I currently contracting at the moment, as a 'developer' or 'programmer'.
I applied for a role the other day that I felt was entirely within my skillset - agile, asp.net mvc, tdd.
When I called the recruitment agent, he questioned whether or not I had any recent hands-on development experience.
Which I thought was weird, because I've had over 10 years relentless development experience.
After I'd spoken to him, I realised why he'd asked - its because the last two roles on my CV had the word 'Architect' in them.
Speaking to other people, software 'architects' seem to be percieved often as people that don't code, and design systems from above - think word documents, visio diagrams and the like.
Which is weird, because I'd always thought as a 'architect' as being something different :
1) They have an overall say on the software architecture (when the team has differing opinions and someone has to make a call)
2) They involve themselves on a day-to-day basis with coding (ie pushing features and pairing)
3) They act as mentors to other devs on the team that need help
4) They act as a facilitator to external pressures on the team (ie a sh*t umbrella)
5) They act as a mediator within the team for discussions about architecture on the team
But this role, how I see an 'architect', means having a team that is :
1) Capable of pro-active discussions about software & design2) Capable of decision making, for the benefit of the team and project
3) Capable of accepting responsibility for the software (and hardware) architecture
4) Capable of being responsible for the delivery of the software
Which I guess, is where me and the recruitment agent left each other on how we define 'architect' within a company.
Being a 'software architect' was one of the hardest jobs I ever did - and also one of the most rewarding. But it certainly meant I still remember how to code.