How is the Architecture market changing?
I’ve been hiring architecture roles for over 10 years across retail, banking, fintech, energy, marketplaces, legal and professional services. It’s always been an interesting part of the technology market because two businesses can use exactly the same job title but be looking for very different people.
Over the last few years, those differences have become even more pronounced. Principal Architect roles are becoming broader, architecture and engineering are starting to overlap, teams are getting leaner and the expectations around influence at senior levels have increased considerably.
Over the last 12 months alone, we’ve hired architects across applications, workplace, service management, platforms and data. Here are a few changes that have really stood out.
The Principal Architect role is becoming broader
A lot of people move into architecture because they want greater influence over technology strategy while remaining technical rather than following a traditional people leadership path. Historically, Principal Architect has been a natural progression for someone wanting to remain a senior individual contributor.
That distinction has become less clear. We’re seeing Principal Architects lead architecture practices and, in some cases, teams of up to 10 people, while still being expected to remain close to the technology and set technical direction. We placed someone in January as a Principal Architect who was promoted to Head of Architecture only five months later as the team grew around them.
It means both candidates and hiring teams now need to look beyond the title. One Principal Architect might be the most senior individual contributor, while another could be managing people and effectively operating as a Head of Architecture.
Architecture and engineering are starting to overlap
Some CTOs, particularly in SaaS and product businesses, have changed the traditional architecture model. Rather than building large Solution and Enterprise Architecture teams, they’re using Principal Engineers to take on some of those responsibilities.
These engineers generally come from development backgrounds and stay grounded to lower-level technical decisions, while also setting strategy, roadmaps, patterns and standards. A traditional architect may have more experience with governance and enterprise-wide architecture, while the Principal Engineer is often closer to the code and engineering teams.
I don’t think one model is necessarily better. The boundaries are simply becoming less obvious, and the question for CTOs is increasingly about the problem they need someone to solve rather than whether they need an architect or an engineer.
Influence is becoming as important as technical capability
This has probably been the biggest observation from the architecture searches we’ve run over the last 12 months. Most candidates reaching the latter stages handle the technical interviews very well. Where we’ve seen people fall down, particularly at Principal level, has been in the final interview with the GM, CIO or CTO.
At that level, architects need to do more than come up with the right technical solution. They might need to challenge an engineering leader, explain a complex decision to an executive or get multiple teams with competing priorities to adopt a common standard.
We’ve seen technically excellent architects miss out because they could explain what they wanted to do but struggled to demonstrate how they would get the wider organisation to follow them. For candidates looking to progress, and hiring teams assessing them, influencing ability is becoming one of the biggest differentiators.
Architecture teams are getting leaner
We’re seeing fewer of the huge centralised architecture teams that were common in large organisations just a few years ago, as more businesses move towards smaller, leaner practices, with architects distributed across platforms, domains and business units.
One example of this is a large retailer who had a centralised Enterprise Architecture team of more than 80 has now, through a number of org changes, transformed to a distributed domain model at about half the size. In many mid-tier organisations a GM or Head of Architecture may be a hybrid role combining Data, Strategy or AI with a remit to manage a total team of just 5-10.
Smaller teams don’t necessarily mean architecture is becoming less important. A Head of Architecture with six people may need to influence hundreds of people across technology without directly managing them, which makes the quality and credibility of the team even more important.
Case studies are changing how Architects are assessed
One change I’ve really liked is the increased use of case studies and roadmap presentations. Some brilliant architects aren’t particularly polished interviewers, but give them a genuine technology problem and you get a much better view of how they actually operate.
The value isn’t really in the final diagram. It’s understanding the thinking behind it. Why did they make that decision? Can they defend it when challenged? Can they adapt when new information is introduced?
This has become even more relevant with candidates using AI tools like Claude to prepare. There’s nothing wrong with using AI, but a beautifully prepared presentation doesn’t necessarily demonstrate architectural capability. The follow-up questions usually tell you very quickly who genuinely understands the technical thinking behind what they’re presenting.
The permanent market has changed
Architecture has traditionally had a strong contracting market and for years, it was difficult to convince experienced contractors to consider permanent opportunities because the financial difference was too significant.
That gap has narrowed considerably. Based on the roles we’ve been working on recently, we’re seeing Solution Architects around $200k + super, Senior Solution Architects around $200k–$220k + super, Principal Architects around $220k–$250k + super and Heads of Architecture around the $300k + super mark.
There is obviously variation depending on the organisation and scope, but we’re now having permanent conversations with architects who five or ten years ago probably wouldn’t have considered making the move.
What does a great Architect look like now?
I don’t think architecture is becoming less important. I think however the definition of a great architect is changing.
Technical capability is still fundamental, but the best architects we’re meeting can move between strategy and detail, maintain credibility with engineers and influence people well outside the architecture function.
For candidates, that means developing those skills alongside technical capability. For hiring managers and Talent teams, it means spending more time defining how you need the person to operate rather than building a list of technologies. For senior roles it means the possibility of reframing time spent on strategy or transformation work or refining and building on data and AI experience.
Two businesses can advertise for a Principal Architect at $240k and be looking for completely different people. After a decade hiring these roles, I think understanding that difference has become more important than ever.
