What is the difference between Solution Architect and Application Architect?

Question

As I understand it, Solution Architect is just a "marketing" term for Application Architect . Is this right, or are the roles really different? If so, how?

And yes, I searched for it in both StackOverflow and Google.

Answer 1

For people who have never worked in a very large organization (or had, but it was dysfunctional), the “architect” may have left a bad taste in his mouth. However, this is not only a legitimate role, but also a very strategic one for smart companies.

• When an application becomes so extensive and complex that it deals with a common technical vision and planning, and the translation of business needs into a technical strategy becomes a full-time job, that is, an application architect Application architects also often instruct and / or lead developers, and are well aware of the code for their critical applications.

• When an organization has so many applications and infrastructure interdependencies that it is a complete job to ensure their alignment and strategy, without participating in the code of any of them, this is the decision of the architect . A solution architect can sometimes look like an application architect, but over a set of particularly large applications that make up a logical business solution.

• When an organization becomes so large that it becomes a complete work to coordinate high-level planning for decision architects and determine the conditions for a business technology strategy, this role is the enterprise architect . Enterprise architects usually work at the executive level, advising the CxO office and its support functions, as well as the business as a whole.

There are also infrastructure architects, information architects, and some others, but in terms of total numbers they make up a smaller percentage than the Big Three.

Note : numerous other answers suggest that there are no “standard” names for these names. It is not true. Go to any Fortune 1000 IT department and you'll always use these headers.

The two most common misconceptions about the "architect":

• An architect is simply a more senior developer with a fancy name.
• An architect is someone who is technically useless, not coded for years, but still throws his weight in business, making life difficult for developers.

These misconceptions come from many architects who do a rather poor job, and organizations do a terrible job of understanding what an architect is for. Usually promote a top programmer in the role of an architect, but this is wrong. They have some overlapping but not identical skills. The best programmer can often be, but not always, the perfect architect. A good architect has an understanding of the good many technical aspects of the IT industry; better understanding of the business needs and strategies that a developer should have; Excellent communication skills and often some project management and business intelligence skills. It is important for architects that their hands be dirty with the code and technically stay sharp. Good do.

Answer 2

Basically, in the world of IT certificates, you can call yourself just what you want, until you step on the feet of a "real" professional organization. For example, you may be the “Microsoft Certified Solution Engineer” on your business card, but if you write the magic phrase “Professional Engineer” (or P. Eng), you will be in a legal situation if you do not have this iron ring. I know that there are similar names for “real” architects that I don’t remember, but until you mention that you can be a “Cisco Certified Network Architect” or similar.

Answer 3

No, an architect has a different task than a programmer. The architect is more concerned with non-functional ("ile") requirements. Like reliability, maintainability, safety, etc. (If you disagree, consider this thought experiment: compare a CGI program written in C that makes a complex site versus implementing Ruby on Rails. Both of them have the same functional behavior, and choosing the RoR architecture has some advantages.)

Typically, a “decision architect” is the whole system — hardware, software, and all — that the “application architect” works on a fixed platform, but the conditions are not so strict or standardized.

Answer 4

There are valid differences between types of architects:

Enterprise architects consider enterprise solutions that are closely related to corporate strategy. For example, at the bank, they will look at the entire IT landscape.

Solution architects focus on a specific solution, for example, the bank uses a new credit card acquisition system.

Domain architects focus on specific areas, such as an application architect or network architect.

Technical architects usually play the role of solution architects with less focus on the business aspect and much more in the technology aspect.

Answer 5

There are no industry standard definitions for the names of architects' work - Application / System / Software / Solution Architect all relate generally to a high-ranking developer with strong design and leadership skills. The balance of design, strategy, development (often core services or structures) and management vary by organization and project.

The only job title “Architect”, which has a different meaning for me, is “Enterprise Architect”, which I think is more likely the position of an IT strategy.

Answer 6

"Architect" is the title given to someone who can design multiple layers of applications that work well at a high level. Everything that falls into the general type of “architect” without a specific type of technology (ie, “Solutions”, “Applications”, “Business”, etc.) speaks of marketing.

Answer 7

In fact, there is a certain difference. The solution architect looks like a requirement of integrity, for example, the requirement is to reduce the number of employees in the call center using Pizza orders, the solution architect looks at all the components that will need to come together to satisfy this, such things as software for voice recognition, what equipment is required, which OS is best suited for its placement, IVR software integration with the support system, etc.

On the other hand, the application architecture in this scenario deals with the features of software interaction, with which language it is best suited, how to make best use of any existing api, creating api if none exist, etc.

Both have their place, both tasks must be performed in order to satisfy the requirements, and in large organizations you will devote yourself to these people, in small development stores often when the developer will have to perform all architectural tasks as part of the overall development, because there is no one else, and it is too cynical to say that his is simply a marketing term, this is a real role (even if he chooses his ad-hoc) and is especially valuable in the kick-off project.

Answer 8

I like the same thing! Although I do not completely disagree with Olya. I would give a select few people the title of Software Architect if they wanted to, but experience tells me that people who really deserve the title of Software Architect are usually not in the names.

Answer 9

In my experience, when I consulted at Computer Associates, the marketing cry was "sell solutions, not products." Therefore, when we had a project, and I needed to wear an architectural hat, I would become a solution architect, as I would develop a solution that will use some components, primarily CA products, and possibly some third-party or manual ones encoded elements.

Now I am more focused as a developer, I myself am an application architect, so I am an application architect.

What I see is, as already discussed, slightly different from naming standards.

Answer 10

Spelling?

Seriously though - they both scare the BS job. "Programmer" does not suit you? Become an "Architect"!

Actually ... What is the world ??

Edit: I clearly hurt the feelings of the "architects"!

Editing 2: Although I agree with the sentiment that phrasing can be interpreted as meaning that some people are dealing with the entire problem area (e.g. hardware, software, deployment, maintenance), most people who want to satisfy the client (and do more money) will provide a full service, if necessary, regardless of their rank.

In real life, it's just marketing fluff.

Answer 11

When your headline does not fit on your business card because you wear too many hats, then someone says that a great name for you.

eg. Programming / IT / Project Management / Strategy / Business Analyst

Other ways to get the title of architect:

• You spend more time on the phone and on the board than you are actually developing working software.
• You spend more time helping people set up Outlook / Entourage than actually developing working software.
• Actually, you are not so good for an encoder.