WHO OR WHAT IS AN ARCHITECT?

ar·chi·tect  (ärk-tkt)  n.

1. One who designs and supervises the construction of buildings or other large structures.

2. One that plans or devises: a country considered to be the chief architect of war in the Middle East.

 [Latin architectus, from Greek arkhitektn : arkhi-, archi- + tektn, builder; see teks- in Indo-European roots.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

architect [ˈɑːkɪˌtɛkt]  n

1. (Fine Arts & Visual Arts / Architecture) (Business / Professions) a person qualified to design buildings and to superintend their erection

2. (Fine Arts & Visual Arts / Architecture) (Business / Professions) a person similarly qualified in another form of construction a naval architect

3. any planner or creator the architect of the expedition

[from French architecte, from Latin architectus, from Greek arkhitektōn director of works, from archi- + tektōn workman; related to tekhnē art, skill]

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

ThesaurusLegend:  Synonyms Related Words Antonyms

Noun

1. architect - someone who creates plans to be used in making something (such as buildings)

designer

creator - a person who grows or makes or invents things

landscape architect, landscape gardener, landscaper, landscapist - someone who arranges features of the landscape or garden attractively

Ithiel Town, Town - United States architect who was noted for his design and construction of truss bridges (1784-1844)

Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2012 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.

architect

noun

1. designer, planner, draughtsman, master builder. Employ an architect to make sure the plans comply with regulations.

2. creator, father, shaper, engineer, author, maker, designer, founder, deviser, planner, inventor, contriver, originator, prime mover, instigator, initiator  the country's chief architect of economic reform

Quotations
"architect: one who drafts a plan of your house, and plans a draft of your money" [Ambrose Bierce The Devil's Dictionary]

Collins Thesaurus of the English Language – Complete and Unabridged 2nd Edition. 2002 © HarperCollins Publishers 1995, 2002

Translations

Select a language:

architect

n architect [ˈaːkitekt]

a person who designs buildings etc.

n architecture [-tʃə]

the art of designing buildings He's studying architecture; modern architecture.

adj archiˈtectural

Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary © 2006-2010 K Dictionaries Ltd.

architect →

Multilingual Translator © HarperCollins Publishers 2009

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/architect

One of the main objects of the Architects Act of Queensland is: imposing obligations on persons about the practice of architecture by establishing a Board of Architects to undertake this task along with the associated roles it has been allocated.

The question is: if the Board of Architects of Queensland is controlling ‘architects,’ is it controlling one who ‘plans, devises and creates’ things other than buildings – like the architect of war or economic reform, as exampled above? Why not? Where in the Act does it define an architect in relation to building or any related activity? A search of the Act reveals two uses of the word ‘building’ in the context of ‘building and construction’ – on page 48, section 82, parts (e) and (f). This section relates to the membership of the Board. One lawyer and one construction contractor ‘with at least 10 years experience in the building and construction industry’ shall be members of the Board. Even so, the further question is raised: what is ‘building industry’? Does this encompass theoretical ponderings or actual building design, documentation and supervision? The official CPD form asks for activities to be scheduled under four titles: ‘Design; Documentation; Project Mgmt.; Practice Mgmt.’ This suggests building activity to those involved in this industry, but why can this list not refer to the design, documentation, and management of a war, or an economy? How can this scheduling embody teaching, tutoring, research, as it seeks to do, if it is supposedly so intimately associated with ‘normal’ architectural office practice? What about theorising and writing that might not be too different an activity to the efforts of generals and bankers? Is it a useful set of headings?

The definitions in the Act seek to clarify the meaning of ‘architect’ and ‘architectural services.’ In the typical circular obscurification of dictionaries, the Act defines a practicing architect as one who carries out, or is responsible for the carrying out of, architectural services. It then notes that architectural services means services about architecture ordinarily provided by an architect. An architect means a person registered as an architect under this Act. The Act defines a practicing architect as one who carries out. . . etc.

