Who Needs an Architect?

In the article called "Who Needs an Architect?" by Martin Fowler, there were several points that I found interesting.

One of this ideas was that "There is no higher level concept of a system but It is the highest level concept of the expert developers" (Fowler). This first idea seemed quite right to me, since I agree with the above for two reasons: First, because I believe it is true that clients are not interested in important components within a complex software architecture, and, on the other hand, I think that the architecture depends more on what a development team considers important, than on the softare itself.

Another idea that in my opinion is very interesting is that "architecture is the decisions that you wish you could get right early in a project, but that you are not necessarily more likely to get them right than any other". I think the author is right in defining architecture that way. I mean, the decisions to define the architecture can be made at any moment of the development, although it would be desirable that those decisions were made from the beginning.

Martin Fowler was very creative and assertive in classifying the architects into two types: the Architectus Reloadus and the Architectus Oryzus. I agree with the idea that the architects that predominate are those of the first type, and are also the least convenient to hire since they do not get involved in depth with the project and they are not interested at all what the developers think about its inflexible design (which will surely bring many problems to develop as it is). I think that every architect should follow the model of the Architectus Oryzus, one that considers the opinion of all those involved to create the architecture, that is deeply involved in the project and that allows future modifications in its design because he or she understands that this could facilitate and improve the development.