RIAI Technologists Register

Corkblowin

I'm pursuing the MCIAT route at the moment, but my company continues to pay my RIAI sub. Got this mail today, but I'm thinking is 'too little too late'. Anything helps though I guess.



RIAI ARCHITECTURAL TECHNOLOGIST POLICY - NEWS ALERT

At its meeting in Dublin Castle on 7th of March 2014 RIAI Council adopted a policy based on a set of principles aimed at strengthening the role of RIAI Architectural Technologists within industry and within an evolving legislative environment.

The past two decades have seen transformations in the Irish economy and the building industry. New methods of design and procurement have led to the evolution and development of professional roles within the design and construction teams. Architectural Technologists have responded positively to these changes and now play key professional roles as technical designers, skilled in the application and integration of construction technologies in the building design process. In doing so Architectural Technologists are now key partners to Architects in the building design process. The RIAI values and supports this development.

The RIAI supports the emergence of the 4 year NQAI Level 8 Honours Degree programmes - BSc (Hons) Architectural Technology. As the professional body for Architectural Technologists in Ireland the RIAI will continue to safeguard professional education standards by reviewing and accrediting Architectural Technology programmes nationally. The RIAI now proposes to engage with the relevant educational institutions with the aim of supporting the development and accreditation of Architectural Technology professional practice education with a view to the establishment of a Statutory Register of Architectural Technologists in Ireland.

Within this the RIAI aims to establish the educational and professional practice standards and structures necessary for the statutory recognition of the professional Architectural Technologist as a distinct, technically focussed discipline within the collaborative profession of Architecture in Ireland.

Central to the development of a Statutory Register of Architectural Technologists will be clarity on function, professional recognition and mutual respect for the roles and competencies of both Architectural Technologists and Architects in Ireland. The RIAI is uniquely placed to represent Registered Architectural Technologists in their efforts to consolidate a professional status, complementing the role of Registered Architects in the building design process.

The RIAI recognises that in these times of great technological change there are new ideas to be spread, new building blocks in knowledge and learning to be shared, new industry collaborations to invite, pragmatic wisdom to be received, and hope and ambition for both professions to excite. Registered Architects and Registered Architectural Technologists will be stronger working together for Architecture and the common good.

The policy adopted by RIAI Council on 7th of March 2014 is as follows:

The RIAI Council in principle approved the following:
The RIAI will begin to establish an non statutory RIAI Register of Architectural Technologists.
The RIAI acknowledges and supports the need for a Statutory Register of Architectural Technologists.
The RIAI will promote such a Statutory Registered Architectural Technologist as a competent person to:

a) Carry out Performance Calculation & Technical Design in accordance with Building Regulations.
b) Certify Performance Calculation & Technical Design carried out in accordance in Building Regulations.
c) Inspect the construction of buildings as required to certify compliance with Building Regulations.

The RIAI will support the development and establishment of an Architectural Technologist Register Admission Examination for purposes of entry to a Statutory Register of Architectural Technologists.
The RIAI will develop and establish an RIAI code of conduct for professional practice as a Registered Architectural Technologist, and will develop and establish a Professional Conduct Committee to administer the code.

sydthebeat

They can go take a long run off a short pier.

CIAT need to get onto this case straight away and propose their own register.
Surely at this stage they must have bigger numbers than RIAItechs

BryanF

AT's should be assigned certifiers. what good is the above?

DOCARCH

BryanF wrote: »

AT's should be assigned certifiers. what good is the above?

It does say....(c) Inspect the construction of buildings as required to certify compliance with Building Regulations.

I assume = Assigned Certifier.

I think maybe the RIAI is starting to smell the coffee knowing well that there simply is not enough registered architects (willing/able) to act as ACs?

I think that is the clearest statement I have (ever) seen from the RIAI on policy towards ATs.

BryanF

DOCARCH wrote: »

It does say....(c) Inspect the construction of buildings as required to certify compliance with Building Regulations.

