RKQ meeting of Architectural Technicians

archtech

CIAT have a defined within their membership what an architectural technician and architectural technologist is, so to say it does not exist anyway is untrue. Maybe outside of the membership of CIAT , they may not be defined?

Have the RIAI defined what they consider an architectural technician? they must have as an entry requirement to RIAI tech?They don't have a definition of a technologist as far as I understand yet?

Other than the above anyone can call themselves an architectural technician or architectural technologist (even any joe bloggs on the street) and cannot be challenged as nether is a protected title.

sydthebeat

so then would it be correct to suggest that only CIAT Technologist members should actually refer to themselves as 'Technologists'.....?

I realise its not protected, but within out industry isnt it unhelpful to have some kind of apparent division between technician and technologist? especially seening as in fact and in essence none exists....

RKQ

Well stated Sydthebeat.. the term was invented by CIAT. This invented "division" was a sort of Snobery for those within the CIAT. An inverted name to instill division and somehow defend elitism. We're better than you cos we say so!

Do we really need to import this silly class system?

Any joe bloggs can call themselves a Carpenter, but I bet you only know a few True Carpenters!

Lets have a Profession before we try to protect its title!

archtech

sydthebeat wrote: »

so then would it be correct to suggest that only CIAT Technologist members should actually refer to themselves as 'Technologists'.....?

The only title which is unique to CIAT is "Chartered Architectural Technologist".

CIAT defines/describes architectual technicians /technologists in terms its its membership as:

Chartered Architectural Technologists 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 and manage the process from conception through to completion.
Chartered Members of CIAT (MCIAT) may practise on their own account or with fellow
Chartered Architectural Technologists, architects, engineers, surveyors and other
professionals within the construction industry.

Professional Architectural Technicians are specialists in the application of technology
in architecture, building design and construction. Whilst Architectural Technician
members of CIAT (TCIAT) cannot practise on their own account, they 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

No6

I hope we're not going to get hung up on a name or title here, the difference in terms of CIAT is that Chartered Technologists are permitted to practice on their own account where as technician members are in employment only. There is a higher standard to achieve to get to MCIAT level including a professional practice interview. There is no restrictions on technicians within CIAT becoming Technologists, it doesn’t matter if you have a cert, diploma, degree, honors degree or masters, education gives you exemptions from some parts of the POP record but real experience is required to complete it. Self employed people like myself have to go the profile route straight to MCIAT no technician step at all. Either term is not protected under the building control act so anyone can use it with impunity, but we are allowed use the term "Architectural" (Technician, Technologist, Services whatever!!) without being prosecuted by the Registration body!! Thanks primarily I belive to CIAT who lobbied hard for this!!

Mellor

RKQ wrote: »

Mellor please explain "This is obvious and the hostile attitude doesn't help imo". Can we then join a USA organisation? I don't understand the reference to hostile, as I tried not to mention the country. I was around in the 80's and didn't come across the term till it was invented by CIAT.

I'm not sure what you want me to explain. You appear to be rather hostile and this is counter productive imo. No hostile towards the country, but your general tone.
As for it being obvious, you ask why we adopted a phrase from the UK, I said this was obvious, and I think it is. What ever phrase we decided to use it was going to be from the english language. There was an existing word that fitted the bill, so its the obvious choice. This is strictly language. Nothing to do with any organisation. Why would we adopt a french or spanish word.
As for standards on the continent, the stadard we choose to attain is in no way related to the word we use.
The comment on joining a US organisation is similar, again, what ever organisation to join, copy or follow has nothing to do with the word used.

Mellor

sydthebeat wrote: »

mellor, you say 'we got technologist'.... who gave this title out?
What advancement do you claim happened to distinguish between a technician and technologist?

sydthebeat wrote: »

so then would it be correct to suggest that only CIAT Technologist members should actually refer to themselves as 'Technologists'.....?

I realise its not protected, but within out industry isnt it unhelpful to have some kind of apparent division between technician and technologist? especially seening as in fact and in essence none exists....

