What is an Architectural Technician?

sydthebeat

I found a good description of what an Architectural Technician / Technologist is in a book Im currently reading. I hope its ok to share a small passage in order to explain to people who wondered what we do.

source:
Materials, Specification and Detailing
Norman Wienand

Essential link: transformation of concept design into production information

This essential link in the transformation of concept design into production information is one that has been undervalued historically and traditionally in the UK, assigned to architectural assistants or technicians. Fortunately, the Oxford conference of 1958, in creating a formal two-tier system of architects and architectural technicians permitted the eventual development in 2005 (28 July 2005) of the chartered architectural technologist. It could be argued that if the process had been instigated by technicians themselves, it could have happened sooner, but a reconsideration of history will add little to this particular discussion.

The development of the role of the technologists has been in response to significant changes in building generally, with the traditional roles and
relationships now subject to constant evolution. The traditional role of the architect as team leader is moving to one of conceptual designer with architectural technologists increasingly taking on full responsibility for the technical design process in a framework of multi-disciplinary teams. In addition, chartered architectural technologists can also practice independently, providing a full range of design services, including taking projects from ‘inception to completion’, and are required by their professional body to carry full PI insurance.

The role of the architect has not been curtailed in this development, more the role of the architectural technologist has matured into a fully developed professional discipline that now sits alongside architecture
without any difficulty. In recognition of this new status, the two UK
professional bodies (RIBA and CIAT) signed a Memorandum of Agreement in 2004 (29 January 2004) recognising their complementary roles.

CIAT describes chartered architectural technologists as follows:
Chartered Architectural Technologists (MCIAT) provide architectural design services and solutions. They are specialists in the science of architecture, building design and construction and form the link between concept and construction. They negotiate the construction project andmanage the process fromconception through to completion. Chartered Architectural Technologists can manage a project from inception through to completion.
The Chartered Architectural Technologist is a vital component within the construction process and is complementary to the architect and other professionals within the construction industry.
Incidentally, CIAT has maintained a technician category of membership
which they describe as follows:
Architectural Technicians (TCIAT) are specialists in the application of technology to architecture, building design and construction.
Technician members of CIAT (TCIAT) are an integral part of an architectural design service, working alongside fellow Architectural
Technicians in support of Chartered Architectural Technologists, architects, engineers, surveyors and other professionals within the construction industry. Whilst Technician members of CIAT (TCIAT)
cannot practise on their own account, they are an integral part of the
architectural design process.
These definitions are included in recognition of the particular roles performed by this professional discipline. Both technicians and technologists are specifically charged with the creation of technical
details required to form the link between concept and construction.
Architects and other building professionals are not excluded from this practice although they are responsible for other aspects of the
process as well.
Whoever is responsible for this stage of the design process, however, be
they architects, technologists or engineers, the basic process remains
the same and that is the production of the detailed information required
to take the conceptual design forward into a completed scheme. This
task comes with certain responsibilities.

Mellor

I suppose it highlights the strong working relationship between CIAT and RIBA (as well other bodies) refer to each other throughout their official documents, using each others definitions. As well as offering reduced membership fees if they are part of more than one body.


In the interest of completeness, here is the (RIBA) definition of an architect (as used by CIAT)

‘Architectural education and training focuses on the integration and synthesis of all
aspects of design and construction in response to a client’s brief, both for individual
buildings, groups of buildings and spaces in between. A person described as an
architect must, by law be registered with the Architects Registration Board (ARB).’

onq

That's a very interesting piece Syd.

The technologist role fascinates me, because it harks back to what many see as the seminal role of architect: originally the master builder who knew how to design and build buildings, which included a knowledge of engineering, materials science, detailing, the contruction process, procurement, etc.

I am a little unsure why there is a technician "class" alongside a technologist - one seems to flow seamlessly towards the other. It seems to relate to the degree of autonomy, experience and responsibility that each role enjoys/undertakes.

I am a little unsure what the specific difference is between a technologist who can take a scheme from inception through to completion and an architect.
"Chartered Architectural Technologists can manage a project from inception through to completion."
Thats a different thing to saying they "form the link between concept and construction."

I disagree with this comment "The role of the architect has not been curtailed in this development". OTC the rise of the architectural technologist seems to relegate the architect to the realm of pure design. Some would see this as an "elevation" to where some architects think they should be, but in my opinion this is unwise. Design cannot be divorced from an understanding of production, which itself feeds back and influences how materials are expressed in the design. An architect has to be sufficiently competent at design work to administrate the building contract, for goodness sake. He cannot do that solely from the point of view of a conceptual designer.

ONQ.

sydthebeat

onq wrote: »

I am a little unsure why there is a technician "class" alongside a technologist - one seems to flow seamlessly towards the other. .

good point.

The only difference between a technician and a technologist is that a technologist has achieved MCIAT status within the CIAT.. thats the ONLY way one can call themselves a technologist. Its disingenuous for some persons to call themselves 'technologists' because they may have completed a higher degree add-on course to the standard level 7. this does NOT make them technologists. In the actual real world the difference between a technologist and a technician is that a technologist can work as a sole practitioner under CIAT rules.

onq wrote: »

I am a little unsure what the specific difference is between a technologist who can take a scheme from inception through to completion and an architect.
"Chartered Architectural Technologists can manage a project from inception through to completion."
.

basically, there is no difference. The qualified technologist is expected to be able to carry out these professional duties to standards equitable to an architect. Many architects have issues with this as it basically threads on their toes at this stage of a construction project. This is really the main reason that technologists are allowed to work as sole practitioners under CIAT. A 'technician' is not expected to be able to take lead on this stage of a project (notwithstanding the fact that many are expected to by their companies)

onq wrote: »

I disagree with this comment "The role of the architect has not been curtailed in this development". OTC the rise of the architectural technologist seems to relegate the architect to the realm of pure design. Some would see this as an "elevation" to where some architects think they should be, but in my opinion this is unwise. Design cannot be divorced from an understanding of production, which itself feeds back and influences how materials are expressed in the design. An architect has to be sufficiently competent at design work to administrate the building contract, for goodness sake. He cannot do that solely from the point of view of a conceptual designer.

