sboiling

I've been thinking about this for a while. I have a problem with the use of the term 'architect' in my industry. Not architects - I know some good ones - but how the term is used.

A couple of recent posts have got me thinking about this some more. Angus Kidman at Builder AU - http://tinyurl.com/yxqxdx and my colleague Bill Roth here on Dev2Dev - http://tinyurl.com/w7vbn

So I looked up the term 'architect' on wikipedia. Here's a couple of interesting excerpts, "In Australia the title of architect is legally protected and architects are registered through state boards. These boards are affiliated through the Architects Accreditation Council of Australia. There are three key requirements for registration: a professional degree from a school of architecture accredited by the AACA; at least two years of practical experience, and; the completion of the architectural practice examination."

And, "In the UK the title "architect" is protected by law, and only those who have the recognised qualifications ratified by the Architects Registration Board in conjunction with the Royal Institute of British Architects are allowed to call themselves architects. In the UK it takes a minimum of seven years to train to be an architect."

Full entry here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architect

You need an degree level qualification. A couple of years of industry experience. And a formal professional exam. It takes a minimum of 7 years!

What formal ratification exists for people in the software industry to undertake before they can use the term, 'architect'?

Vendor certifications are only half the answer. I'd say we need an open, standards-based qualification to ratify an architect. Do any schools teach this? Is this available as a qualification anywhere? I'll be interested to find out.