How can a software engineer become a software architect?

Large companies often have formal written descriptions for the job responsibilities of each grade or promotion level of engineers. These written descriptions might include phrases like: Entry Level / Junior: "Efficiently and reliably codes fully-specified work items" Mid-Level: "Specifies and implements subsystems under supervision of the lead architect" Senior: "Independently specifies and implements systems or collections of systems; mentors junior staff on design and architecture tasks" And then, the fork in the path: Architect / Staff Engineer: "Works with the design team to specify the architecture and technical design of the product; assigns work to designated assistants as needed"; OR Group Leader / Lead Engineer: "Manages the technical development and staff needs of the project, including resource allocation, tasking, and line-level HR responsibilities" In such companies you're not promoted from, say, entry level engineer to mid-level engineer, until you've demonstrated that you're fully capable of performing the responsibilities of the job. This is because, in engineering work, there's no margin for people to "grow into" the responsibilities of their jobs -- they need to be able to do them from day one. Even in companies that espouse flat management structures, and that don't have a formal fork between management and technical progression, the way you become a software architect is by proving that you are a trustworthy software architect, first by taking on responsibility for the design of something small, and then for larger and larger pieces until you're capable of supervising and executing technical design for the whole product.

Lance is correct in that the terms are fairly meaningless, but I think with a little effort we can understand what you are really asking.  I'm assuming that by software engineer you mean programmer and by architect you mean someone who manages larger projects and has more creative say over how a solution is developed. I think in that light some ideas I would consider would be: 0. As I was re-reading my list, I realized there is one more that belongs at the front.  Take responsibility. 1. Try to see the big picture.  Don't focus on immediate coding solutions, focus on the overall solution regardless of language or platform.  Look outside of what your immediate responsibilities are and see how everything is interrelated and connected. 2. Talk to the users, meet them, listen to them and develop trust and a relationship with them.  Understand the business reasons and justification for the project. 3. Learn to let others do their work and don't get too tied up in specifics of how they solve problems.  Make sure they are doing their work well and properly, but if you prefer a linked list and they prefer an array, don't get caught up in making them do everything the exact way you would do it.  4. Know that a beautiful solution that never gets launched or used is worthless and that a functioning, in use solution that is a compromise is gold. 5. Know when to ignore rule #4 and not compromise. 6. Know the difference between wicked problems and tame problems.  Tame problems tend to be technical in nature and can be solved.  A tame problem might be how to sort a list, or design relational tables.  Wicked problems tend to be human in nature and hard, if not impossible, to solve.  Wicked problems tend to be requirement or communication based, a user says one thing but means something totally different, or one set of users dislikes another set of users and chaos ensues.  When a tame problem is solved, it stays solved, but when a wicked problem is solved it can un-solve itself if you aren't careful. I think the one thing you will find as you progress is to be sure you know where you are headed.  You may look at someone who you consider to be an Architect and think they've got it made, but when you get there you might find yourself looking back and recalling the good old days when all you had to do was solve simple algorithmic problems.

An architect should be able to come with the best solutions to improve at least one of these areas : Execution speed. Resource consumption (cpu, ram, IO). Productivity of coding ( is it possible for me to code something once and re use it hundreds of times?, check AOP). Security. Distributed systems communication. Manage a budget for the cost of your tools/technologies that fits the company's monetary status of which you are working for. You must read, read and read.Read about the latest technologies and trends, understand them by doing some test coding and list the bennefits and write them down in a sheet of paper.Once that is done stop for a second and analyze the current structure of the company's codebase and try see if you can use some of the bennefits from that sheet of paper to improve the codebase.

Yes, being a software engineer you learn a lot of basic and advanced technologies. In other words, software engineer is initial rank where you learn and get your hands dirty on technologies. Most often software engineers are the ones who get promoted to a software architect. I know couple of people who went through the whole process of becoming a SA from SE with in a span for 5 years.

The terms are simply word games.Coder, Programmer, Developer, Engineer, architect.Some common differences between a developer and engineer (though they generally are the same), is that an engineer is capable of designing the logical structures (components) where a developer is a subset or JR that can put the pieces together but not create new pieces.In most cases these are seen as the same, but there is a subtle line that makes an engineer just that, mostly it is attitude.An architect is a step up from an engineer in that they can work on big picture systems, with several components and make them work smoothly together while addressing basic structures and creating standards to make design and maintaining smother.  So this is no different than the engineer in concept, just it is on a much larger scale.  Often with better understanding of design patterns and logic patterns.The best way is to keep learning, especially design patterns and algorithms.

A Software Engineer eventually becomes a Software Architect when he gains enough knowledge and industry experiences to make high-level design choices and can dictate technical standards, including software coding standards, tools, and platforms.Software Engineering Institute (SEI) of Carnegie Mellon University gathered the duties, skills, knowledge, organizational support responsibilities of a Software Architect from a large number of industry leaders. Read it from here: https://www.sei.cmu.edu/architecture/research/previousresearch/duties.cfmI guess that contains enough contents to perfectly answer your question.

"Software Engineer" and "Software Architect" are both contrived terms. In one company they might mean the same thing. In another them may need something different. They really have no strong definition either, to be an electrical engineer you have to have a certain amount of schooling and pass certain test. To be a software-engineer, you just say "Im a software engineer" and you are one.