Architectural Technology - Representation

Mellor · 08-02-2008 05:19PM #1

I've started anew thread on the toic of representation and extracted relevant posts from the RIAI meeting thread

Poor Uncle Tom · 20-06-2008 03:16PM

Should everyone join all, CIAT, RIAI Tech, IBCI, and any other club/organisation that comes along or could we all stand up and push for our own body to best represent us, ATI through the IATGN. I know it has all been debated before but could we maybe hear from a Committee Member on the current position.

topcatcbr · 20-06-2008 05:58PM

sinnerboy wrote: »

IATGN - appear to break it down to 2 options - RIAI (AT ) or CIAT . Detailed handout from meeting examines pros and cons RIAI vs CIAT

We are a small country, do we need two representative bodies. Can we afford two bodies.

Divide & conquer

Mellor · 20-06-2008 06:14PM

topcatcbr wrote: »

We are a small country, do we need two representative bodies. Can we afford two bodies.

Divide & conquer

To play the devils advocate,
Should we put all our eggs in one basket

topcatcbr · 20-06-2008 06:35PM

Mellor wrote: »

To play the devils advocate,
Should we put all our eggs in one basket

I think we should put our eggs in one basket. (maybee take out insurance on it)
We should be the masters of our own fate.

sinnerboy · 20-06-2008 06:43PM

RIAI - I reckon . Local needs , local provider .

Sorry if it sounds sloganistic - it also seems very simple , to me

topcatcbr · 20-06-2008 09:18PM

I agree with the local needs local provider. However I feel there may be a conflict of interest in trying to represent both architects and ATs.

Poor Uncle Tom · 20-06-2008 11:21PM

The way I see it, the RIAI is specifically for Architects, who happen to tolerate AT membership to an agreed extent. Handing the reins of power equally to AT members would not be considered. It would be seen as diluting power and giving equal status to AT's, unthinkable to any hardcore member, and I would suggest not about to happen in the next 100 years.

What is needed is a seperate, specific, dedicated body, created by AT's, created for AT's, run by AT's, looking after the needs of AT's.

It was within our grasp in the ATI.

Is that still an option ?

Mellor · 21-06-2008 01:20AM

They might not like to share it, but they'll have to,
or else we'll stop doing the building reg compliance for them

Poor Uncle Tom · 21-06-2008 12:12PM

Think about that one long and hard, Mellor.

I don't think it's a trade off.

There are AT's out there, in their 100's blissfully ignorant of this debate, working away, certifying building regs, getting PAYE & PRSI paid and a lump of money each week, who will not want to jeapordise that.

They have to be looked after too by us and any body representing us.

Remember any self employed AT started out like that too and may even want to return to it also one day. Anyway the choice should be there for them if they want to.

Mellor · 21-06-2008 12:39PM

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Think about that one long and hard, Mellor.

I don't think it's a trade off.

There are AT's out there, in their 100's blissfully ignorant of this debate, working away, certifying building regs, getting PAYE & PRSI paid and a lump of money each week, who will not want to jeapordise that.

They have to be looked after too by us and any body representing us.

Remember any self employed AT started out like that too and may even want to return to it also one day. Anyway the choice should be there for them if they want to.

I think you should read that again, and then cinsder the possibility that I was prehaps joking. The fact that you thought I was serious about essentially stopping work is a little worrying

sinnerboy · 21-06-2008 02:03PM

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

The way I see it, the RIAI is specifically for Architects, who happen to tolerate AT membership to an agreed extent. Handing the reins of power equally to AT members would not be considered. It would be seen as diluting power and giving equal status to AT's, unthinkable to any hardcore member, and I would suggest not about to happen in the next 100 years.

What is needed is a seperate, specific, dedicated body, created by AT's, created for AT's, run by AT's, looking after the needs of AT's.

It was within our grasp in the ATI.

Is that still an option ?

