Such ecosystem is the result of many combined factors such as:
- project size
- team size
- team location (es. co-located vs distributed or offshore team)
- team skills (experienced developers, contractors, folks just hired, and so on)
- team members availability (not all teams are well-formed at the time the project starts)
- architect avalability
- marketing constraints
- deadline constraints
- etc. etc.
I learned to know that keeping software architecture clean and preserved from all this is a dead end road. Those ecosystem constraints affect the way a project is carried on, and will also affect the optimal architecture for a given project. Put in another way, there's no optimal architecture for a given problem, unless you include all the variables in.
As Kevin Seal pointed out at the last week SM event: "Architecture is about things that are expensive to change", and in the open source era, the most expensive things to change are time (which can't be reverted) and people, which have normally a long and inefficient learning cycle.
This makes choices like "choosing the implementation language" an expensive one, because despite the free availability of development environments for different platforms, team skills might have to be formed, and properly skilled.
Make the architecture fit the ecosystem
Answering to questions like "What's the right tool for a given load requirement?" is a non trivial job, but it's the one we're (hopefully) prepared to do. It's right in the software architect mindset.
What I've found more tricky is the need to define just the minimum affordable level of architecture, in a given application. In an ideal world we would like to have the most reliable architecture, making coding easy and meeting all of the nonfunctional requirements. We would also like to have all the team members getting familiar with that, and understanding roles of every architectural component and the reason they've been implemented the way they are.
Too much of a dream. Architecture definition is often a time bounded activity also. For a consultant, the Architecture Specification Document might be a deliverable mentioned in the contract, so even if there are more efficient ways to deliver architecture information (podcasts, meetings, comedies, tattoos, ...just to name a few) a document must be prepared. But the contained information must be delivered some other way...
Pairing with programmers, or simply coding are great way to get a grasp of coding reality (meaning that architects might learn something really useful from the way architecture and other coding tools are used), but also a bit naive when the matter is "How to deliver architecture information". Architecture have (I mean they must have) a broader scope than developers, taking into account long term factors, while a developer is generally focusing on a problem that has to be solved now. And developers are not all the same. Seasoned veterans and college guys have peculiar skills ad interests, and a completely different background.
Moreover, properly training the team might be a goal for a company investing it its own development team while it might be not a viable option for an external or a contractors-based team. This might sound a bit cynical (it is), but even if I prefer teaching (after all, it's part of my job) as much as I can about the architecture in place, I have to face the fact that information will flow on a limited bandwidth channel: there will not be as many chances as I would like to discuss the architecture, there would not be as many questions, and developers might not be that curiuos, after all.
Finding the sweet spot
Generally, I think that the ideal sweet spot is doing as much architecture as it can be managed, by the team (buy I usually learn about the point location by surpassing it). This is not a fixed line. A good team will probably ask for a more elegant architecture, al long as the project advances, pushing (or pulling) architecture evolution. In some critical situations, like long projects with a lot of turnover, the architecture should be robust enough to prevent developers to harm themselves, keeping the learning curve as small as possible. Some more work for the architecture team, but usually a bit sadder.