Strangely the Board also has the task of controlling non-practicing architects. The Board must be satisfied that the applicant will not carry out, or be responsible for the carrying out of, architectural services. This is a tricky one to think through. If one seeks registration as a non-practicing architect and pays the annual fee for this privilege - apparently to use the label ‘architect’ - the obligation placed on this person is to never practice. Gosh, why pay to be policed to do nothing? One would be similarly regulated if one practiced without being registered - for no fee. The outcome would be much the same. Indeed, what stops one being an ‘architect’ in the ‘plan, devise, create’ sense that everyday language is allowed to engage us in? Perhaps one might call oneself a ‘creative’ architect in this sense, and qualify the word as ‘landscape architect’ does? Why not? ‘Building’ does not have any relationship with the definition of architect, only with two of those appointed to be members of the Board. So what is an architect?

This all begs a question: with our language using the word ‘architect’ more frequently in a variety of ways with the sense of one who ‘plans, devises and creates,’ has the time come for the Act to be more explicit, or for it to be abandoned? The word ‘architecture’ has similarly become a fashionable way to describe things that have a specific organization or inherent structure, e.g. the architecture of a computer or of a corporation/society - even of desire and doom. Why? A humble object - the body - can have an ‘architecture’ - and an ‘architect’? Gosh, Federal budgets have ‘chief architects,’ suggesting a hierarchy of architectural involvement. How does the Board decide when to draw the line on the use of the word ‘architect’? If I chose to label myself a ‘hair architect’ (hairdresser) or similar (one has), why is the Board so careless about this? What is this latent understanding that buildings are - have to be - involved? The definition in the Act sees practice as being ‘about architecture’ but this word has lost any direct or necessary link to building. Indeed, the specific reference to building is becoming the odd one out in our current usage, turning it into the anachronism that architects, as traditionally understood, seem to have become. Why not drop everything? If the Board sees one of its roles as ‘protecting the public,’ then surely it has the obligation to clarify the use of the word ‘architect’ and ‘architecture’ and insist on this? Its’ proclaimed role in educating would seem to mean that it should be doing more about the different use of these words in modern language.

But no. New usage is ignored and things are managed in much the same manner as they were one hundred years ago when an architect was an architect, and architecture had to do with building. While it might not have been clear just how this relationship could be adequately described to everyone’s satisfaction, (see Pevsner’s and Ruskin’s struggles), architecture in Victorian times meant something to do with a building or buildings. An architect was one who was involved in the, yes, design, documentation, project management and practice management of architecture. Today, things are far more complex, not only in language, but also within the practice of architecture itself and its associated fields that are accommodating an ever-broadening range of specific roles within the varieties of experience in offices and elsewhere.

The board makes more complications for itself by trying to include under the term ‘architect,’ those who teach, tutor, research, manage staff, act in legal cases, advise corporations and governments, and more, as well as controlling those who do get involved in aspects of what we traditionally understand as practice - and those who don’t. It seeks to treat all architects as one, irrespective of the task, skill or experience involved – a novice graduate; a skilled, experienced practitioner; a college lecturer in architecture. It is a troublesome task because each, apart from the non-practicing group, is asked to select a CPD programme, (without the Board giving accreditation to any provider or specific guidance to the ‘applicant’), as might be best suited to the tasks and roles undertaken by the separate individuals, with everything being assessed by the Board to allow it to offer the registration applied for.

This diversity is so great that it seems almost impossible to manage with one standard chart and a formal set of broad guidelines. Who will overview this? What happens if one fails to impress the adjudicator? Do it all again - and again? Punishment? Is there a right answer? Can there ever be? Deregistration? Well, that’s a big one. Will the Board deny one the right to work - to earn a living with one’s training and experience, just because of - what? Where are the processes made explicit? How are the requirements for this diversity defined? Just what is right when one is asked to make one’s own assessments? What is the point of checking any involvement when each set of criteria to guide choices will be different? Consider the mature architect and the recently registered youth; the theoretical researcher and the specification writer; the professor and the office project co-ordinator.