ONQ.

this is a good point, and a sticky one at that. I remember attending both interviews for architecture and technology in bolton st back in 1994, and asking the very pertinent question as to what the difference was between an architect and a technician. I remember being told, by architects who were on both interview panels, that the professional of architecture had been 'split' to allow architects to focus more on the conceptual and artisitc design side of construction projects, and allow the technicians to design the more mundane aspects such as conformation of legislative regulations and the interaction of different materials in construction elements.

Basically, the college envisaged architects time, and ultimately the betterment of the profession of architecture, as being better spent on the conceptual side of projects. Architects are, of course, expected to understand the principles behind good construction without going into the minute detail and investigation that those on the technician course go into... i suppose the same way technicians are expected to understand the principles behind structural design, without actually studing the whole course of structural engineering.

I have heard from many (older)architects, that all architects are (or at least should be) technicians. This may hold true for many small projects that these architects have become specialised in, but may not hold tur for more medium or larger sized projects, where the technician basically becomes a co-ordinator of different specialist expertise.

In my experience, there is a world of difference in the personalities required to be a good architect and a good technician. The good architect tends to be ethereal, artistic and passionate using language designed to communicate concepts of emotion and aspiration; whereas a good technician tends to be a lot more 'grounded', earthy, focused and uses language designed to communicate real, perceptible and material information to specific parties. Occasionally you get a persona that envelopes both, but these are few and far between.

I was lucky enough to find myself studying what i wanted to do in college, without actually knowing beforehand what the course actually involved.

edit:
as an add-on, on re-reading your post ONQ, i would like to comment on your comment "Design cannot be divorced from an understanding of production"
i watched with some interest the program that was on last year about 10 design students vying for a position in phillipe starck's design company... you may have seen it, i think it was called 'design for life'?...... (as opposed to that drivel 'designs for life on rte)

it was interesting that in the closing stages the last 4 competitors were to have their designs 'modelled up' and the last two to have their designs actually produced. two of the last 4 didnt go through because basically their designs didnt work, either too complicated or simply impractical. The last two designs were a standing / walking aid for the elderly and a magnetic dining set for the blind. Its interesting to note that when it came to production the designers could only communicate their design to the producers by means of modelling and basic drafting documents. They were, as i saw it, completely removed from the actual production process.

This is how i see the artistic architect being removed from the production of a construction project. The demand of teh concept can be met in many ways and its the technicians job to evaluate and communicate to the architect, these demands from various viewpoints such as safety, risk, value, buildability etc and communicate different options to the architect. It is the architect main job to visualise and evaluate each option and choose, in partnership with the technician, the optimum resultant. the technician is then to communicate the resultant to the contractor / tenderer.

onq

Syd,

This is exactly what I feared and I have to say the old hand you know echos my own understanding of how it should be - an architect must also be a technician. I always took this to mean that in a small practice an architect should be able to carry out all the work, and as the practice grows, take on a technician for the detailed technical work and perhaps a draughtmans for the no less demanding but less technically orientated drawing duties. Technical co-ordination of information in a large office relies on the strengths of a technician.

For me its not enough to know technology in general terms. I have acted as an expert witness many times and been put to the pin of my collar on detailing AND design and you cannot know one well without the other if you're going to stand up in court and call yourself an architect. You don;t carry all this aroudn in your head on every form of technology, you have to check and research before giving evidence, indeed before writing your Report, but you have to know enough to direct your attention where its needed and evaluate the information to discover at an expert level.

The mutual respect gets lost when you get design-minded architects who cannot detail, lording it over competent technician who not only can detail rings around them but can also organise better, work to deadlines better and genrally show a professional pair of heels to the design-led architects. The nonsense stops when matters go legal and you end up justifying your designs in court, or for example today when the framework within which the work has to be carried out becomes so constrained as to materially affect the design.

In such cases the architect or technician who doesn't know his contract, planning, health and safety and building regulation law is at a huge disadvantage and cannot provide a competent service to his client. Of the cour categories named, only building regulations relate directly to the technical information. There are vast legal mindfields wating to be traversed by those involved in planning, contract and health and safety issues.

One challenge for both disciplines going forward is to try and address and if necessary slow down the flood of new directives from Brussels long enough for practitioners to get to grips with what's current and prepare for what's coming. We urgently need integrated building standards we can agree on together with proven details, to take the opinions out of built work and give fit-for-purpose compliant products to procurers and users.

Enough from me and thanks once again for an informative and provocative post. Last year I spoke to an architect I know in the RIAI who bemoaned the undermining of the profession in Britain. Now I know what he meant.