Well for now it is . But change happens . I got a distinct sense of this from the RIAI the other night .

We need a seperate body alright - i.e. the evolved RIAI as I believe we may shape and influence to create over time.

As I said earlier "i was struck by a statistic yesterday - of all those who trained as AT's - where are they now ?. Breaks down into 4 equal groupings

1. left industry entirely
2. became architects
3. heads down "just doing it" . part of architects practices and / or AT practices
4. As above + IATGN "active" . Part of debate for change

I have been firmly ( and happily ) in group 3 for many years , but leaning towards 4 now " - if more "3s" become "4s" and join the RIAI we can then bring about change there .

We dont need to break down the door - it's open already .

Poor Uncle Tom · 21-06-2008 02:41PM

To Mellor:
How can you joke before 2.00 o'clock in the day? Thats like having a beer before 8.00 in the morning. Anyway, I did understand, just making my point VERY clear. Had a lot to do this morning that depended on the day being good, a little pissed off, sorry.

To Sinnerboy:
R U suggesting we join RIAI Tech en-mass, or debate a different entry route with large numbers??????Some AT's have proven their abilities through years and years of work experience, and I know some who could run rings around most "Professionally Superiors". Sorry once again, getting away from the topic.

topcatcbr · 21-06-2008 04:48PM

sinnerboy wrote: »

Well for now it is . But change happens . I got a distinct sense of this from the RIAI the other night .

We need a seperate body alright - i.e. the evolved RIAI as I believe we may shape and influence to create over time.

As I said earlier "i was struck by a statistic yesterday - of all those who trained as AT's - where are they now ?. Breaks down into 4 equal groupings

1. left industry entirely
2. became architects
3. heads down "just doing it" . part of architects practices and / or AT practices
4. As above + IATGN "active" . Part of debate for change

I have been firmly ( and happily ) in group 3 for many years , but leaning towards 4 now " - if more "3s" become "4s" and join the RIAI we can then bring about change there .

We dont need to break down the door - it's open already .

Why are these not in the RIAI if it is an inclusive society.

I was at the meeting and it was clear to me that this was never going to change.

If you didnt study at DIT or WIT they dont want to know.

sinnerboy · 21-06-2008 05:00PM

topcatcbr wrote: »

Why are these not in the RIAI if it is an inclusive society.

I was at the meeting and it was clear to me that this was never going to change.

If you didnt study at DIT or WIT they dont want to know.

In my own case , the only one I can answer for , because before IATGN I remained an apolitical busy bee . Head down , getting on with it .

I was there too .

DIT / WIT + 2 years experience is one route

There is also the 10 year experience route . ( Can't recall term for it - don't have hand out here )

.

Poor Uncle Tom · 21-06-2008 05:07PM

Grandfather Rule??

Question:
Does it become great-grandfather rule when u have 20 years self-employed experience, or can you gain entry postumously?

sinnerboy · 21-06-2008 05:25PM

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Grandfather Rule??

Question:
Does it become great-grandfather rule when u have 20 years self-employed experience, or can you gain entry postumously?

:D:D:D:D

Mellor · 21-06-2008 07:17PM

topcatcbr wrote: »

If you didnt study at DIT or WIT they dont want to know.

I really don't think thats the case.
The RIAI didnt exclude the others, they did that them selves. And can be re-accredited.
If somebody did study in the interim period, then they can get it, it just takes longer. It is possible that college time can be counted, so thats a plus

topcatcbr · 21-06-2008 08:24PM

Mellor wrote: »

I really don't think thats the case.
The RIAI didnt exclude the others, they did that them selves. And can be re-accredited.
If somebody did study in the interim period, then they can get it, it just takes longer. It is possible that college time can be counted, so thats a plus

I qualify under the 10 year rule next year. However I am seriously considering other less restrictive options. I want to be in an org which can represent the majority of Arch Techs and it is clear to me that with the inception of Arch Tech Courses country wide (good or bad) It (the RIAI)will be in the minority before very long as i think many of these graduates will seek membership to a professional org before they have 10 years professional practice.