I assume = Assigned Certifier.

I think maybe the RIAI is starting to smell the coffee knowing well that there simply is not enough registered architects (willing/able) to act as ACs?

I think that is the clearest statement I have (ever) seen from the RIAI on policy towards ATs.

i wont hold my breath.

this could just as easily be 'send out the techie and the office will sign it off'. which is not much good for those who are self employed.

TheAngryTechie

Seriously lads, you're never happy....whats with all the negativity and scepticism? This is epic for techies, yes its not in place now and it may take a while but the RIAI will form a 'register', if we can certify with Building Regs we will be able to be Assigned certifier, its that simple.

I have been working in Architecture since 98 and this 'news alert' is the most significant thing thats happened for technology in Ireland in my time. It may take a while but BCAR is in law and so this register will need to be done asap, the RIAI have screwed up big time and they know it, the BCAR has them running scared and the only reason for this news alert is the BCAR. The RIAI have done absolutely nothing to help techies and this news alert is a knee jerk reaction from them because at last they have realised that we are needed now more than ever.

ITS ALL GOOD!!!

BryanF

...........the RIAI have screwed up big time....., the BCAR has them running scared and the only reason for this news alert is the BCAR.......... The RIAI have done absolutely nothing to help techies and this news alert is a knee jerk reaction from them because at last they have realised that we are needed now more than ever.

agreed

ITS ALL GOOD!!!

but its far from good.

TheAngryTechie wrote: »

Seriously lads, you're never happy....

wont be happy until AT's are included on the certifiers register

whats with all the negativity and scepticism?

what has the RIAI done for the AT in the last ten years: nothing.
why should AT's expect this RIAI ambiguous statement of intent to be progressed any time soon: nothing.

This is epic for techies,

that a matter of opinion. why didi the RIAI not fight for AT's inclusion in the original register under there umbrella of RIAI'T ? excuse my skepticism but i don't trust them at all

yes its not in place now and it may take a while but the RIAI will form a 'register',

exactly open ended waffle IMO. a register is too little to latte and will just spilt the camp between the CIAT and the RIAI't

if we can certify with Building Regs we will be able to be Assigned certifier, its that simple.

im not convinced, i hope i'm wrong but the RIAI have done nothing to instill confidence in this AT. are we sure they dont just mean as 'ancillary certifiers'

shane6977

Apparently there was overwhelming support at the riai council meeting for AT's to act as assigned certifier, according to a post by a council member on LinkedIn yesterday.

I think there has been a huge wake up and smell the coffee moment in the riai, faced with losing large amounts of their AT members due to disillusionment in the run up to 1st March, coupled with the understandable nervousness of architects to perform the role of assigned certifier.

DvB

shane6977 wrote: »

Apparently there was overwhelming support at the riai council meeting for AT's to act as assigned certifier, according to a post by a council member on LinkedIn yesterday.

I think there has been a huge wake up and smell the coffee moment in the riai, faced with losing large amounts of their AT members due to disillusionment in the run up to 1st March, coupled with the understandable nervousness of architects to perform the role of assigned certifier.

I can back this up, my former boss is involved heavily with the RIAI council & had been on it previously, she informed me that AT's were very much being supported by them as being suitable to act as assigned certifiers as they are quite aware that there simply weren't enough RIAI members or even potential members to cover even a moderate increase of activity in the sector. Maybe, just maybe, this is the start of a genuine attempt to act positively towards AT's... time will tell, but its clear the RIAI are quickly coming to the point where they have to act one way or the other & actively support AT's in this country or leave them to another institution such as CIAT to cater for their needs.

note.
Should this thread not be in the Arch. Tech. folder rather than the buiding regs one?

Penn

DvB wrote: »

note.
Should this thread not be in the Arch. Tech. folder rather than the buiding regs one?

