Job Titles -- Sr. Software Developer vs. Intermediate-level Software Architect

I've been gradually shifting gears in my job and am now going to be moving to a new department in a rather small company. To make the long story short (if you're really interested in the story, let me know), I've got the chance to help determine what my new job title is (within reason of course). I've been scouring the web and have come up with two job titles whose many descriptions consistently fit what I have been doing: "Sr. Software Developer" and "Intermediate-level Software Architect".

Knowing that the job title long term can affect salary as well as other job opportunities, my question is what is generally the more desirable title? My initial instinct is "Architect", but I don't quite qualify for Sr. Architect. What would you prefer and why?

Many thanks!

I agree that "Architect" sounds more desireable. How about just "Software Architect"?

-Satish

My company does go by those leveling systems. "Entry level, junior, intermediate level, senior" or "level 1, level 2, level 3, level 4, level 5".

Software developer I, II, III, IV and, I think, senior, is the leveling system used in my company too.

Adding the term "Intermediate-Level" in front of the job title sounds a bit wierd. What is your job scope? Software architect and software developer does different things. Software architect is more on designing (and developing) the architecture of a software system, while software developer is more on the coding of components within a software system.

I do both. I can really be considered one or the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KevinHall

I do both. I can really be considered one or the other.

---

Just a thought from my side Kevin, might not be that appropriate as my experience is not that broad in this industry.

Consider the profile that you would like to do.. for the moment - don't think on what you have been doing. Just try jotting down the kind of role that you would want to be in say, 2-3 years from now since the move.

Development is fine... one can carry on with that but to reflect greater significance and value to an organization - you might want to opt for an architect position. A developers role seems to me as quite restrictive in terms of technologies and narrows down your skills while being architect is quite challenging and more rewarding since you deal with broader aspects of business. Once one gains experience doing that one can easily opt out to work as a consultant on your own - gives you more freedom to think and work.

This is just my opinion. If you don't like it or if it is not appropriate as per your question - you can throw it in the garbage can next to you ;). Hope you haven't considered the decision yet and this helps in some way. Best regards. :)

Thanks exterminator. I've been thinking about the same thing as from that view, I do believe architect is more desirable. But I'm unfamiliar with the industry as a whole. My whole professional life has been with this one company. While I have no compelling reason to leave (I actually have compelling reasons to stay), that may not be the case in the future. And I just wanted to see what the perspecitves are from others with more experience.

Thanks again for the feedback!

- Kevin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KevinHall

But I'm unfamiliar with the industry as a whole.

---

You might find it as an oppurtunity for new learnings but it also depends on lot more things than just role.. you know... it depends on what priorities you have at the moment.. professional priorities, personal priorities.. and similar... Feels nice to make sense. Good luck. Best regards and best wishes. :wave: