does what you’re making matter to people or not? It’s like that no matter what you’re doing. Y’all can sit around here and discuss, “what is a software architect” all you want.
By the time he was done formalizing what needs to be done and philosophizing about the best approach (while actively trying to prevent the engineers from hacking away), the programmers and hardware engineers delivered a production prototype that works just fine and that people want to buy.
Previously the same company had hired one of my previous coworkers as a "software/solutions architect" and he had basically the same trajectory but with him at least I suspect he was just burned out. With that said, seeing someone has the title "Software Architect" is definitely a signal to pay attention to whether this person is even remotely competent and/or produces anything of value. If they give off the impression that they are just supposed to hand off designs to someone else to implement you know you have a complete dud and a moron on your hands.
Personally I find that those who ultimately build the thing they architect are the best to work with. As the build they gain experience, they bridge the gap between theory and practice, and the feedback loop leads to better architecture and better code.
But again, humans are in the mix, so YMMV.
Your comment made me think how any full-time uni professor is -suspicious- of not interacting with the real world. Any -good- professor should be doing research or on the private sector half of his time to not be just a bookworm
I think you're on to something. We ought to hire an architect architect to architect the role of the architect. Maybe we can build an architect factory to abstract that away and have architects set up on demand...