Engineers and Architects in IT. Should the titles be used?

Soldato
Joined
15 May 2010
Posts
10,111
Location
Out of Coventry
One of the roles I fill at work is a Security Architect, where I work with design/change/solution architect teams to ensure appropriate controls are in place. I use the title as its the standard name for what I do, but is it really deserved of being called Architecture?

Architect
1 A person who designs buildings and in many cases also supervises their construction: e.g. the great Norman architect of Durham Cathedral
1.1 A person who is responsible for inventing or realizing a particular idea or project: e.g.the architects of the reform programme

Similarly for Engineers, do IT engineers really count? They maintain or put together COTS components in more or less "standard" configurations, most of the time, nothing new is actually created. Obviously this is far from a skilless task, but is it engineering?

Engineer
1. A person who designs, builds, or maintains engines, machines, or structures.
1.1 A person qualified in a branch of engineering, especially as a professional: e.g. an aeronautical engineer
 
haven't we had this thread before... at least with regards to the 'engineer' title

big can of worms last time
 
An architech usually is involved with the planning and building or something.

A network architech is involved with the planning and building of core infrastructure, large scale multi tiered networks that can span in many different ways, some of CCIE level


So I think they have every right to be called an architech.

Just like those who plan and design complex buildings.

Same with engineer

Engineer doesnt just mean you are are an railway engineer, or a telephone engineer, or a steelworks engineer.
 
You are a security system designer/ consultant. You are not an architect by any stretch of imagination... IMO.
 
IMO no, the terms engineer and architect are misleading.

But... I don't have a better way of describing what you do.

I'm currently "Solution Designer" but that doesn't really clarify what I do either.

At the end of the day it comes down to pay grade, call yourself whatever gets you the most money - because other people don't know what you're talking about most of the time anyway :)
 
I used to be a field engineer. Now I'm a field professional :(

On the plus side, I did get a decent pay raise with the change of job title, so they can call me whatever they want.
 
Yes, the words architect and engineer can be used in IT for people who actually do design and construct solutions.

The overuse of grandiose terms like these for roles which simply exist to enact policy or operate existing systems is, however, a problem.
 
Sounds like designer/consultant would be closer to your role but there are IT roles which can validly be called architectural roles.

Most "IT Engineer" roles don't qualify for the title IMO but some do - I think its used far more loosely than architect is.
 
Engineer no, speaking as someone who has worked as part of an "engineering team" which one of the functions of which was to come up with the standard supportable elements which were then used by the architects to design their solutions my job title is Infrastructure Consultant.

Architect ... yes, to me, and to most of the IT industry, an architect is someone who designs something. That could be a building but it could also be a IT solution (we're not talking individual boxes here we are talking entire enterprise infrastructures).

At the end of the day it doesn't matter what the OP thinks as such are terms are used, be that rightly or wrongly, across the entire industry and pointlessly causing a fuss over it would only irritate your management and could cause issues if you try and change jobs (So Mr Smith you are applying to be a technical architect, but it says here that your previous job was Pixie Dust Shoveler ... so obviously you are not qualified to work here and probably deranged).
 
Last edited:
People who are precious about this sort of thing need to get a grip.

I like 'Pixie Dust Shoveller though', I shall call someone in my team that.

For any job where being a "proper" engineer is relevant, they're hardly likely to hire someone who was an "MS Office Support Engineer" are they?
 
When asked about my job title - i like to throw in Ninja to replace engineer, manager, analyst etc - it seems to raise smiles!

So previously when i was a chef it was Kitchen Ninja, was in IT until very recently, I was the team leader - so when asked, i was Delivery Assurance Ninja
 
When asked about my job title - i like to throw in Ninja to replace engineer, manager, analyst etc - it seems to raise smiles!

So previously when i was a chef it was Kitchen Ninja, was in IT until very recently, I was the team leader - so when asked, i was Delivery Assurance Ninja

I love that term. Must be from my Ogame days though...
 
An Architect designs something.

An Network Architect is someone who designs high level infastructures.

Even Cisco's top level certification is an Architect accreditation.
 
Both titles can apply to IT roles, particularly in hardware and software creation, however that's not to say that every role with the title is deserving of it.
 
Probably not but then there are many different jobs, not just IT, with stupid titles - 'Senior Sandwich Artist ' I suppose this could also be 'Professional Sandwich Architect'
 
My job title is Maintenance Engineer but I don't have an engineering degree, come at me bro. I do work in engineering, not IT though.
 
rofl

"I.T" is full of people with fancy job titles, "TECHNICAL DESIGN AUTHORITY" was a sexy one that was doing the rounds at one point, which is basically a salesperson who draws clouds on whiteboards, but doesn't get a sales bonus, or something..

I'm classed as a "design engineer" in that 100% of my time is dedicated to providing engineering solutions for service-providers, I work alongside people who call themselves "architects" but I think the terms is totally overused.
 
Back
Top Bottom