rapid Code delivery, continuous integration, and “emergent design” (where the architecture evolves with the code). It trusts that the implementers are the best people to make the architectural choices.
Potential Drawbacks: Can lead to “design by committee,” fragmented systems lacking a unified vision, “technical debt” accruing rapidly, and difficulty in maintaining consistency across multiple teams or large organizations.
The Reality (The Third Way)
In most successful modern organizations, neither extreme truly wins. A successful setup often involves a collaborative middle ground:
Architects focus on the strategic, non-functional requirements (security, performance, scalability), defining the major boundaries (microservices, data stores, major integration points), and technology runway (future state).
Developers (especially Leads/Seniors) own the tactical, detailed design within those boundaries, ensuring the architecture is viable, and driving the implementation standards and code quality.
This is often called a “Technical Architect/Technical Lead” model, where the Architect remains technically current and works with the technical lead developers, not just at them.