The whole concept looks very ill-considered and naïve. It seems to lack true substance. Think of the academic who seeks registration under the experience and activity of, say, lecturing, also being the same person who is able to give seminars to other members of the profession to allow them to gain hours for their CPD chart. There is something strange and irrational here - out of control; self-referencing in the ‘I’ll show you mine if you show me yours’ sense: ‘I’ll teach/test you if you, or your mates, test/teach me.’

It would seem that to make sense of the idea, the whole concept of CPD should either be dropped or be taken over by the Board to take true responsibility for the profession and education by carefully organising, managing and promoting the sessions for required registration for the diversity that is this profession. Without such rigour, the whole affair is likely to fall into the language game that the word ‘architect’ seems to find itself in. Who will know what, when, where or how about any activity when it seeks to cover such a scope of interest? Who will be the architect of this strategy? Who has been?

But the Architects Act is far more forgiving in its guidelines for renewal registration than this blind drive for CPD recording suggests. Why has it been interpreted in such a restricted manner? Look at the detail. The renewal section, Division 4, Section 16, part (2) spells out:

The requirements (for continuing registration) may include requirements about the following:

(a)   the nature, extent and period of practice of architecture by the applicant;

(b)   the nature and extent of continuing professional development to be undertaken by the applicant;

(c)    the nature and extent of research, study or teaching, relating to architecture, to be undertaken the applicant;

(d)   the nature and extent of administrative work, relating to architecture, to be performed the applicant.

This is followed by part (3) which strangely reads like a summary out of context:

The requirements are satisfied by complying with the board’s continuing registration requirements for architecture.

It is pointed out that these are available on the board’s ‘website on the internet’ (where else?): www.boaq.qld.gov.au

Part (3) is indeed a puzzle, because it suddenly states, quiet bluntly, what the specific requirements for registration are, in spite of the four items listed in part (2) as (a), (b), (c), and (d). A re-reading of the published ‘requirements that may be included,’ seems to indicate that an emphasis has been placed on (b), with the demand that 20 hours of specific types of CPD involvement be formally recorded, with some suggestion that an academic involvement, as noted in (c), would be acceptable too, but without defining just how this might be measured. The requirements noted as (a) and (d) do not seem to have been given any recognition in the guidelines published on the internet.

The relevance and significance of the ‘nature, extent and period of practice’ is easy to understand. Its importance is self-evident. Just why this is not identified as having any role in the renewal of registration is an enigma. It is as much a puzzle as item (d) is. A quick check of the dictionary at the end of the Act gives no definition for ‘administrative work.’ What is this? Office filing? The guidelines do not make the concept any clearer, or give it any particular relevance. By ignoring both (a) and (d), large schisms are created in the requirements and processes spelt out for registration renewal that a simple review makes so obvious. ‘Architect’ is a term given to a very broad range of skills and experience within the building and construction industry and outside of it, and to a variety of meanings in numerous different contexts in our ordinary use of language. Seeking to manage registration renewal in such a limited, mechanistic, rational and ill-defined manner - by merely trying to measure CPD activity - can only create problems. Some will be linguistic matters, but others will occur because of the inherent specialisation of the interpretation of the Architects Act and the selectively narrow approach it has defined as being relevant to the renewal of registration. The Board of Architects should do better than this. After all, it is the body that should know who or what is an architect. It should be able to express itself unambiguously on this matter if it is to remain relevant and this must recognise the miscellany that architects and architecture have come to include - or perhaps it should go?

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." (Sign hanging in Einstein's office at Princeton)

8 JULY 2014
See also:

http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/the-architecture-of-architecture.html  

 and

http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/cell-architecture.html  
and

http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/architect-of.html  

WHAT DOES A NON-PRACTISING ARCHITECT DO?