ONQ.

sydthebeat

onq wrote: »

...... take on a technician for the detailed technical work and perhaps a draughtmans for the no less demanding but less technically orientated drawing duties. Technical co-ordination of information in a large office relies on the strengths of a technician.

to view a technicians competencies as dealing with drafting and coordination of informations is incorrect and misses out the fundemental aspect of a technicians education. He/she is a problem solver. The best projects are as a result of an architect pushing the boundaries of design and thus pushing the boundaries as to what is buildable. The architect designs, the technician makes buildable.... an equal and productive partnership.

As i have mentioned before, on small projects it may acceptable that the one professional carries out both duties. There is a view that i would subscribe to that if one person is carrying out both duties, design and buildability, then neither skill is being pushed to its limit. The designer will find the design constrained by their own inherent limits in buildability. If the designer is not bound by these limits then the design can be pushed beyond the practical to the aspirational.

I would put it to some of the 'old school' architects who consider all architects to be technicians that they are actually doing themselves a disservice. Their core skill should be in the production of designs that continually push the profession of architecture forward. The technicians core skill is in the area of problem resolution given a set array of parameters. The architect at design stage has less tangible constraints to work in and should exploit this freedom.

onq

I'm not sure what else you thought I meant when I posted "...take on a technician for the detailed technical work" but every aspect of work involves an element of problem solving.

As for your comments about the division of labour in larger practices I don't in essence disagree, but I'd prefer to see a bit more grounding in history and tradition, the pushing the limits, to develop an evolutionary rather than revolutionary approach to design, grounded in technical competence. I'm told I'm a bit odd in that regard.

Moreover I hate the faux detailing that came with the modern movement, the idea that it was not okay to have wilful decoration of buildings, but it was fine to clad steel buildings in steel beams to "express" their structure. Admittedly you get some primitive peoples sticking bones through their noses but they don't do it to express their skeleton. Skeletons support and strengthen, skin encloses and protects. Different functions suggest different materials and therefore different expressions. Mind you, the logical can only play so much a part of any design and beyond that it becomes sterile. You need a little bit of whimsy to make the world go round.

My intent in posting this is not to dissect design, but to suggest that its expression should be rooted in the technology of building: design expression should be relevant to what a part of a building is actually doing, as opposed to some some idea of what its doing, or worse expressing some idea of what another part is doing or what some other building is doing. Using materials appropriately and expressing them in terms of their making, fixing, sealing and the technology used, - developing a language of expression rooted in materials and making - confers an integrity to the architecture that is difficult to deny - and its deeply rooted in technology and its expression.

So to come around full circle, I don't agree that the only way towards excellence in design and technology is for the different disciplines to push their individual boundaries. That's one way to do it. Nor is the approach to design I'm suggesting the only approach. But one person - an architect grounded in technology - or another - an architectural technologist sensitive to design - can approach both design and technology in an integrated way as opposed to a twin track approach by two separate people. To come back further to your original post, this means that the distinction between one or the other discipline is further blurred.

This may be a good thing in terms of improving the work overall and providing a better product. But I think a greater good will come from the greater appreciation of and respect for the work done by each discipline by members of the other.

ONQ.

sinnerboy

onq wrote: »

But I think a greater good will come from the greater appreciation of and respect for the work done by each discipline by members of the other.

For 25 years , as an AT ( Technician ) I have found

1. this mutual respect for the overwhelming majority of my time . Where it was not forthcoming it was in the rare case of an individual disguising an insecurity in my opinion.

2. the very best buildings are delivered as a result . The positive energy flows onto site and ultimately back to the client at completion.

I was struck by something Cormac Allen said at the IATGN conference ( in '06 ? I think ) . He had tried to establish what had happened to all the AT's that had trained up since the late 60's ( sorry for being vague on dates )

As far as he could determine it he estimated they broke down into 4 roughly equal groups

a) doing something completely different to AT .

b) took further training to become Architects

c) "head-down-just-doing-it" ever since completing training and never really "looking up" to place their role into perspective in any demonstrable way . I am part of that grouping

d) as c) but actively seeking to define and influence the role of the AT

I have been until very recently literally been too busy to move from c) to d)
( that's my excuse anyway ) but have a little more time to reflect now .

Great thread Syd , ONQ .

justflow1983

sydthebeat wrote: »

As i have mentioned before, on small projects it may acceptable that the one professional carries out both duties. There is a view that i would subscribe to that if one person is carrying out both duties, design and buildability, then neither skill is being pushed to its limit. The designer will find the design constrained by their own inherent limits in buildability. If the designer is not bound by these limits then the design can be pushed beyond the practical to the aspirational..... Their core skill should be in the production of designs that continually push the profession of architecture forward. The technicians core skill is in the area of problem resolution given a set array of parameters. The architect at design stage has less tangible constraints to work in and should exploit this freedom.

I just read through this thread. I fundamentally disagree with the above. I think the sorry state of architectural design in Ireland has to due with the artificial dichotomy between technician and architect. In my experience, the most groundbreaking architectural designers often have a deep understanding of the technical side of their profession. Architects like Reiser+Umemoto, Foreign Office Architects, Herzog & De Meuron require a huge level of technical background in order to produce those designs, and I know that these architects are deeply involved in the conceptual design as well as the technical execution. The best set of construction docs I have ever seen came out of OMA's (Rem Koolhaas) New York office, which is entirely staffed by architects.

I have a tremendous respect for architectural technicians, I am not knocking them at all. I have much more of an issue with architects who use the presence of technicians to shirk their responsibility of knowing how to build, and who use it as an excuse to put themselves on an artificial pedestal. I think the role of technologist makes for a group of people with fantastic technical training and workplace competence, but also results in lazy, lousy architects who don't know enough about their own job.