Firstly there is no restrictive link between Technologist and CIAT, any one can use it. It is not theirs, they just happen to be an organisation that use it.


Secondly, you say that in essence none exists. And I agree. But that is now.
I wasn't trying to promote a term over another, or elitiest snobbery, and I don't like the fact that it was suggested. I was trying to explain the source.
Within the the industry, the ATs role is well established, more and more in a increasingly technical construction process.
Originally it was a subservient role, but as it expanded, "Architectural" Technician was added. (It was originally simply technican). Then it became more a stand alone role. Dedicated duties etc.
Eventually, the stage came were some people were happy and content with the basic duties, and others wanted to push the line, gain authority over jobs, beginning jobs, admin roles, associate positions, director positions etc.
So a way to showing this was needed. And technologist was added (the term technical architect was blocked by the registration in the UK at the time).
Today, I would liek to think that we all fall into the group that wishes to advance. We wouldn't have this talk if we didn't.
This separation in roles and abilities is not unique to ATs. It is EXACTLY the same architects. Part 3 is just a separation of those that have gone futher and those that have not. The difference it is much more passive, it does not exclude other members, it is a goal, not an obstical.
This would of been far better. Arch Techs, and after x years exp, and passing exams (the pop record). They would become Part II Arch techs.

This, imo, is the role we should aim for, through the RIAI board, the IATGN, or the ATI

RKQ

I don't like to be misquoted as all the post is relevant and makes my point complete. To edit single lines takes it from its context.:(

Let me clear up a matter, there has always been snobbery:-

• Between Architects / design ability,
• between Architects and Technicians,
• between Technicians regarding experience and
• between technicians and technologists (other technicians)

The point I'm making is quite simple - How can we expect the Government to step in and register a title if we can't agree on our title?

I also understood that Architectural Technicians progressed to Senior Architectural Technician, Job Runner or Architectural Assistant, the later being on a par with Part 1 or Part 2, depending on expertise.

My reference to Europe is not the language or word. I simply was making the point that we should strive to join the best in Europe and not necessarily assume joining a UK organisation! Its a fair point.

I may be wrong but I believe CIAT invented the level / name Technologist.
Again show me any reference you have to the term. I'm interested to know about the term.

I also believe that names only lead to confuse each other and more importantly the public. How can the public retain our services if they don't know what / who to look for?

I don't see my tone as hostile. I am the same as the other posts. I suppose its not easy to write during working hours. So I'm just jotting down comments and ideas as fast as possible.:)

I don't want to get caught up on names but it is worth considering. As Architect is protected, how can we exist in business if we have lots of different names? The public needs to know who we are!

topcatcbr

RKQ wrote: »

I don't like to be misquoted as all the post is relevant and makes my point complete. To edit single lines takes it from its context.:(

Let me clear up a matter, there has always been snobbery:-

• Between Architects / design ability,
• between Architects and Technicians,
• between Technicians regarding experience and
• between technicians and technologists (other technicians)

The point I'm making is quite simple - How can we expect the Government to step in and register a title if we can't agree on our title?

I also understood that Architectural Technicians progressed to Senior Architectural Technician, Job Runner or Architectural Assistant, the later being on a par with Part 1 or Part 2, depending on expertise.

My reference to Europe is not the language or word. I simply was making the point that we should strive to join the best in Europe and not necessarily assume joining a UK organisation! Its a fair point.

I may be wrong but I believe CIAT invented the level / name Technologist.
Again show me any reference you have to the term. I'm interested to know about the term.

I also believe that names only lead to confuse each other and more importantly the public. How can the public retain our services if they don't know what / who to look for?

I don't see my tone as hostile. I am the same as the other posts. I suppose its not easy to write during working hours. So I'm just jotting down comments and ideas as fast as possible.:)

I don't want to get caught up on names but it is worth considering. As Architect is protected, how can we exist in business if we have lots of different names? The public needs to know who we are!