It is that time of year again - renewal of registration for architects. In Queensland, Australia, this is an annual event with an annual fee. Just how this fee is spent, and on what, is never made clear. Is it just wasted on administration? Hopefully it is not spent on the travel, accommodation and restaurants that some other professional body fees seem to fund. Yet again the terrible graphics have arrived.* Does anyone care?

Why does a body that is supposedly interested in design, in policing the quality and performance of the profession, have this terrible presentation: such awful graphics; such a crude logo? This identity, the Board’s image, is truly astounding and does beg the question concerning any serious commitment that this body has to quality. It really should set the example for all. Is CPD merely an administrative game to keep some bureaucrats employed? Is this where the fees go? Is there really any point?

After perusing the messy forms, the one title that sticks in the mind is: ‘Non-Practising Architect.’ Here one is asked somewhat cryptically to ‘Tick to choose non-practising’ in order to formalise this status with the statement: ‘I declare that I will not practise as an architect in Queensland.’ What does a non-practising architect do after paying a fee to be policed by the State? Nothing? If one were not practising, why would one ever choose to pay to be put under the scrutiny of the Board of Architects? What might be the penalty if one did practise after declaring one would not? Removal of registration as a non-practising architect would hardly seem to be a punishment. This strange category seems to have been created so that a person who holds an architectural degree can use the word ‘architect’ as a label even when not practising. Is this so?

There is not only a silly irony here, there is also the serious question about what a non-practising architect might do or not do within the rules of this grouping. This can perhaps be phrased differently: What does a practising architect do? One might assume the answer to this last question would give the list of activities that a non-practising architect should not get involved in. But is this so? The doubt about what a non-practising architect might be allowed to do is not resolved with a simple or a straightforward answer. These matters have been discussed previously.* There is a real complication with managing the activities of the architectural profession as it is so diverse in its specialisations. These divisions not only exist in a practice: manager, detailers, designers, specification writers, CAD specialists, etc.; but also in other activities that architects undertake: court cases where expert opinions are sought, education, and writing about architecture as theoretician or critic, and more. The profession is broad in its interests and expertise: such is its delight.

This depth of involvement makes CPD an extremely difficult concept to define. What might be useful for one could be totally useless for another. If it is difficult to explain what an architect does, it is just as perplexing to schedule what a non-practising architect does not do - indeed, should not do! How is it possible to police an individual when there is no list of matters available to indicate what a person who is a self-declared non-practising architect might not get involved in? Is one asked to register to do nothing, and pay for this privilege, just to be able to use the word ‘architect’ on one’s letterhead for some sense of prestige, if there is any left in this profession? This attempt to manage the use of the word ‘architect’ appears to be silly when one knows how the word ‘architect’ is bandied around meaninglessly in our language, e.g. the architect of … .* Then there are the qualifications that seem to hold no restrictions: e.g. ‘Landscape Architect;’ even 'Hair Architect.’ The usage generates no murmurs or stirrings within the Board.

What is it that this Board seeks to control? I have seen no clear or useful statement to clearly indicate just what might be involved in the idea of registration and CPD for the profession today. If this information cannot be made unambiguously specific, then what is the point? There seems to be no point if this control is only to protect the use of the word ‘architect’ when it is used by all and sundry in various different ways without challenge. If the purpose of this regulation can be made clear and precise, then why has it not been? The whole affair appears to hold that strange sense of: other professions are doing this sort of thing, so architects might as well do it too.

A friend in the UK is an accountant. He has to undertake regular CPD, but his registration is international, not merely for the UK, or for a small area of the UK. Here in Queensland, registration is State specific. It is simply parochial. It looks like it is inept. Why have it? Is it to ensure the quality of outcomes - perhaps of practitioners? Is it to protect the public from charlatans? Is it possible to do this with a set of boxes that have to be ticked? A quick look around the State does not give one confidence that the Board has done very much with regard to outcomes.

