Christian Posta bio photo

Christian Posta

Field CTO at, author Istio in Action and Microservices for Java Developers, open-source enthusiast, cloud application development, committer @ Apache, Serverless, Cloud, Integration, Kubernetes, Docker, Istio, Envoy #blogger

Twitter Google+ LinkedIn Github Stackoverflow

Enterprise architects seem to become more and more involved in “trying out new things” or pushing down technology or implementation advice -- nay dictation -- without having a dog in the fight, or having to code any part of it. I’ve observed this in quite a few place, both working with the architects as a fellow architect, or as a developer. From these observations, I’ve come up with three rules for myself for being a good enterprise architect that I believe may be worthy for sharing and discussion.

#1 Gain the respect of the developers

I would like to generalize and say that developers seem to be the type of people who don’t want to put up with more bullshit than they absolutely have to. So trying the typical political maneuvering that you find in big companies to impress developers wont work. That includes salesmanship, power point presentations, etc. Those skills can be important for relaying a direction or vision, but it’s not going to impress the developers. The most tried and true way to gain their respect is to code with them. Yes, indeed. Good architects code. Bad ones pontificate. And there seem to be *way* more of the latter than the former. Coding your brilliantly “architected” solution will help gain their respect. But it also helps in another area. The second rule I follow.

#2 Realize that you cannot design a system on paper.

The source code is not the product that you’re engineering. The source code itself is the design. So when I sit in an architecture role, I remind myself that coming up with diagrams and flow visualizations is not the design. It’s a brainstorm to help develop a model in my head. But without putting that model to code, you don’t know how it will truly behave, or how the architected solution should be altered. And believe me. In almost all cases, it should be altered. In other words, there should be a feedback loop between the developers and the architects. And if you follow rule #1, you’ll be right there to observe first hand how your solution plays out in code.

#3 Don’t resume build

Don’t glom onto the latest and most shiny technology and push it onto the developers without putting it through some rigorous, real-life situations. Playing with new technology is fun. I do it all the time. But I do it outside of my day job. Sacrificing the stability of the team, the software, and the business model just because some technology seems cool and Google might hire you if you know it is not a respectable way to go about solving enterprise problems. Even if you’ve seen enough sales presentations about how this new technology is going to be such a magic bullet, resist the temptation to try to indoctrinate the rest of the team until you’ve put the new technology to real life software problems in an incubator.

I’ve been on both sides of the fence, have worked with a bunch of good developers and architects, and these are my three rules. Anyone want to add anything?