I studied architecture (and worked) in the states, where technicians are very rare. After spending 5 years in design school, we are required to spend 3 years working before getting our licenses, half of which MUST be spent doing construction documents. As your career progresses you will automatically drift into being either a technical architect or a design architect, but either way you have the same education and a fundamental understanding of each other's work. In the US, we even are required to pass a structural engineering portion of our licensing exams.

When I started working in Ireland, I was shocked to find that my architectural bosses actively rejected technical knowledge. They actually seemed to think that understanding anything other than [bad] concepts was beneath them. There is no way of achieving great things without an integrated understanding of the entire architectural practice. I was glad to find a practice that is not this way, where I now work.

sydthebeat

justflow1983 wrote: »

I just read through this thread. I fundamentally disagree with the above. .

that would also put you in the catagory of disagreeing with the educators of your profession, and also in disagreement with your representative body, the RIAI, who accredit those courses.

DIT has a 'department of architecture and urban design', separate from a 'department of architectural technology'. why do you think this is so?

justflow1983

To be honest, I really don't know why its so. Its idiotic to separate the two into separate departments when they are so closely interrelated, even if the professions are kept separate. I would probably chalk it up to some faculty turf war in years past, for the same reason we had separate depts of Art and Photography in university I attended. Very often these sorts of separations are due to things like that rather than a clear thought process.

I know full well that I'm in disagreement with the RIAI and many people who teach architecture in this country. That doesn't really bother me; in years past many people thought the Earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. The best architects generally are educated in places that teach them both technical and design proficiency.... that's why I disagree with separating the two. Even the AA spends a lot of time on things like fabrication technology and environmental modelling.

Frank Gehry was educated a potter and never went to architecture school. Technical explorations on his own house in California were the foundation for his current design career. While I have no problem with some people being technical specialists and others design specialists, I personally feel that the line is way too blurry to separate them out into completely separate educations. And again, I think it results in architects who don't knnow enough about buildings to properly design or administer a contract.

justflow1983

justflow1983 wrote: »

Frank Gehry was educated a potter and never went to architecture school.

Actually, I realized thats not true as I was leaving the house last night. He went to USC. I saw some documentary about him that claimed he wasn't educated an architect and for some reason the misconception has stuck in my head.

muffler

The title of the thread here is "What is an Architectural Technician?"

justflow1983 and onq (again) stick to the topic please. If you wish to discuss architects there is another forum for that.

justflow1983

Post removed

justflow1983

Sorry muffler, I was writing while you posted and didn't see it, I'll drop the issue.

onq

muffler wrote: »

The title of the thread here is "What is an Architectural Technician?"

justflow1983 and onq (again) stick to the topic please. If you wish to discuss architects there is another forum for that.

I deleted my recent post on that basis because it was mainly about architects.
The intention wasn't to wind you up, but to show where the design-led mindset of architects today came from.
It was also to how this may have led to some architects looking down on those people who "do stuff", like the technicians in their offices.
It is difficult to discuss architectural technicians meaningfully in isolation from architects and their attitudes to them.
Or indeed following the post above, in isolation architectural technologists.

ONQ.

muffler

None of us have a problem with posts in this thread which contain reference to the relationship between technicians and architects and their role, responsibilities etc but we cant have posts where most of the content relates to architects only.

All Im asking is for people to stick to the topic.

onq

Yep, I know, and I knew as soon as I'd writen it that it meandered all over the place - blame it on a Sunday morning

ONQ.

Mellor

I'm only getting to this now as i was without access. I've taken a few choice quotes, sorry if I misquote.

onq wrote: »

I am a little unsure why there is a technician "class" alongside a technologist - one seems to flow seamlessly towards the other. It seems to relate to the degree of autonomy, experience and responsibility that each role enjoys/undertakes.

The thing is, they aren't alongside. They are sequential. Just like various stages of architect.

Part 2 - Part 3 - Project Arch etc


The naming convention of technician/technologist is a big hindrance. One that I blame solely on Architectural professional bodies and arrogant architects. (i'm not calling all archs arrogant btw)

I disagree with this comment "The role of the architect has not been curtailed in this development". OTC the rise of the architectural technologist seems to relegate the architect to the realm of pure design.

This is true. Gone are the days of the master builder. A role in the pure form of either (design or technical) leads to substandard buildings.

But, consider the other side of the coin. If an architect has the technical knowledge, and wishes to, he likely has no obstacles preventing him for technical input.

a Technologist with a design flair, struggles a lot more to be heard.

sydthebeat wrote: »

The only difference between a technician and a technologist is that a technologist has achieved MCIAT status within the CIAT.. thats the ONLY way one can call themselves a technologist. Its disingenuous for some persons to call themselves 'technologists' because they may have completed a higher degree add-on course to the standard level 7. this does NOT make them technologists. In the actual real world the difference between a technologist and a technician is that a technologist can work as a sole practitioner under CIAT rules.

This I disagree with. In part.also,

That's the rules of CIAT. And only really applies to CIAT members, under whose CoP a Technician member can't call himself a technologist or practice alone as a MCIAT.

What about the sole practitioner without MCIAT, (by the way, this is allowed under CIAT rules, as a profile member).
Or what of the person who doesn't want to join CIAT, to say (he isn't or can never being be without joining) is wrong.