Considering the breadth of the interests in the architectural profession, how is one to ensure that each interest is being usefully enhanced by any extra CPD activity? Who is going to gauge this? Who has the breadth of knowledge and understanding that can assess another’s expertise, and the gaps in it? Then, of course, as has been previously discussed,* there is the matter of maturity. My UK friend says that the accountants’ registration office in Britain has a category for mature practitioners who are not asked to undertake the activities that a newcomer to the profession might be told to engage in; and these accountants are not asked to declare themselves as ‘non-practising’ either. In Queensland things are different. It seems everyone has to go to silly sessions even if they might know more than the presenter, just for the points - and at a good cost too - all because of the rules. It looks as though the Board has established a new business for those who might choose to exploit the position.

In all of this chaos and mess, what is one to do? Given that one is responsible for one’s own CPD and that one knows what one might need to improve, to complete or to expand one’s interests, or depth of understanding, one can then surely assess one’s own involvement and honestly tick the box to indicate that CPD requirements have been fulfilled. How else might CPD be useful? What happens if the second box that declares that one has not completed the requirements is ticked: ‘I have not completed the minimum 20 hours CPD between 1 April   etc.’? Is one examined to see if the activity that one has been involved in is or has been useful or relevant? By whom? Who could tell? The issues are not clear or certain at all, especially when the Board does not accredit any point-accumulating CPD activity.

Then there is the threat of deregistration if one makes a ‘false’ declaration: ‘the Board may cancel an architect’s registration . . .’. This might have some impact on a practising architect, but one can still declare one’s qualifications, e.g ‘Bachelor of Architecture’ and write it as Bachelor of ARCHITECTure. It is no worse than the Board’s own graphic! Or one might call oneself a ‘Design Architect’? Why would this be different to ‘Landscape Architect’? One might promote oneself as ‘The Architect of Desires - bringing dreams to life as buildings’! Why would this be a problem when ‘architect’ is used so wildly willy-nilly, and when the matter of what an architect does is so difficult to define?*

It is all a messy situation; and still one does not know what a non-practising architect has to do, or not do. Is it really possible to police an architect when the profession includes such diversity? Is it useful? Is a Board of Architects really necessary? What are the benefits for the profession and for the public in having a Board when matters are so vague and indiscriminate; and when the Board’s graphics set such a terribly poor example for all.

If the Board is seeking more recognition and respect, then it has to do much more for the profession than check to see if the boxes have been ticked.

*See:

http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/who-or-what-is-architect.html

http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/cpd-experience.html

http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/normal-0-is-asquality-in-graphics-that.html

http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/carbon-1.html

P.S.

Why does the logo for the Board’s new graphic not appear on the Board of Architects of Queensland site: www.boaq.qld.gov.au/ ?

 

 NOTE:

For an example of the random use of the term 'architect' see the following report from The Australian 29 May 2013 that begins with: 'The architect of the dawn service site at Gallipoli . .  '

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/the-consultants-who-determined-the-10500-limit-did-not-visit-turkey/story-e6frg8yo-1226652561454     

Is the Board concerned?

19th April 2014

Yet another astonishing use of the word 'architect': 

CIA torture architect breaks silence to defend 'enhanced interrogation'

see:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/18/cia-torture-architect-enhanced-interrogation

8 JULY 2014
See also:

http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/the-architecture-of-architecture.html  

 and

http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/cell-architecture.html  

23 September 2014
Earlier this week there was yet another astonishing adaptation of the word 'architect'. The television report spoke of a past prime minister: "Menzies was the architect of Australia." One will have to stop collecting these usages, as they are becoming just too familiar and diverse. The point has been made.

13 MARCH 2015
Just two more found jotted down from 30 June 2014, for the record:
" . . . come back with an architecture and see if it works" -  Kevin Andrews speaking about disability welfare on ABC 7:30 Report.
He later explained: "He'll come back with an architecture - proposals to restructure the system."
Later on in the evening, more:
" . . . the architects of the Nazi holocaust." ABC Media Watch.

