Oh yes they do. If a guy with a badge saying "system architect" looks blank on low-level issues then he is not an architect, he is a business-analyst who went on a course. He will probably wax lyrical on all things high-level and "important". He will produce lovely object hierarchies without a clue to implementation. He will have a moustache and play golf. Okay that last bit might not be true ;).

--RichardHenderson
----
See ArchitectsDontCode

Richard, you have a true statement.   The only way an architect can realize a benefit of a given design  is by doing some coding.   However, I would not use the term "architect" so generically.    There are many kinds of architects in the technology industry.  For example, I have come across security architects, program architects (responsible for overall very large projects), network architects.   I think the best term to use is NonCodingApplicationArchitectsSuck.

''Name too long IMO.''

This is just ArchitectsDontCode. Delete or refactor?

''Delete. This is ranting, ''not'' a meaningful contribution to any useful discussion.''
----
''MythicalManMonth'' has what is still probably the best treatment of the proper role of an architect on a software project.  (And it ''doesn't'' advocate ArchitectsDontCode or ArchitectsPlayGolf).
----
CategoryRant, and useless to boot