I agree with alot of your points, however i also believe we have a unique and probably one time oppertunity to define ourselves.

as has been said before the term technician implies a level of subservience. (eg. Petrol Pump Tech)

I have no problem using the term Architectural Technician. But lets make the most out of the opertunity which this chrisis of identity has afforded us to rewrite the rule book to a certain extent.

The worst that could happen is that we do nothing. I am certain that this would leed to the disolution of our profession to a non entity.

RKQ

I'm not saying Architectural Technician is the name to use.

Imagine if we all call ourselves Technologist and the Government protect the title. Great job sorted.

But the CIAT claim copyright / ownership of the name ( even thought they are UK based) The Government panics and installs a retroactive S.I stating all Technologist must be CIAT or judged by CIAT board!

Then we'd have to legally join and wait years if necessary to become Technologists!

It could never happen... could it? An Irish solution to an Irish problem.

By the way, I'm not anti CIAT or RIAI. Both have strong lobby groups.

topcatcbr

RKQ wrote: »

I'm not saying Architectural Technician is the name to use.

Imagine if we all call ourselves Technologist and the Government protect the title. Great job sorted.

But the CIAT claim copyright / ownership of the name ( even thought they are UK based) The Government panics and installs a retroactive S.I stating all Technologist must be CIAT or judged by CIAT board!

Then we'd have to legally join and wait years if necessary to become Technologists!

It could never happen... could it? An Irish solution to an Irish problem.

By the way, I'm not anti CIAT or RIAI. Both have strong lobby groups.

I believe that whatever we do we have to include both CIAT and RIAI if possible. as both orgs have advantages.

I think the ideal solution for Irish Arch Techs would be some sort of amalgamation of the Tech members of these two bodies for administration of Irish Issues but with a foot inside both orgs

Similar to what the CIAT have done themselves

They broke from RIBA formed the BIAT with involvement with the CIOB.
this was used as a way to build on the previous experience and status of these orgs

archtech

RKQ wrote: »

Imagine if we all call ourselves Technologist and the Government protect the title. Great job sorted.
But the CIAT claim copyright / ownership of the name ( even thought they are UK based) The Government panics and installs a retroactive S.I stating all Technologist must be CIAT or judged by CIAT board!

CIAT don't claim Technologist, nor would they or could they, there's many architectural technologists in the UK outside of CIAT.

What they have the rights to is Chartered Architectural Technologist through their Charter.

topcatcbr

Traditionaly most of our building professional orgonisations developed from our UK equivelent as most were inplace before the inception of the state. our profession is relitavly new born from the increasing complexity and demands of modern construction. as such we know what we do now but this is different from what we did before the introduction of cad and other technologies and we have to assume what we do in the future may change over time.

How our skills sets develop has a direct relation to building technologies and therefore the term technologist is a suitable term. if someone can come up with a better term of discription by all means share it.

archtech

topcatcbr wrote: »

Similar to what the CIAT have done themselves

They broke from RIBA formed the BIAT with involvement with the CIOB.
this was used as a way to build on the previous experience and status of these orgs

From what I can gather CIAT or what it has evolved from was never part of the RIBA. CIAT in its original format was set up in 1965.The origional name of CIAT wasn't BIAT incidentally it was known as the Society of Architectural and Associated Technicians

The only reason CIAT is in Ireland at all is because it took over the running of the previous Irish body(name currently escapes me) which represented Irish Architectural Technicians in the mid 80's when numbers in that body fell away to almost nothing.

topcatcbr

archtech wrote: »

From what I can gather CIAT or what it has evolved from was never part of the RIBA. CIAT in its original format was set up in 1965.The origional name of CIAT wasn't BIAT incidentally it was known as the Society of Architectural and Associated Technicians

The only reason CIAT is in Ireland at all is because it took over the running of the previous Irish body(name currently escapes me) which represented Irish Architectural Technicians in the mid 80's when numbers in that body fell away to almost nothing.