29 MAY 2017
Yet another! Will it ever stop?
ABC News on-line:
The architect of the  deadly Lindt Cafe siege had a long and documented history of dangerous behaviour. 
The quote is referring to the gunman Man Haron Monis. The use of 'architect' in this context does nothing but disrupt any clear understanding of what an architect might be or do.

3 JULY 2026

One keeps on seeing different uses of the word, architect. The most surprising context is one seen today: wealth architect. It is a terrible play on the job title, financial planner, having something of the characteristics that one sees in American euphemisms that, e.g., call ‘layoffs,’ downsizing; ‘going broke,’ revenue shortfall; and ‘a disaster,’ aggressive corrective action. This fumbling with the word architect highlights its random, ad hoc use that seems to want to glean some prestige from this categorisation. The BOAQ seems not to be bothered with this sloppiness in our language, while it seeks to rigorously control the professional use of this term. It seems to be a hopeless task that is quickly losing its relevance.

RENEWAL OF REGISTRATION: TO REITERATE

I had promised to forward the reference to a colleague, but it was easier to go back to the source than find the blog again. Given this, it seems timely to reiterate the point: that the Board of Architects of Queensland does have the authority to take one’s experience in the profession into account when it is considering renewal of registration, but it apparently chooses not to. Why? Why not recognise ‘the wisdom of the seniors’ instead of treating them as fumbling novices and demented fools - nostalgic old-timers who stubbornly still want to be called an 'architect'? The reference comes from the Architects Act 2002 Queensland Legislation:

16 Meaning of continuing registration requirements

(1)Continuing registration requirements are requirements of the board that, if satisfied, demonstrate that an applicant for renewal or restoration of registration has maintained competency in the practice of architecture.

(2)The requirements may include requirements about the following—

(a)the nature, extent and period of practice of architecture by the applicant;

(b)the nature and extent of continuing professional development to be undertaken by the applicant;

(c)the nature and extent of research, study or teaching, relating to architecture, to be undertaken by the applicant;

(d)the nature and extent of administrative work, relating to architecture, to be performed by the applicant.

(3)The requirements are satisfied by complying with the board’s continuing registration requirements for architecture.

(4)The board must—

(a)keep published the board’s continuing registration requirements on the board’s website; and

(b)keep the requirements available for inspection, without charge, during normal business hours at the board’s office; and

(c)if asked by a person and on payment of the fee, if any, prescribed under a regulation, give the person a copy of the requirements.

 

 

Like most legal documents, the language becomes both puzzlingly critical for understanding precise meanings, and stubbornly tedious for simple, ordinary communication. So one gets ‘requirements may include requirements about’ and ‘requirements are satisfied by complying with the board’s continuing registration requirements,’ emphasising that ‘requirements’ are ‘requirements.’ This seems to be important.

It is requirement (a) that gives the Board the authority to consider the applicant’s experience in the profession: ‘the nature, extent and period of practice of architecture by the applicant’ – if it so chooses. The wording is ‘may include.’ It is clear that the Board cares nothing about this requirement, but is keen to concentrate on requirement (b): ‘the nature and extent of continuing professional development to be undertaken by the applicant.’ This apparently is a more tangible category; perhaps easier to define. Is it better for ticking boxes and checking.

Requirement (c) is interesting: ‘ the nature and extent of research, study or teaching, relating to architecture, to be undertaken by the applicant.’ One assumes that this clause has been included to assist academic staff who do not practice, providing a possible path for registration without the tasks of CPD.

Requirement (d) is puzzling: ‘the nature and extent of administrative work, relating to architecture, to be performed by the applicant.’ What is ‘administrative work’? Filing? This seems to be a bit of an ‘include everything possible’ clause.

Out of all of these four ‘requirements,’ the Board seems to focus only on CPD – (b). Indeed, it has published a detailed paper on this requirement. There are no similar explanatory papers on any of the other requirements, thus putting them to one side, almost as an irrelevance.

