Do you see the architect as a 'sub-ordinate' (not in the lesser sense, but as in the employee sense) to the developer, who pays your wage for a predetermined time period while he/she seeks to produce an end product (i.e. development)?
Do you see the architect as a 'service provider' - with some intricately related ties with the aforementioned - but predominantly there to satisfy a demand?
Or do you see architects as an actively engaged member of a team - whose pay-off is a wage + any prespecified/non-specified bonus for achieving a certain level of outcome for the developer - a partner as it were, with a common vision and purpose? A partner who provides their input to the developer's want?
It often seems to me, project pending, the architect becomes most certainly a 'partner' with a project becoming so much more than just a 'wage earner', but a personal goal. When or if a project experiences trouble, it quite often goes beyond the prospect of a non-bonus earner, but becomes a very deep-rooted personal issue with both architect and developer. Its most interesting. However, some cases simply seem to be 'wage earners', with the project obviously being a lot more personal to the developer than architect (I say obviously considering the attachment of money w.r.t. the developer). What is your opinion?
And how should, if none of the above, should the architect/developer relationship be otherwise interpreted?
- Old Master
- Posts: 1327
- Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 8:31 pm