It has merits for being in both. I don't see any harm in having one here to discuss the legislative impacts of such a register in terms of things like SI9 while also having a thread in the Arch Tech forum discussing the same topic but from a purely Arch Tech point of view.

4Sticks

I think it is useful from the general posters point of view - by that I means those who would be house building / buying / extending etc here to be aware that this affects them. ie in limiting their consumer choice of services.

SI 9 forces customers towards a narrow band of persons which does not include Architectural Technicians.

for that reason a thread here is warranted imo

4Sticks

TheAngryTechie wrote: »

Seriously
ITS ALL GOOD!!!

Really ?

The RIAI are not moving to provide for AT's to act as Assigned Designer and Assigned Certifier as required by SI 9 2014.

Small rural AT practices are folding because of this.

There are not enough RIAI's to take up the slack.
And the Law society cautions them not to in the case of self build direct labor. And the minister will continue to decry "greedy architects" ( they should charge no more than €1-3K )

Merrion Square fxucked this up as far as tekkys are concerned and is continuing to do so.

I see the ranks of CIAT swelling at RIAIs expense.

DOCARCH

4Sticks wrote: »

Merrion Square fxucked this up as far as tekkys are concerned and is continuing to do so. .

They have not done much better as far as architects are concerned either!

4Sticks

I understand that point too DOCARCH

No6

I see the current movement of RIAI policy as a good thing. I believe it has primarily come about because of the new BReg members of the RIAI council. While I am and always will be deeply suspicious of Mr Graby I believe at least some of the new council members are making progress and are trying to achieve a fair and equatable system which finally includes Architectural Technologists, bearing in mind of course that the current system is a total crock of **** and the minister is insane!! Next thing they will actually talk to CIAT and come to some form of understanding!!

strongback

I suppose the pretentious design architects won't want to get involved with attending horrid building sites in order to sign certs. I can just hear them saying "send those technicians out to get muck on their boots".

BryanF

strongback wrote: »

I suppose the pretentious design architects won't want to get involved with attending horrid building sites in order to sign certs. I can just hear them saying "send those technicians out to get muck on their boots".

I don't understand your post?
Are you belittling the job of an architect or the job of an architectural technician?
What's pretentious about being a designer?
Why would an architect avoid seeing their design get built?
And what arch or arch tech doesn't want to get out of the office?

strongback

BryanF wrote: »

I don't understand your post?
Are you belittling the job of an architect or the job of an architectural technician?
What's pretentious about being a designer?
Why would an architect avoid seeing their design get built?
And what arch or arch tech doesn't want to get out of the office?

I was being a bit facetious. I was referring to some of the fully qualified architects who never leave their studio, they generally work for the bigger offices, and have no interest in building sites.

There is nothing wrong with design but the standard of design in Ireland when it was awash with money was poor in a lot of instances including in the most expensive developments. What is pretentious is a person believing their own hype when the results do not match. Pomposity abounded during the boom.

I have worked with leading architectural practices were the designing architect never went to site.

BryanF

Ok thanks for your insight. Apart from you having a rant about your work colleagues, what has your self tilted facetious post got to do with the riai technologists register. I'm not sure? If the 'certifiering' RIAI architect is willing to sign his name 'I certifer this building complies..' and not check the works on site, then the new BCA will turn out to be wayyyy worse than its predecessor. If the arch tech is actually doing the site visits & the detailed design & providing a ancillary Certs: 'I checked building regs & planning compliance', then we're back to the question will the RIAI support the inclusion of Arch techs on the BCA certifying list? IMO the RIAI recent statement does not go far enough in this regard.

strongback

BryanF wrote: »

Ok thanks for your insight. Apart from you having a rant about your work colleagues, what has your self tilted facetious post got to do with the riai technologists register. I'm not sure? If the 'certifiering' RIAI architect is willing to sign his name 'I certifer this building complies..' and not check the works on site, then the new BCA will turn out to be wayyyy worse than its predecessor. If the arch tech is actually doing the site visits & the detailed design & providing a ancillary Certs: 'I checked building regs & planning compliance', then we're back to the question will the RIAI support the inclusion of Arch techs on the BCA certifying list? IMO the RIAI recent statement does not go far enough in this regard.