What other profession has a 10 year apprenticeship and even then has so little recognition. Not even full membership.

If you can pass the membership exam after 2 or 5 years whats the problem.

No6 · 21-06-2008 10:13PM

Now I'm sorry I wasn't able to make it to dublin, sounds like it was an interesting evening, for my own two cents worth, while I think we do need an active and strong voice within the RIAI I don't think it will ever be the answer (& I am an RIAI Tech), The ATI is some way off still, we're only a year into the 5 year plan (a bit stalinist perhaps??) and there appears to be hostility in some quarters to CIAT because they're english so what do we do??? stick our head in the sand and hope it all goes away!! ( thats the no3's up there!!) get active and get involved in any or all on the above organisations on the basis that any gain for at's achieved by any organisation is a gain for all at's, thats the no4's!!

As for the situation in regards to Level 8 qualifications and the commercial energy rating I think I saw somewhere recently that MRIAI is considered a level 8 qualification in its own right (it was in relation to acedemic posts I think) sooo if some of us were to become MRIAI under the Technical assessment process does that also allow us to become assessors for commercial buildings?? energy saver is right the future is in carbon neutral, low energy buildings I think someone should seriously lobby the SEI to allow at's do the commercial buildings, RIAI CIAT, IATGN doesn't matter

sinnerboy · 21-06-2008 10:19PM

No6 wrote: »

I think someone should seriously lobby the SEI to allow at's do the commercial buildings, RIAI CIAT, IATGN doesn't matter

I have . IATGN have . My boss has ...... feel free to add to this list

No6 · 21-06-2008 10:47PM

Excuse the multiple posts I looked away for a day or two and you all post like lunatics anyway in relation to our name, is the term Technical Architect not used in the computer industry!! (completely unregulated unregistered by the RIAI!!) I am an Architectural Technician and proud of it but I dont mind being a Technologist, I find however the the general public dont know the difference, I am frequently refered to as a clients engineer (possibly even worse than being called an Architect!!) the point being it dosnt matter to anyone except us what we are called it matters to our clients that we can do the job they commission us to do from start to finish including signing certs of compliance that are accecpted by the Law Society and drawdown certs that are accecpted by all the banks!!! To any of the AT's who are currently in employment this does effect you as at the rate things are going you may soon be self employed too!!! :eek:

No6 · 21-06-2008 11:02PM

and no joy I presume

sinnerboy · 22-06-2008 12:20AM

Steady on . SEI made announcement on BER non domestic on Thursday .
Lobbying started next day . Give them a chance to get in to work on Monday

topcatcbr · 22-06-2008 10:41AM

This situation is not going to go away we have to get our qualifications up to oe exceeding Bsc hons and acreddited or we are going to be left out in the cold.

We need to lobby the ITs to introduce Part time Upskilling courses for us.

We also need to join a professional body to effect change.

I am not a member of CIAT or RIAI but i will be very soon. I was happy to trundle along until now.

Mellor · 22-06-2008 03:27PM

topcatcbr wrote: »

We need to lobby the ITs to introduce Part time Upskilling courses for us.

Hmm, i'm not sure on that one.
If you mean a hons degree in AT, then I do think it is needed. But I agree with the way cormac is approaching it, slow and steady. Save energy menioned previous that we need any old course, SB disagreed and so do I. Without being disrespetful, they is an hons course available, even two I believe. But they were just internally designed and added on to get up and running. And they provide no professional advantage.
DIT are laying out the course with input rom the RIAI, CIAT, and importantly the Law Society. Surely this is the right route from professionalism p.o.v.

