Hearding cats is easy compared to managing application development.
Computing has to deal with constant change: business requirements, priorities, costs, budget, available hardware and software, skills, etc. The applications that get developed are like photographs - they capture one specific state of play but the action continues and changes. The code that gets developed is also akin to a sculptor carving a statue - expensive to produce, esoteric, and with a result that is fixed in time.
If we in computing were building bridges or skyscrapers these things would be essential, but in our industry they are like millstones around our knecks. One major result is a constant desire to find faster cheaper flexible ways of doing our stuff which drives a constant flow of new software and methodologies into the market place. Even though we know most of it must be snake oil, each person hopes that the bit they grab hold of is a magic bullet that overcomes the contradictions that are inherent in software development.
Within computing, an architect should be looking at how the business can be supported this year, next year, and every year for the next 10 years. Their assets include fungible people and liabilities include non-fungible domain knowledge.
From an individual's viewpoint, their employer is fungible while their skills are non-fungible. The skills walk out the office door every evening and sometimes get funged to a different employer by the time morning arrives.
A good architect will want to keep the product-specific skills needed by the business within the set of frequently-found skills present within the group of potential employees. This mandates change over the medium term (3-5 years), even though the direction of that change is difficult to discern at the start of that term.
Skills that are currently common in both businesses and people will change only slowly, but will migrate to updated versions of software. Esoteric skills are likely to change quickly, potentially becoming either common or extinct. A good architect needs to allow some controlled experimentation in new techniques that could benefit the business. However even useful new techniques may need to be dumped if they are not being picked up elsewhere. It is a bad architect who allows the business to become dependant on a collection of esoteric skills known only the the current/previous set of employees.
My view is to keep mainstream and keep current. Be willing to check out anything new that could be of real use but only adopt it if it gains widespread use. If the business managers insist on maintaining esoteric business knowledge then make sure they realise the application development needed to support this is going to remain expensive.
Original author: https://github.com/SQL-FineBuild/Common/wiki/ 1-click install and best practice configuration of SQL Server 2019, 2017 2016, 2014, 2012, 2008 R2, 2008 and 2005.
When I give food to the poor they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor they call me a communist - Archbishop Hélder Câmara