Just like the way you can't be forced to be a member of RIAI to be an architect. (The registration is different). Sadly, the lack of inclusion in the BCA makes it worse and harder to police again. All those guys who can no longer pose as architects under the BCA, are free to stick on the Technologist hat.


The level 7 debate has been covered before and was a cock up. Plenty of people at this stage did the extra work and got nothing. It's a shame, but its the way it'll was done.

YouWantWhat

I've just been reading through this post and you all seem to be blabbing away like a bunch of politicians - saying everything except answering the question asked.

The definition of an Architect/Technician is :

An architect comes up with the design,

the Technician makes it work.

justflow1983

If an architect can't make a design work on his own, he's not a very good architect. The technician is generally the one who makes it work, but it should not be outside the architect's abilities to handle the technical side of architecture.

muffler

YouWantWhat wrote: »

I've just been reading through this post and you all seem to be blabbing away like a bunch of politicians - saying everything except answering the question asked.

The definition of an Architect/Technician is :

An architect comes up with the design,

the Technician makes it work.

Looks like you can join the bunch so.

The thread is titled "What is an Architectural Technician?"

celticgooner

Ive enjoyed reading this thread and just wanted to say thanks for confusing me more lol. I have just been accepted for a 3 yr course in Architectual tecnology. Ive been a qualified carpenter/builder for 20+ years and have certs in 2d and 3d autocad,health and safety,ecdl. Because of the recession and lack of work ive decided to upskill a bit.Do you think im wasting my time? Sorry if im a little off topic

sinnerboy

When I signed up for it in 1982 the economy was in the toilet , much worse than now and anyway "computers were going to see us all redundant" in architects offices and a "whats the point" attitude could easily have been taken . 28 years on and into 3rd recession now - they are not not nice but they don't last forever either .

I have had a 25 year career so far which has been and will continue to be challenging and rewarding . I would hate to do anything else .

Upskilling in a downturn is both intelligent and defiant . So GO for It .

celticgooner

Cheers Sinnerboy. I think I will start a new thread

Chris Arch

onq wrote: »

That's a very interesting piece Syd.

The technologist role fascinates me, because it harks back to what many see as the seminal role of architect: originally the master builder who knew how to design and build buildings, which included a knowledge of engineering, materials science, detailing, the contruction process, procurement, etc.


ONQ.

I agree with that onq... and I will add that in most countries it is still the architects profession which is viewed and understood as such...

I was very surprised to learn about the RIBA definition of an architect, who is supposed to be more philosophical... What does it mean? My formation was essentially based on design and theory, but still we were taught that an architect is an artist engineer, not a philosopher...

I don't know what is going on in the UK, but it surely does not reflect the rest of the world. I do not think that arch tech are viewed as such in the US or Canada. They are not recognised in Europe except in the UK, Ireland, Denmark and Sweden.

It is annoying how terms are changed from professions to titles and that at the end they do not define at all what they first were. Then new terms appear to comply with the new rules and at the end the semantic does not realy make sense anymore.

Mellor

I'd chjeck canada again chris

Chris Arch

Mellor wrote: »

I'd chjeck canada again chris

Do you mean that Arch tech can carry out similar works than architects in Canada, like they do in the UK?

In the US they would have to register as architects through the ARE before doing so. I think it is the same in Canada but tell me if I mistake.

Mellor

While i don't have direct experience. There is a organisation in Canada that would be associated with arch techs.

wikipedia wrote:

In 2003, the Ontario Association of Architects (OAA) and the Ontario Association of Certified Engineering Technicians and Technologists (OACETT) launched the Ontario Association for Applied Architectural Sciences (OAAAS), a program through which technologists in the building design field can be certified as a Licensed Technologist OAA.[1]. A Licensed Technologist OAA is able to perform certain services that previously could be done in the province only by a licensed architect. The process to become a Licensed Technologist OAA is open to any graduate of a community college three-year architecural technology program (or equivalent) who accumulates a minimum number of hours working with or for an architect. To qualify for licensure by the OAA, a candidate must also attend the OAA Admission Course and pass an examination conducted by the OAAAS.

The naming is different, but architectural science is a synonom for architectural technology. It's interesting that the final award is Licensed Technologist OAA, allow membership in part on par with their architects.

Mellor

Also, when discussing duties, and abilities I think that its important to distinguish between Technicians and technologists (as per CIATs defs). Arch Tech is fine for typing and posting, but there is a difference that's in place to distinguish the abilities. and if we don't memtion it every now and again, it might confuse a layperson.

Chris Arch

Mellor wrote: »

A Licensed Technologist OAA is able to perform certain services that previously could be done in the province only by a licensed architect.

Hi Mellor,

It seems that this applies only for the State of Ontario not Canada in general. I am wondering what are the limits and why are there any limits...

sinnerboy

Chris Arch wrote: »

I am wondering what are the limits and why are there any limits...

Do look into it and let us know .

Mellor

Chris Arch wrote: »

Hi Mellor,

It seems that this applies only for the State of Ontario not Canada in general. I am wondering what are the limits and why are there any limits...

I seen that once I found it on Google (the name is a bit blatent), but felt i should stick it up anyway.

It would be useful to know the differences as Canada is an option being explored my many in these times.

archtech

CIAT have produced a video of what a Chartered Architectural Technologist can offer the public .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP7yH25cgXU

celticgooner

4 nice vids there Thanks Archtech. Its good to see CIAT are getting out there and trying to get better known by the public.People always ask me whats an Arch Tech. Where do you think the video's will be shown?