But are things as clear as they need to be? In (b), (c), and (d), the words ‘to be’ read oddly, and seem to suggest that the applicant might only intend to undertake ‘research, study or teaching,’ ‘continuing professional development,’ and/or ‘administrative work’: ‘to be undertaken/performed’ seems to point to a future, as a proposal - ‘yet to be?’ - rather than refer to a recorded past, where ‘has been undertaken/performed’ might more firmly identify completed requirements that can be appropriately submitted and assessed for renewal of registration as an audit might require. Does one have to assume that the intention is that the words be read as ‘that has to be’? One should not have to try to work out what an Act is saying, or not saying; but the legal mind does exist in world of its own, and always knows best.

Clause (3) seems to allow the Board to structure its own vision for renewal of registration; ‘(3)The requirements are satisfied by complying with the board’s continuing registration requirements for architecture.’ So it appears that the Board defines what it wants; the Act defines what it ‘may’ include; ‘may’ choose to choose. (4a) explains how: ‘(a)keep published the board’s continuing registration requirements on the board’s website.’ So the Board’s CPD paper is the document that counts, and nothing else?

What one has to wonder is: does this published set of requirements define the only requirements that the Board can consider, even though the Act allows it to include much more than CPD – (b)?

The Board needs to think carefully about this, because the current circumstances with CPD make no consideration for experience, leaving the 50-year registered architect having to perform the same point accumulation courses as the 5-year registered colleague, irrespective of content. Everything seems to revolve around the accumulation of points – 20 total: 10 formal/10 informal. The Board’s text explains these and the process involved; but the Board does make clear that it is not going to accredit or approve any courses or presenters, leaving each applicant to work out a course of attendances or otherwise that might be the most appropriate for this individual at this time in his/her career. This seems sensible, perhaps an attempt to accommodate difference in interests, (c) and (d), and experience, (a); but one is left wondering just how the Board can determine any ‘appropriateness’ or otherwise, given the acceptance of this broad, seemingly inclusive ‘personal approach’ strategy.

Looming in the background of this general approach to CPD is the question of points: who determines where these apply; how; and in what quantity once the personal choices have been determined? One attendance or activity might be three to one person, but one half to another who has no interest in it: who is to know? Are the points more important than the experience? The Board's explanatory paper makes the CPD arrangements sound so ordered and precise, but there are difficulties in its implementation that reach wide voids of the unknown in spite of this apparent certainty.

The role of (a), (c) and (d) still lingers. Can experience be put forward as a point-scoring activity? Academics appear to be able to claim their work - ‘research, study or teaching’ – as relevant ‘architectural’ activities, so why not practising architects with either an ‘extent and period of practice of architecture,’ or ‘administrative work’? With the Board refusing to define or be involved in the content of the activities required for CPD, other than 'formal' and 'informal,' it seems hard to believe that, with the option in the Act to let the Board include these considerations for registration renewal, ‘may include,’ that the Board might ever consider excluding them as matters of relevance for the renewal of registration when the personal choices from individual assessments include these. It makes no sense for the Board to start limiting options in things personally relevant.

The issue of the academic who does not practice is intriguing as the Board has created two levels of renewed registration: a practising architect; and a non-practising architect.

9 Eligibility

(1)An applicant for registration is eligible for registration only if—

(a)the applicant is qualified, under section 10, for registration; and

(b)the board considers the applicant is fit to practise as an architect.

(2)Also, an applicant for registration as a non-practising architect is eligible for registration only if the board is satisfied that the applicant will not carry out, or be responsible for the carrying out of, architectural services within the registration period to which the application for registration relates.

 

The complication here is that a non-practising architect, an academic, e.g., can be a registered practising architect. One supposes that there is nothing forcing a practising architect from not practising, other than the accumulation of CPD points. It is the strange category of non-practising architect that gives the Board control over the enforcement of anyone ‘non-practising,’ where CPD points are not needed.

