Well, if the title is the problem, what's would be a better title? Significant software projects need a technical person at the top, who's not a manager. If t

Well, if the title is the problem, what's would be a better title? Significant software projects need a technical person at the top, who's not a manager. If that technical person doesn't have a cool title, he's going to get implicitly demoted by the other stakeholders. That's the way it is. Architect is just a cool title that gives some authority, so that person doesn't get stomped out by the other non-technical people in the mix. I've been called other things besides Architect (e.g. tech lead, lead developer, etc.), but those titles don't have enough weight. They imply that technology is somehow a second rate activity. When the "Architect" walks into the room, at least they get the attention of the CXO or executive level stakeholders. Otherwise, those types will just focus their attention on the non-technical managers in the room. What else would you call the lead technology person who knows the nuances of everything about the project, but who doesn't want to be the manager of it?