Institute milestones
1965 Founded on 12 February…Alan King first Chairman…first Representative Assembly held…Constitution and Code of Conduct agreed

1966 SAAT becomes the only elected Associated Society of RIBA…Institute of Architectural and Associated Technicians formed in Ireland…Joan Yates becomes Administrator

1967 SAAT Journal launched…first trade exhibition attendance…SAAT/RIBA Joint Education Committee formed...SAAT to be consulted by the Ministry of Public Building and Works

1968 The ‘Training of Technicians in Architects’ Offices’ leaflet published …first female member joins SAAT

1969 Standing Orders completed...Practice Qualification entry begins in Autumn...Office Training Scheme for Architectural Technicians issued

1970 First Assessment Board for membership and Log Book introduced

1971 First definition of an Architectural Technician published…first joint Technicians Test Board between SAAT, ISE and SCET

1972 Illustrated Guide to the Building Regulations published…SAAT/RIBA joint conference

1973 SAAT News published…Local authorities recognise the SAAT qualification and placed in the Purple Book

1974 British Technician Group formed…Building Services Technicians admitted to membership…presentation of the first Chain of Office for use by the Chairman

1975 SAAT celebrates tenth birthday...Incorporated as a Company Limited by Guarantee in October

1976 Architectural Technicians admitted to Yellow Pages...first AGM

1977 Tom Lilley becomes the first Honorary Member

1978 SAAT signboard introduced for members...membership structure reviewed to complement the new educational status of the technician

1979 SAAT moves to City Road...first recognition to an overseas course

1980 Alan King awarded Honorary Membership

1981 Publication of the Architectural Technician Training Guidelines booklet…introduction of the SAAT-Pugh Award...first Conditions of Engagement published

1982 First Hong Kong candidate becomes Full Member...computer system installed in Central Office

1983 Graham Watts becomes first Chief Executive…National Student Award Scheme launched…Architectural Technology replaces SAAT News

1984 Hong Kong Centre founded…Architectural Technology – The Constructive Link published…Professor Harper becomes an Honorary Member…Building Societies recognise SAAT’s Full Membership qualification

1985 Continuing Professional Development scheme launched…John Walkerdine made Honorary Member

1986 SAAT’s 21st birthday...SAAT becomes British Institute of Architectural Technicians on 1 May…Professional Indemnity Insurance Group Scheme launched…Chapters become Regions

1987 Amalgamation with IAAT and Republic of Ireland Centre formed…Atrium begins publication…BIAT presented with the formal letters of patent from the Institute Coat of Arms...profiling membership route introduced

1988 Joan Zunde becomes Honorary Member…Building a Better Business road shows…Preparing for Europe conference

1989 BIAT joins Construction Industry Council…BIAT Bulletin launched and Atrium ceases publication

1990 BIAT’s Silver Jubilee...Philip Boyes, Dr Anthony Forward, Sir Ted Happold and Bruce Sheerin made Honorary Members …record membership ...BIAT Technician of the Year Award introduced

1991 Graham Watts made Honorary Member

1992 John Newey receives Honorary Membership...BIAT sign agreement for introduction of the EurGeo passport

1993 Launch of arbitration scheme...development of Honours degrees in Architectural Technology

1994 BIAT launches its Premier award: the BIAT Open Award for Technical Excellence…name change to British Institute of Architectural Technologists...first degrees in Architectural Technology accredited by BIAT

1995 Architectural Technology magazine launched…members providing services directly to a client to obtain and maintain professional indemnity insurance

1996 Francesca Berriman officially becomes Chief Executive...NVQ level 4 in Architectural Technology runs as a pilot scheme...launch of the Architectural Technology Awarding Body

1997 CIOB Memorandum of Agreement signed…free student membership introduced...approval received for the first NVQ/SVQ for Architectural Technology