If however you mean add ons in skill areas, to bump the degree up to level 8, then I think this is a bad approach. Red tape for the sake of red tape.
I really hate generalisations, and I feel we suffer alot as ATs.
Here's why;
The CIAT level 8 restriction.....red tape. Its widely accepted that the irish level 7s degrees are equal to the UK level 8s. Both courses are 3 years, jut in ireland almost all level 8 are 4 years (another red tape generalisation)

The SEIs level 8 and org restriction, again, level 8 is a generalisation, and maybe fair in general, but this excludes most ATs (very few are permitted at the moment), and ATs are likely to be in the best position to complete it.
And red tape generalisations.
I think we should lobby both the SEI and the RIAI to get the RIAI(tech) membership included (as it stands, F, M and A are each included)

The natinal frame work system, .....red tape.
While it is needed in principal, it shoud not be a benchmark system.
All level 7s are not equal,
Nor are all level 8s

So, I don't like those systems, and I don't like to play into them. I think if we were to do poxy add-ons for the sake of bumping up to level 8, and to say become a nD BER assessor, its a solution, but it makes it worse imo. Just like all the best medication, should attack the soucre of the problem, not the symptoms.
An exampe,
John has a degree in AT, level 7 and wants to become a nD BER assessor. He can't yet.
He completes a level 8 H Dip in conservation. He now is permitted into the course,
But is he any more quailifed than before.

Supertech wrote: »

I was at the meeting in DIT on Thursday. The one thing that struck me was the comment about the IT's not providing accredited courses. What we should be doing is lobbying them not only to provide these courses but to have them

Another generalisation I don't like is "The ITs". It's damaging imo.
The above proves it, there are two accredited courses, they are DIT and WIT. Some of the unacredited courses (probably most of them) are not ITs

No6 · 22-06-2008 03:56PM

Mellor perhaps CIAT could be included in lobbying SEI, they did alright with AIB. I have no difficulty in a level 7 or 8 or 9 standard being set for various things my problem is that a lot of us are stuck on level 7 qualifications with no possibility of upskilling to level 8 unless we do something full time of live in Dublin where there is access to some part time courses

Mellor · 22-06-2008 05:02PM

But the thing is, level 7 and 8 aren't "standards". They are an education framework.
If they were standards then they would be equal, but similar courses can differ greatly.

Also, I left out CIAT as curently they aren't included/recognaised by SEI in their list of organisations. To make it clear for anyone not sure of the SEI position,

An AT with a level 8 degree can't become an SEI assessor unless he is a non-Tech member of RIAI

Mellor · 22-06-2008 05:10PM

I would imagine thats its a pro-rata situaion to members in an area. Im have the member numbers here somewhere.

topcatcbr · 22-06-2008 05:44PM

Mellor wrote: »

But the thing is, level 7 and 8 aren't "standards". They are an education framework.
If they were standards then they would be equal, but similar courses can differ greatly.

Also, I left out CIAT as curently they aren't included/recognaised by SEI in their list of organisations. To make it clear for anyone not sure of the SEI position,

An AT with a level 8 degree can't become an SEI assessor unless he is a non-Tech member of RIAI

He could if he was a member of CIOB

Supertech · 22-06-2008 06:02PM

Another generalisation I don't like is "The ITs". It's damaging imo.
The above proves it, there are two accredited courses, they are DIT and WIT. Some of the unacredited courses (probably most of them) are not ITs

There are several other Institutes of Technology offering unaccredited degree level programs in Archiotectural Technology Mellor which is all I'm talking about. I know there are other educational bodies providing Level 6 and below, but it's the Ordinary and Honours Level Degree courses I'm talking about not these others.

I think all the Institutes of Technology offering Level 7 or above should be looking for accreditation from the professional bodies, and I think it's up to those who would be looking to enrol on any add on honours degree to be lobbying for these to be accrediited aswell. As the speaker in DIT said the other day, it's not something you consider when you're 17 or 18 and leaving school. It's only when your out in industry that these issues actually come to light.

Architectural Technology - Representation

Comments