Would you like architects with your architecture?

The core insight is that architecture cannot be ignored and the way you staff and govern architects determines whether you end up with a disciplined system or a Big Ball of Mud. The author breaks architecture into three vocabularies-system architecture, the task of doing architecture, and the organization of architects-then presents a decision-based model with four common patterns. Each pattern is described with concrete pros, cons, and the organizational contexts where it makes sense, from a top-down benevolent dictator to fully distributed teams where architecture is a shared responsibility.

The article walks through real-world signals that indicate which model fits: excessive technical debt, lack of decision discipline, or slow velocity point to a central authority, while mature delivery teams benefit from embedding architects or dissolving the role entirely. It also explains how hybrid approaches evolve, showing how a central architecture guild can seed teams and later step back as autonomy grows. The progression is presented as a spectrum, not a one-off choice, and includes practical tips like keeping Architecture Decision Records and avoiding hidden duplication.

Technical leaders can use this map to diagnose their current state, pick a target model, and plan a gradual shift. By aligning architecture governance with team maturity and business strategy, they avoid the trap of defaulting to a chaotic design or over-centralizing decision-making, ultimately improving decision-making speed, reducing unnecessary complexity, and enabling scalable, sustainable systems.