My point relates to some fully qualified architects potentially not wanting to sign certs particularly those who won't be as comfortable doing site inspections etc. The technical/ practical work of the regs is more where AT's fit in. If I had a technical question about the regs I would ask an AT for an opinion before I would go to a FQA. Planning and design is where a FQA earns his crust.

4Sticks

strongback wrote: »

If I had a technical question about the regs I would ask an AT for an opinion before I would go to a FQA. .

Lamentable that the RIAI don't see this.

BryanF

strongback wrote: »

My point relates to some fully qualified architects potentially not wanting to sign certs particularly those who won't be as comfortable doing site inspections etc. The technical/ practical work of the regs is more where AT's fit in. If I had a technical question about the regs I would ask an AT for an opinion before I would go to a FQA. Planning and design is where a FQA earns his crust.

Ok you've made your point. Let's go back to the topic of RIAI technologists register.

Corkblowin

CIAT seem to be making some progress - more progress for AT's in 2 months than 20 years of RIAI representation!

Dear member,

First of all, many thanks to all of you who complained to the European Commission regarding the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2014. We have now had confirmation from the UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), that the European Commission has received a sufficient amount of complaints regarding CIAT Member exclusion from the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations SI 9 of 2014 to investigate this matter further.

We are therefore writing to advise that your lobbying has initiated the required process and there is no need to submit any further complaints direct or indirect (e.g. via MEPs) as this could now serve to slow down the process.

We have been informed via our contact at BIS that we should have clarification regarding the Commission’s views after Easter, and will of course notify you as soon as we have any news.

Regards

James Banks
Membership Director

shane6977

Corkblowin wrote: »

CIAT seem to be making some progress - more progress for AT's in 2 months than 20 years of RIAI representation![/I]

Got the email earlier myself, good news....fingers crossed it will soon be great news. Would be a huge kick up the backside for Hogan and his cronies after all their ignorance of CIAT and the wider AT profession.

getuponthis

Great to see CIAT still doing everything they can to have AT's recognised as assigned certifiers.

Dear member

In preparation for the debate which is taking place on Tuesday 27 May in the Dail, led by TD Mick Wallace we invite you to contact Mick Wallace as he has invited and also your local TD ASAP. See link below:
http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/05/13/dail-debate-27th-may-architectural-technologists-help-needed/

To help you these are the observations, comments and actions we have sent to the DECLG and the Minister’s office with clarifications on the Minister’s position and CIAT’s proposal for solutions.

1. For clarity and from our understanding of the Building Control Act 2007 it protects title and does not regulate function, the imminent review of the Act affords the opportunity to resolve the anomaly in relation to Architectural Technology professionals such as Chartered Architectural Technologists or those Registered Architectural Technologists on the “CIAT-operated Register”.

2. This is therefore an opportune time for CIAT to work with Minister Hogan and his Department in readiness for the necessary changes to the Building Control Act 2007 and to ensure the inclusion of Architectural Technology professionals such as Chartered Architectural Technologists or those Registered Architectural Technologists on the “CIAT-operated Register”. This is a positive step and will provide the necessary resolution to the unfortunate position such professionals are in. It will provide clarity, confidence and choice to clients which is the intent behind the introductions of the Regulations.

3. CIAT is establishing a "CIAT-operated Register" in the Republic of Ireland for Architectural Technologists competent in certification of design and compliance. This will be open to all professionals who can demonstrate competence and would not be restricted to CIAT members. As the UK’s Competent Authority for Chartered Architectural Technologists, CIAT is able to determine competency levels in the same way the RIAI and SCSI did for their Registers.

