Who needs an Architect? | Yusuf Aytas

An architect? According to Wikipedia, an architect is a person who plans, designs, and oversees the construction of buildings. So, we obviously have derived the role from civil engineering. In parallel, we derived software architecture which refers to the high-level structure of a software system. Over the years, the term has evolved far beyond its structural roots. It now touches on how systems adapt, scale, and serve human and organizational needs.

As you might guess, I donʼt think we need a formal architect role but an architecture. What we truly need are shared principles of design. Clarity, modularity, and communication rather than a gatekeeper. Before starting another dispute, letʼs watch the Matrix Architect Scene.

The Architect in Matrix

Cool stuff? Thatʼs well deserved for anybody who built a piece of software. Yup, you got it. I think any working software has some kind of architecture. Every class, API boundary, and deployment choice reflects a set of trade-offs. Intentional or accidental that ultimately define how the system behaves.

Whoa, then everybody is an architect? Well, yes and no. Yes, an architecture needs architect/s. No, I donʼt think we need to define a formal role and call everybody architects. Architecture isn’t a badge. It’s a lens, a way of thinking that connects decisions made today with consequences felt months or years later.

In The Matrix, the Architect represents control, order, and inevitability. Everything is bound by logic and symmetry. In software, we often face the same temptation: to overdesign, to predict every outcome, to eliminate uncertainty. Yet the most resilient systems are not the ones most controlled, but those that can adapt when reality diverges from the plan.

The lesson isn’t that we should imitate the Architect, but that we should challenge him. Real architecture breathes, evolves, and learns from its users. It’s less about drawing blueprints and more about cultivating an environment where structure emerges through iteration and shared understanding.

Comparing To Civil Engineering

Going back to civil engineering. An architect designs a building more concerned about aesthetics, artistry and overall shape of construction. A civil engineer concentrates on the structural elements of the design. A builder makes the structure. Thatʼs it. No more definitions.

As you can see, these are well-defined roles and they are somewhat hierarchical. Do you think we have or should have such a hierarchy while developing software systems? Well, no. Software, unlike buildings, is not bound by gravity. It evolves continuously. Code can be refactored, deployed, and destroyed in seconds. The nature of creation here is iterative, not monumental.

Of course, an experienced engineer would have a different perspective than a recent graduate. However, these two engineers would both influence the software system they are building and should contribute to the architecture of the system. Every commit, naming convention, or service boundary adds a fingerprint of its author architecture and becomes a living document of collective decision-making.

If you want to name one of the architects and not the other, do you think that itʼs fair? Nope! So, a formal architect role isnʼt really fit in software development. Software is not a cathedral built once and admired forever; it’s a city that keeps expanding. The best engineers are urban planners as much as builders, balancing beauty, efficiency, and chaos.

If you think we only need a “software architect” title to emphasize seniority level, then I disagree. Most large tech companies already have clear, structured progression paths without formal architect titles. They typically look something like this:

Software Engineer I – early-career developer learning foundations and team practices.

Software Engineer II – independent contributor handling moderately complex tasks.

Senior Software Engineer – experienced developer mentoring others, driving quality and consistency.

Staff Engineer – broad technical leader influencing multiple teams and long-term design decisions.

Principal Engineer – deep system-level thinker setting vision and technical direction across domains.

Distinguished or Fellow Engineer  – organization-wide technical authority shaping overall technology strategy.

Notice what’s missing: a formal “Architect” title. Because in most of these organizations:

Architecture is something you do, not something you’re called. It comes from experience and trust, not titles.

Architectural influence emerges naturally through experience and trust, not hierarchy.

The best “architects” are often the engineers who listen the most, connect systems, and enable others to think bigger.

And yet, architecture happens everywhere in those organizations through design reviews, cross-functional discussions, and shared conventions. The absence of a title doesn’t mean the absence of architecture; it means that...