No6

They are there on youtube, you can link them to your facebook, your website if you have one, download them and put them on a disk to give to clients etc etc!! I have to say they are very good and very slick, theres Irish lads on them too so its not just UK people.:D

Mellor

No6 wrote: »

They are there on youtube, you can link them to your facebook, your website if you have one, download them and put them on a disk to give to clients etc etc!! I have to say they are very good and very slick, theres Irish lads on them too so its not just UK people.:D

Hmm, anyone we know

No6

Theres Eddie from Belfast and another lad from the that I don't know yet!!!:D

Information Seeker

onq wrote: »

Syd,

This is exactly what I feared and I have to say the old hand you know echos my own understanding of how it should be - an architect must also be a technician. I always took this to mean that in a small practice an architect should be able to carry out all the work, and as the practice grows, take on a technician for the detailed technical work and perhaps a draughtmans for the no less demanding but less technically orientated drawing duties. Technical co-ordination of information in a large office relies on the strengths of a technician.

For me its not enough to know technology in general terms. I have acted as an expert witness many times and been put to the pin of my collar on detailing AND design and you cannot know one well without the other if you're going to stand up in court and call yourself an architect. You don;t carry all this aroudn in your head on every form of technology, you have to check and research before giving evidence, indeed before writing your Report, but you have to know enough to direct your attention where its needed and evaluate the information to discover at an expert level.

The mutual respect gets lost when you get design-minded architects who cannot detail, lording it over competent technician who not only can detail rings around them but can also organise better, work to deadlines better and genrally show a professional pair of heels to the design-led architects. The nonsense stops when matters go legal and you end up justifying your designs in court, or for example today when the framework within which the work has to be carried out becomes so constrained as to materially affect the design.

In such cases the architect or technician who doesn't know his contract, planning, health and safety and building regulation law is at a huge disadvantage and cannot provide a competent service to his client. Of the cour categories named, only building regulations relate directly to the technical information. There are vast legal mindfields wating to be traversed by those involved in planning, contract and health and safety issues.

One challenge for both disciplines going forward is to try and address and if necessary slow down the flood of new directives from Brussels long enough for practitioners to get to grips with what's current and prepare for what's coming. We urgently need integrated building standards we can agree on together with proven details, to take the opinions out of built work and give fit-for-purpose compliant products to procurers and users.

Enough from me and thanks once again for an informative and provocative post. Last year I spoke to an architect I know in the RIAI who bemoaned the undermining of the profession in Britain. Now I know what he meant.



ONQ.

This is one of the best written posts in here for me. I am not working in architecture, but I have worked as a technician and I can relate to a lot of what is being said.

Chris Arch

I honestly think that the difference between an architect and a technologist as per the CIAT definition does not exist if we widen the architectural profession to Europe and beyond.

My understanding is that an architect as per EU legislation must have construction and technological knowledge and that the technologist as per CIAT definition must have artistic skills as well as the architect.

The main difference may be that there is a fair assessment for self-taught to continue practicing as architectural technologists... When assessments to practice as architects are biased and unaffordable.

sydthebeat

Chris Arch wrote: »

The main difference may be that there is a fair assessment for self-taught to continue practicing as architectural technologists... When assessments to practice as architects are biased and unaffordable.

on this we would disagree....

architectural technology as a profession should not be a de facto fall back to "self taught" architects who dont "make the grade" to register as architects.Its a profession in its own rights, and as i outlined before, it is only on the higher scale projects does this differentiation become more clear.... at domestic or small scale commercial /industrial the duties and capabilities are shared. However at larger scale the requirement for a technologist as the 'organiser and communicator' is more prevalent.

It is obvious that a lot of the above group would áctually be well on the way towards calling themselves technicians, but short of having an architectural technology qualification, the only way to profess their abilities is to join CIAT at TCIAT or MCIAT level.

Supertech

I agree totally Syd. One of the problems with the effective omission of the titles Architectural Technician and Architectural Technologist from the Building Control Act (other the permittance of their use) is that this is what is likely to happen in some cases. Furthermore without a definition of the role of the AT which is accepted by all involved, the confusion surrounding what is that we do will remain.

Mellor

There are many "self taught architects" that have a wide knowledge base and adequete technical knowledge to fall back into the role of Arch tech, and would rightly pass through the MCIAT process.

But there are many without any actual technical knowledge, but that, for some reason, are of the opinion that they are more than qualified for be an arch tech. For example of this was somebody who completed 3 years of architecture and recieved a dipolma of some sort, but failed twice final years. "I suppose i'll just be a technician" was the attitude.

I'm expecting a lot of under-qualified people to try and jump on the CIAT bandwagon, and to be honest its most likely already started

Chris Arch

Mellor wrote: »

There are many "self taught architects" that have a wide knowledge base and adequete technical knowledge to fall back into the role of Arch tech, and would rightly pass through the MCIAT process.

But there are many without any actual technical knowledge, but that, for some reason, are of the opinion that they are more than qualified for be an arch tech. For example of this was somebody who completed 3 years of architecture and recieved a dipolma of some sort, but failed twice final years. "I suppose i'll just be a technician" was the attitude.

I'm expecting a lot of under-qualified people to try and jump on the CIAT bandwagon, and to be honest its most likely already started

What do you mean by under-qualified? There is a natural progression within the CIAT. The final achievement is MCIAT, this is a qualification, an exam is necessary to get there.

I think that a similar system should be in place for architects at the same cost.