4. CIAT is establishing the "CIAT-operated Register" as the current Registers are not fit for purpose to satisfy the requirements of the Act for all those professionals typically involved in leading and managing design and construction works in Ireland. Minster Hogan in his response to a question on 13 May 2014 omitted to recognise that Architectural Technology professionals are also competent to undertake such work.

5. For the Minister to state that our Members should be able to demonstrate the skills to satisfy the requirements of certifying design and construction compliance in accordance with Act to join the Building Surveyors’ Register or Architects’ Register is misleading and unfair. An architect would not be expected to join the Building Surveyors’ Register or a building surveyor to join the Architects’ Register. What is required, achievable, workable and a positive benefit to all is a competency based Register as proposed by CIAT.

6. It is unjust to allow such Competent Authorities that are not concerned directly with Architectural Technology to make assumptions on the competence of Architectural Technology professionals, especially without referring to CIAT as the only Competent Authority within Architectural Technology. To take the recommendations/decisions of other competent authorities in different yet related disciplines is not logical. We would also challenge the fairness and potential conflict that could arise in relation to this as a separate issue.

7. CIAT also understands that the BCA 2007 was based on the Strategic Review of the Construction Industry which published “Building our Future Together” (1997) – however the report is 17 years old and the industry and disciplines have clearly progressed and consequently there is an urgent need of a review.

In summary:
CIAT is keen to work with the Minister and his team to present the case for extension to the Building Control Act 2007 – this can coincide with the other amendments following Garrett Fennell’s Review of the Architects’ Register and EU Directive changes amending the arrangements for recognition of professional qualifications.

As a Competent Authority for Architectural Technology professionals it is essential that the Minister works with CIAT in relation to any extension, review or establishment of a statutory Register which would include Architectural Technology professionals which is not CIAT-operated, as per EU protocol.

It is important that the Minister makes a statement supporting the need to work with the only Competent Authority for Architectural Technology professionals (i.e. CIAT) to establish a mechanism for inclusion of competent Architectural Technology professionals to gain entry onto a “CIAT-operated statutory Register” which will then afford them the right to act as the Assigned Certifier and Design Certifier, with the necessary amendments to the Building Control Act 2007 and S.I.09 of 2014.

shane6977

Great stuff from CIAT. Lets hope the debate on Tuesday is a sensible one without any of big phils usual soundbites about “apply to join the architects register or The building surveyors register“ or refering to us as draughtsmen!

BryanF

Not holding my breath

DvB

BryanF wrote: »

Not holding my breath

I agree, Hogan is playing hardball here & I don't expect him to back down whilst he holds his current ministerial post. He's proving to be quite the 'dog with a bone' on this subject & 6 minutes debate in the dail will do little to change that IMO.
Technologists are still a long way from being recognised under the BC(a)R's & I fear it will be a long haul before that changes.
Still, fingers crossed & all that!

galwaytt

pardon my ignorance - but are the Colleges who give this qualification doing anything ?

Otherwise, what is the point in the course ?

sydthebeat

galwaytt wrote: »

pardon my ignorance - but are the Colleges who give this qualification doing anything ?

Otherwise, what is the point in the course ?

The colleges are very very firmly under the RIAI umberella, and thus complicit in the absolute ignoring of ATs during the BR(A)R discussions

atech

shane6977 wrote: »

Great stuff from CIAT. Lets hope the debate on Tuesday is a sensible one without any of big phils usual soundbites about “apply to join the architects register or The building surveyors register“ or refering to us as draughtsmen!

Good oul Phil managed to get all 3 of those into his first response

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2014052700023?opendocument

When I saw Quantity Surveyor being mentioned I thought it was going to be full of misinformation again but at least we got something concrete out of it in the end when he said 'I will make a decision very shortly about whether architectural technologists will be recognised'.
I would have preferred confirmation that MCIAT's will be allowed act as certifiers but it's probably the best that we could have been expected out of him.