I think the arguments for or against keeping full time architects on staff versus having developers who also work together to design out systems are the same the argument for or against separating out internal systems and test automation from regular developer roles. For example googles SET, STE & Engineer roles.
Personally I like more integrated teams and believe a good architect should be down in the mud writing code half the time in-between designing things out. Partially because technology keeps changing and you need to keep an eye on developments and partially because it's a shame to waste that big picture understanding when tacking debugging or designing out specific components, and partially because it's important to keep an eye on cod equality.
I've done the architecture thing both ways however, throwing design notes over the fence versus designing and helping with implementation, and honestly they both have their pros and cons.
Tighter integration reduces communication problems and wasted effort. On the flips side having individuals focus on producing what they produce best can be more efficient then forcing team members to wear multiple hats. For the same reason why a country much better at growing expensive widgets and slightly better at growing gaskets than another country should focus their production efforts on widgets while the other country focuses their production efforts on gaskets.
The major problem in my own humble opinion with the separating out the architecture discipline is that once you step away from the code you're basically kicking off a countdown to the point where your understandings of the technologies involved and current practices and tools doesn't match up with reality. Which impacts your quality as an architect.
You can say similar things about technical project managers, general managers and ctos who no longer code,
Personally I like more integrated teams and believe a good architect should be down in the mud writing code half the time in-between designing things out. Partially because technology keeps changing and you need to keep an eye on developments and partially because it's a shame to waste that big picture understanding when tacking debugging or designing out specific components, and partially because it's important to keep an eye on cod equality.
I've done the architecture thing both ways however, throwing design notes over the fence versus designing and helping with implementation, and honestly they both have their pros and cons.
Tighter integration reduces communication problems and wasted effort. On the flips side having individuals focus on producing what they produce best can be more efficient then forcing team members to wear multiple hats. For the same reason why a country much better at growing expensive widgets and slightly better at growing gaskets than another country should focus their production efforts on widgets while the other country focuses their production efforts on gaskets.
The major problem in my own humble opinion with the separating out the architecture discipline is that once you step away from the code you're basically kicking off a countdown to the point where your understandings of the technologies involved and current practices and tools doesn't match up with reality. Which impacts your quality as an architect.
You can say similar things about technical project managers, general managers and ctos who no longer code,