Chris Arch

sydthebeat wrote: »

on this we would disagree....

architectural technology as a profession should not be a de facto fall back to "self taught" architects who dont "make the grade" to register as architects.Its a profession in its own rights, and as i outlined before, it is only on the higher scale projects does this differentiation become more clear.... at domestic or small scale commercial /industrial the duties and capabilities are shared. However at larger scale the requirement for a technologist as the 'organiser and communicator' is more prevalent.

It is obvious that a lot of the above group would áctually be well on the way towards calling themselves technicians, but short of having an architectural technology qualification, the only way to profess their abilities is to join CIAT at TCIAT or MCIAT level.

I approve all or most of what CIAT is doing, but regarding the 2 professions issues in Europ, there is only Ireland and the UK where this theory is enforced. In Denmark and Sweden, architectural technologists are recognized, but I am not aware of the dissociation of tasks between the 2 professions in these countries. In the rest of Europe, France, Germany, The Netherlands and farer, technologists and CIAT members are not recognized and sometimes not authorized to practice. Registered architects and engineers are doing the part of the works that is attributed to technologists in the UK and Ireland.

Supertech

The AT profession in this country was developed by the RIAI in conjunction with the OPW. This lead to the establishment of the DIT course, and then other courses followed in Waterford, Carlow, Cork, Limerick etc. The issue is that while there are many courses educating AT's in this country, there is no defined professional context for what graduates from these courses are competent to do on completion of their education, nor is there an 'officially' recognised regulatory body to govern the affairs of the professional AT in practice. While both CIAT and RIAI might claim to be that body, neither has been officially ordained by Government, and in the absence of this happening confusion reigns.

Mellor

Chris Arch wrote: »

What do you mean by under-qualified? There is a natural progression within the CIAT. The final achievement is MCIAT, this is a qualification, an exam is necessary to get there.

I think that a similar system should be in place for architects at the same cost.

By under qualified I mean exactly that. Persons who have been previously using the title architect who lacked the knowledge to fufill the role. There were many dodgy designers in Ireland before the BAC came into force.

Seeing as these can use the title Architectural Technologist, I imagine some will. They might also use CIAT as a tool to give weight to there status. Where they would appear as profile members (or associate members if elsewhere employed) on the official list/check a member feature.

Obviously these won't be able to progress to MCIAT, but the association is there.



I know of one such person, who invented his own organisation to give weight to his "business"

Chris Arch

Mellor wrote: »

By under qualified I mean exactly that. Persons who have been previously using the title architect who lacked the knowledge to fufill the role. There were many dodgy designers in Ireland before the BAC came into force.

You seem not to be aware that many are good architects who have the knowledge but lack the finance. You also forget to note that the RIAI is in total conflict of interest with its role for assessing self-taught architects because it represents and defends the interests of architectural education. The assessment that they set up is not about what you know but where you studied and how much you paid for it...

Mellor wrote: »

Seeing as these can use the title Architectural Technologist, I imagine some will. They might also use CIAT as a tool to give weight to there status. Where they would appear as profile members (or associate members if elsewhere employed) on the official list/check a member feature.
Obviously these won't be able to progress to MCIAT, but the association is there."

Mellor you are completely wrong here. Being a profile member of CIAT does not bring any privilege, it is only a first assessment towards becoming MCIAT. What you do not say is that at least, profile members are requested to have a PI Insurance and this is checked by CIAT. If the RIAI had organised a similar system in Ireland, at least all professionals selling architectural services would be insured. Don't you think that this would be the best way to protect the public?

Mellor wrote: »

I know of one such person, who invented his own organisation to give weight to his "business"

????????

Chris Arch

Supertech wrote: »

The AT profession in this country was developed by the RIAI in conjunction with the OPW. This lead to the establishment of the DIT course, and then other courses followed in Waterford, Carlow, Cork, Limerick etc. The issue is that while there are many courses educating AT's in this country, there is no defined professional context for what graduates from these courses are competent to do on completion of their education, nor is there an 'officially' recognised regulatory body to govern the affairs of the professional AT in practice. While both CIAT and RIAI might claim to be that body, neither has been officially ordained by Government, and in the absence of this happening confusion reigns.

Supertech,

I think that we are talking of 2 different professions here. On one side there is arch tech as defined by CIAT. This is a profession equal to architects and proposing similar services.

On the other side there is the arch tech definition of the RIAI. This is a profession considered as second class to architects, it is permitted by the RIAI to deliver restricted services only.

THe RIAI never defends the interests of arch tech when the CIAT does only that.

If I can identify myself to the first group, I would never accept to be part of the second.

Mellor

Chris Arch wrote: »

You seem not to be aware that many are good architects who have the knowledge but lack the finance. You also forget to note that the RIAI is in total conflict of interest with its role for assessing self-taught architects because it represents and defends the interests of architectural education. The assessment that they set up is not about what you know but where you studied and how much you paid for it...

Nowhere in any of my posts did I suggest that my comments applied to all self-taught architects. I clearly said some, this issue is not up for debate its well documented that various people have abuse the fact that the title previously wasn't protected.

Mellor you are completely wrong here. Being a profile member of CIAT does not bring any privilege, it is only a first assessment towards becoming MCIAT. What you do not say is that at least, profile members are requested to have a PI Insurance and this is checked by CIAT.

How does that make me wrong. There are of course legitimate profile members. But the opportunity exists for the title to be abused seeing as its not included in the BAC. You are most likely a profile member, and you are mistaken if you think my comments are aimed at you.
I would of assumed that seeing as you working towards chartership that you'd be in favour of Arch Tech's inclusion

????????