1998 BIAT Vision issued…BIAT website launched... publication of Into the 21st Century

1999 First recipients of the BIAT Gold Award…Max Abrahamson MAK Hon Kuen and John Veal made Honorary Members

2000 First international conference: Technological Innovation in Design and Construction held in Ireland…declaration of co-operation with ASI...QAA Subject Benchmark Statement for Architectural Technology produced

2001 Definitions for an Architectural Technologist and Architectural Technician released…Arthur Lappage made Honorary Member...John Newey Education Foundation launched

2002 Technician grade introduced and the launch of the Professional and Occupational Performance (POP) Records…Executive Board introduced

2003 Second international conference held at the British Museum...first Architectural Technician member, TBIAT, Student Award relaunched

2004 Memorandrum of Agreement signed with RIBA...Full Members eligible to apply for a CSCS card...third international conference held in Belfast

2005 BIAT celebrates 40 years...Alan King Prize launched...Her Majesty the Queen approves the Grant of a Royal Charter...BIAT becomes CIAT

2006 Membership passes 7,500...CIAT is a founding member of PI-UKChina

2007 CIAT/RIBA produce joint practice literature for its members...membership passes 8,000

topcatcbr

1966 SAAT becomes the only elected Associated Society of RIBA…Institute of Architectural and Associated Technicians formed in Ireland…Joan Yates becomes Administrator

Maybe the way foward is to take a step back and reform the Institute of Architectural and Associated Technicians. This title has some history and maybe could be used as a lever.

archtech

topcatcbr wrote: »

Maybe the way foward is to take a step back and reform the Institute of Architectural and Associated Technicians. This title has some history and maybe could be used as a lever.

To do that would mean joining CIAT as that's where the IAAT now is.

topcatcbr

archtech wrote: »

To do that would mean joining CIAT as that's where the IAAT now is.

Maybe this is the way to go but the CIAT will need to establish a dedicated office in ireland to deal with irish matters. Just as the CIOB has done.

orangereflector

Sorry to interrupt but might any of you know if there's jobs in architectural practices in Ireland maybe in September. I've just qualified and finding it quite tough to come across a job. I have one until the end of the summer but that contract finishes then. Thanks if you can help and sorry for interrupting if you can't

topcatcbr

orangereflector wrote: »

Sorry to interrupt but might any of you know if there's jobs in architectural practices in Ireland maybe in September. I've just qualified and finding it quite tough to come across a job. I have one until the end of the summer but that contract finishes then. Thanks if you can help and sorry for interrupting if you can't

Welcome and I wish you best of luck job hunting

Mellor

topcatcbr wrote: »

Traditionaly most of our building professional orgonisations developed from our UK equivelent as most were inplace before the inception of the state. our profession is relitavly new born from the increasing complexity and demands of modern construction. as such we know what we do now but this is different from what we did before the introduction of cad and other technologies and we have to assume what we do in the future may change over time.

How our skills sets develop has a direct relation to building technologies and therefore the term technologist is a suitable term. if someone can come up with a better term of discription by all means share it.

I think an all out change to a third (even if better), would be difficult.
Based on exact meanings of words technologist is very fitting. Many skills etc.
But its not very public friendly, I wonder, if they manage to adopt technical architect when they wanted to, how much less explaining we'd all have to do to family and friends.

topcatcbr

Mellor wrote: »

I think an all out change to a third (even if better), would be difficult.
Based on exact meanings of words technologist is very fitting. Many skills etc.
But its not very public friendly, I wonder, if they manage to adopt technical architect when they wanted to, how much less explaining we'd all have to do to family and friends.

I agree that the term technical architect would solve allot of confusion however i don't think it will be suitable for a number of reasons

1 the term architect is now restricted by the building control act ( even if the RIAI would allow us use the term) and would require full membership of the RIAI.

2 the transfer of skills to other jurisdictions would require members to revert back to technician.

sinnerboy

My vote is Technician .

I don't see any negative connotations - at all .

This is the fabrication of another society ( I happily worked in for 10 years ) and we don't need to import it .

Sadly though ( as far as I am concerned - I expect others not to agree ) the term will be adopted here ...

