Not sure where I heard this, but thought it was funny (paraphrasing slightly here):
Non-technical technical architect: someone involved in or responsible for the technical architecture of a system who has a rough idea of the concerns of architecture at a high level, but has no previous experience in actually building systems.
You don’t have to have had hands on experience in development language x or technology y in order to understand the architectural concerns of a system, but to have no prior development experience at all is somewhat of a disadvantage to understanding what actually works or doesn’t work, don’t you think?
The title of the article seems like an oxymoron. Who comes up with these terms anyway?
How can an architect be non-technical and technical at the same time?
… someone who doesn’t have the necessary experience to be in that role? Far from an ideal situation, agreed, but it happens.
I am not sure by what career or educational path, a person is deemed able to structure logical systems without having worked with the toolset the solution is to be implemented with.