Not needed

This raises the matter of what an architect does in practise, and, by definition, not do in non-practise. One assumes that the requirements for registration that the Board ‘may include,’ actually encompass the broad scope of an architect’s practice: ‘nature, extent and period of practice of architecture; nature and extent of continuing professional development; nature and extent of research, study or teaching; and the nature and extent of administrative work, relating to architecture.’

Does this mean that a non-practising architect is not able to be involved in any nature or extent of practice; in any study, research, or teaching; or do any, e.g., filing or ‘architectural’ administrative work? This seems very strange and limits any useful involvement a senior or any other who might choose not to practise, might have in their profession. This applicant is allowed to be an ‘architect,’ but is apparently then cut off from everything ‘architectural.’ What is allowed? Where are the limits? How is the Board supervising this - only in default, by trial and error? It seems a sad state of limbo for anyone who values being an architect to accept. Why doesn’t the Board just simplify things and maintain some pride and relevance in the profession by including all the requirements that those who wrote the Act thought relevant for renewal of registration? Then the broad spectrum of things ‘architectural’ might be able to truly be embodied in the skills and interests of those who call themselves ‘architects’ without any uneasy apology, awkward embarrassment, or stumbling explanation for this professional apartheid.

This ‘non-practising’ is a very strange category that has been created for what appear misguided reasons that seem to have not been thought through. The ambition looks to be that the individual - the applicant – can continue to be called an ‘architect,’ ironically when he/she is not one, and not allowed to be one, or get close to anything ‘architectural’ – or be one that is allowed to practise. With all of this hoo-ha with the precise use of the term, ‘architect,’ in the Act, one has to wonder why the Board is not alarmed with the popularisation of the use of the term in general language, where it has come to mean anything but ‘architect,’ as the Board would like to see one defined; strangely, this is:

‘architect means a person registered as an architect under this Act’ – a hollow, circular ‘definition’ that lacks all definition, because, as it currently stands, this excludes all those in (a), (c), and (d) who do not choose to be in (b). It makes a pretty poor framework for any definition, and only adds authority to the essential role of CPD: only those with proper points can be registered as an ‘architect.’ The proposition is that, without CPD, one is not an architect, but can be a ‘non-practising architect’ – a ‘non-architect’ architect. This seems very foolish considering that no one is managing CPD, leaving the profession in willy-nilly territory, a strange, professional no-man’s-land.

The argument to include all requirements, (a), (b), (c), and (d), in a fertile and rich definition of ‘architect’ is only enhanced - made more essential in a world currently engrossed with the accumulation of points, however, whenever, just because the Board wants it this way. One might suppose that this limited interpretation of ‘architect’ - a person registered as an architect under this Act - and the required requirements for registration and its renewal, makes it easy for the ‘school teachers’ to mark the submissions in their audits. This seems a very poor excuse if this is so, where the cart is leading the horse in circles, going nowhere, but still certain of its path.

Why does anyone bother? The answer to this is: just because the Board wants it this way. Knowing what is really going on in the 'game' of points accumulation makes the whole of CPD, and therefore the profession itself, by the Board’s own definition, a farce.

P.S.

The Google Dictionary, that uses OxfordLanguages as its source, defines architect as:

architect

/ˈɑːkɪtɛkt/

noun

1. 1.

   a person who designs buildings and in many cases also supervises their construction.

   "the great Norman architect of Durham Cathedral"

   Similar:

   designer

2. planner

3. builder

4. building consultant

   draughtsman

   COMPUTING

   a person who designs hardware, software, or networking applications and services of a specified type for a business or other organization.

   "we are seeking an experienced software architect to join our scientific computing team"

verb

COMPUTING

1. design and configure (a program or system).

   "few software packages were architected with Ethernet access in mind"

   The interesting observation here is that architect is both a noun and a verb. It is something that the Board needs to address because modern language has transformed the meaning, making the Act either anachronistic or just very specialised in its extremely narrow-minded definition. Maybe this reflects the way that architects have become misunderstood, bespoke specialists today?