What's the confusion here?
Was pretty clear I thought

sydthebeat

Architectural Technologist! – Is that some kind of Architect then?


Architectural Technology first became mainstream in 1965, when, at the request of the RIBA to form an associated body for those that wished to specialise in the technical aspects of building design, it took fledgling steps into the world as the Society of Architectural and Associated Technicians (SAAT). But we didn’t leave it there, because 47 years later the ‘Society’ is now an ‘Institute’ and what’s more it has a Royal Charter. That’s progress, or rather it’s evolution.

The Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists (CIAT) has evolved into a highly respected profession; amongst those in the know. The biggest problem being that those ‘in the know’ do not constitute too great a proportion of those that live and breath within the construction industry, let alone the general public.

To be fair, most Architects are aware, at least, of the title and profession. Although there still exists a ‘superior race’ mentality, particularly amongst middle aged and ‘old school’ architects who still like to think of ‘Technicians’ as ‘drawing board fodder (from when we had drawing boards of course) – there to carry out the whims of the project architect. Just draw that up boy!!

Fortunately for the most part we can rest our hackles in the cupboard that used to store the tracing paper. Although, like tracing paper, they come out every now and again – usually to reside atop the monitor of the beleaguered Technologist, or is it Technician?

Oh my, how complicated it can appear to the outside world. It’s no wonder they don’t know we are, because it stems largely from the fact that we don’t know who we.

Having attained the title Chartered Architectural Technologist you have essentially reached the top of the tree, and like an architect your career prospects are governed by experience and the level of your abilities. But just take a peak under the sheets; there are Technician grades, Associate grades, Profile grades, Oh, and don’t forget the student’s grade and Honarary members.

So when someone enquires ‘what do you do then?’ take a picture of their sheer incredulity when you try and explain that you are working towards becoming an Architectural Technologist, before they lose the will to live. “Oh I see is that some kind of ‘Architect’ then?” I dare you to start again. You should, but your audience may well have moved on.

I have never studied as an Architect, but I have worked with a great many. For the most part they are quite human, although, as I have said, some still retain their old school’ aspirations that are generally above their modern day station. Sadly they are now clinging to the ledge that still supports the armchairs occupied by the doctors and lawyers. I say sadly because that’s an affectation that reaches us all.

Fortunately for the profession, the young architects coming out of the ‘Architects’ sausage machine, are readily impregnated with an acknowledgement of their limitations, and seem happy to defer to those more experienced – Architect or Technologist.

I gained my academic pieces of paper at the local Building College. As we were finishing one or two on the course looked into continuing on to train as Architects. Having visited the local ‘Poly’, they came back with stories that said all we had learned during the last four years would be discounted, and that they would ‘break us’ of ALL our technical training to start again as architects. Only one picked up that gauntlet and last I heard he was leading projects at a design firm, ironically started by an ‘Architectural Technician’ (back in the day).

So how do you begin to explain the difference between ‘Architect’ and “Technologist’? – The Technologist will learn how to put together a building constituent piece by constituent piece, and take it all apart again and rebuild it in another way that achieves the same end. This may or may not be to an overall building design by the Technologist. Now it’s getting complicated. – The Architect has a more holistic approach, with an ‘Art’ base, as opposed to the technologist’s technical, or science base dealing largely in building physics. You can understand why people expire in front of you! Of course nothing to do with ‘Design’ is prescriptive, and some architects and technologists migrate towards the middle of the technical and art extremes; designing their buildings with a leg, or at least part of one, in each camp.

Currently the rules of the Institute allow that a full chartered member may carry out, in full, the role historically attributable to an architect. We may design, administer and certify a building project in a manner that is recognised by the rest of the industry. Who knows, one day that may change. So full members can carry out the role of an architect, but please don’t ever use that name – it’s use is protected by law. But there again so is ‘Chartered Architectural Technologist’; as opposed to ‘Architectural Technologist’ which is not. Oops, there goes more confusion: The innate differences that promote the architectural technologist’s change of track on becoming chartered. Are you with me so far?

The Technologist’s biggest problem is that ‘Architect’ is such a snappy title. It’s short and has a ready association in most peoples’ heads, and has a quarter of the syllables – which seems to be quite important.

There has been three changes of title to the AT professional body, and there are those of us who started their careers, knowingly, as architects drawing board fodder, and through no fault of their own have been transformed into fully fledged ‘Chartered members’. No complaints. We’ve earned it. We haven’t trained academically for any where near that of an architect, but I would pit my knowledge gained through experience against that of any of them on comparable subjects.

No architect bashing here, just an underline to the fact that Architectural Technologists do a very similar job to an architect, but often from a different starting point and in quite a different way. But we have two very heavy anchors that keep our ship in harbour: The first is that as long as we profess to be able to carry out the architects role, they will continue to keep their draw-bridge up, and their bat in the cupboard. Secondly, without a concerted campaign of enlightenment the man on the street and in the offices of the large institutions that insist on identifying specific professional roles, will continue to remain blissfully unaware that there are some very experienced and capable professionals out there that can resolve a multitude of design and construction issues.

The whole profession needs a different approach. We cannot just keep doing the same things and expect that one day we will get a different outcome. Not going to happen! I am proud to be a Chartered Architectural Technologist, and long for the day when a complete stranger nods approvingly at my title, and doesn’t ask “Is that some kind of Architect then”.

FROM HERE