According to a handout at the IATGN meeting yesterday the RIAI are currently "developing the set of competences for Architectural Technicians as defined by the terms of RIAI membership " ..." first Draft expected May 2007 " ( it wasn't / isn't made yet ) . It goes on to say " that a "Development of set of Competences for Architectural Technologists , as it might emerge from the 4th yr honours degree programme would be the next task"

topcatcbr

I have just read the handout

Interesting stuff most of the discussion hapening here is mirrored in the document.

why is this not on their website for all to read.

archtech

topcatcbr wrote: »

Maybe this is the way to go but the CIAT will need to establish a dedicated office in ireland to deal with irish matters. Just as the CIOB has done.

CIAT's Irish committee would love this to happen, however until the membership of CIAT in Ireland grows the CIAT couldn't really justify this. I know it a catch 22, if CIAT had an office here its membership would increase.

Mellor

sinnerboy wrote: »

My vote is Technician .

I don't see any negative connotations - at all .

This is the fabrication of another society ( I happily worked in for 10 years ) and we don't need to import it .

Sadly though ( as far as I am concerned - I expect others not to agree ) the term will be adopted here ...

I don't have a problem with technician per say, in isolation in the architectural industry it is in no way subservient, today.
But in almost every other industry, technician roles are subservient or less skilled etc.
Its minor, and ideally, I want one term, with a part 3 type grade.

RKQ

Techno Architect has a nice ring to it.

Does anyone know the exact reason / wording the RIBA used to prevent the term "Technical Architect" being used in the UK. (Architectural Consultant is acceptable in the UK)

Could Technology Architect still be used in Ireland?

If it was it might spread across Europe as part of European Community!
Technical Architect is self explanatory and would make life easier, so easy to explain to the public.

I've great respect for CIAT and RIAI Tech but I still have this nagging feeling that if either was the right one for us, we would have joined years ago and wouldn't be having this debate and the IATGN would never have started.

Maybe both organisations have grown greatly over the last two years, to meet the new demand.

sinnerboy

RKQ wrote: »

I've great respect for CIAT and RIAI Tech but I still have this nagging feeling that if either was the right one for us, we would have joined years ago and wouldn't be having this debate and the IATGN would never have started.

Maybe both organisations have grown greatly over the last two years, to meet the new demand.

Invert that RKO - maybe if more if us HAD joined years ago they WOULD be the right place for us ...........:)

Or, as archtech puts it

archtech wrote: »

CIAT's Irish committee would love this to happen, however until the membership of CIAT in Ireland grows the CIAT couldn't really justify this. I know it a catch 22, if CIAT had an office here its membership would increase.

All forms of representation , be they governments , councils , institutes or whatever evolve . They are always in a state of imperfection as changing times and circumstances present new realities . And they are changed by those motivated TO GET INVOLVED . ( Hypocrite me - no need to point out the irony folks )



.

topcatcbr

archtech wrote: »

CIAT's Irish committee would love this to happen, however until the membership of CIAT in Ireland grows the CIAT couldn't really justify this. I know it a catch 22, if CIAT had an office here its membership would increase.

I wonder would the CIOB a sister org to CIAT be open to shareing an office.

topcatcbr

RKQ wrote: »

Techno Architect has a nice ring to it.

Does anyone know the exact reason / wording the RIBA used to prevent the term "Technical Architect" being used in the UK. (Architectural Consultant is acceptable in the UK)

Could Technology Architect still be used in Ireland?

If it was it might spread across Europe as part of European Community!
Technical Architect is self explanatory and would make life easier, so easy to explain to the public.

I've great respect for CIAT and RIAI Tech but I still have this nagging feeling that if either was the right one for us, we would have joined years ago and wouldn't be having this debate and the IATGN would never have started.

Maybe both organisations have grown greatly over the last two years, to meet the new demand.

The title architect is now protected by the building control act. So any use of this would require the approval of the RIAI and i cannot see this happening.

It would mean Registering with the RIAI