Image: Archinect

When is an architect not an ‘architect?’ In the fourth part of Archinect In-Depth: Licensure, we explore the proliferation of the title 'architect' in cases beyond the built environment, most notably in the technology sector through terms such as 'software architect' or 'IT architect.' Are such titles legal? Who has responsibility for monitoring their use or misuse? What does their use say about the value of architect the noun versus architect the title?

As the second article in our ongoing Archinect In-Depth: Licensure series explored, the title ‘architect’ has been protected through legislation in the United States for over 100 years. To present yourself as an architect without first obtaining the necessary license for doing so is a violation of state laws across the US, as architecture students and graduates are often warned.

Stepping outside the profession, however, we see that the title ‘architect’ has long been appropriated beyond this core context. In the political arena, Henry Kissinger is commonly referred to as an ‘architect of US foreign policy,’ while George W. Bush nicknamed his electoral strategist Karl Rove 'The Architect.' Historians refer to toppled leaders as being the ‘architects of their own downfall’ while self-help gurus remind us all that we are the ‘architects of our own destiny.’

Nobody would think of accusing Kissinger, Rove, or their commentators of misusing the title ‘architect’ in this fashion. In the information and technology sectors, however, our topic evokes stronger reactions.

For decades, the title ‘architect’ has been used by individuals in the fields of information and technology to describe their roles. Followers of our previous Archinect In-Depth: Artificial Intelligence series, for example, will be familiar with the architect and TED founder Richard Saul Wurman, who coined the field ‘Information Architecture’ as the latter half of the 20th century saw an explosion in humankind’s ability to generate, collect, and access information and data. Wurman further published a book titled Information Architects in 1996, offering definitions for the title 'information architect' as: “the individual who organizes the patterns inherent in data, making the complex clear,” “a person who creates the structure or map of information which allows others to find their personal paths to knowledge,” and “the emerging 21st-century professional occupation addressing the needs of the age focused upon clarity, human understanding and the science of the organization of information.”

In the decades since, the title ‘architect’ has only proliferated across the information and technology sector. Today, the sector is awash with titles following the formula of ‘an X architect’ be it an IT architect, software architect, systems architect, domain architect, enterprise architect, security architect, solutions architect, applications architect, process architect, and so on. Depending on the organization or sub-sector, each title will come with its own job description. As a generalization, however, these positions are largely responsible for the design of software tools, platforms, and their associated hardware, commonly tasked with designing software solutions, developing technical standards, troubleshooting, and coordinating subcomponents within a larger system.

If you step outside targeted AEC job boards such as Archinect Jobs, the prevalence of the term ‘architect’ in the IT ecosystem becomes clear. On LinkedIn, a search for ‘IT architect’ returns over 11,000 results, while Indeed returns over 5000. At the time of writing, in June 2024, OpenAI is recruiting several ‘Solutions Architects’ in San Francisco, as is Amazon in Seattle. The State of Utah is recruiting an ‘IT Architect’ while First Citizens Bank is recruiting an ‘Infrastructure Architect’. The trend is also visible in companies familiar to the licensed architect. Adobe, for example, is currently hiring a ‘Systems Design Architect’ in Austin, while Autodesk’s open roles include a ‘Software Architect’ in San Francisco and both a ‘Security Architect’ and ‘Authorization Platform Architect’ in Portland.

Responsibility for protecting the title falls to the various state architecture/professional boards, who are charged with enforcing the laws passed by legislators across each individual state.

Architects (the AEC ones) are not happy. On the Archinect Forum, threads on the use of the title by the IT industry often evoke substantial debate and discussion. One thread, whose title ‘Architect - Whose name is it anyway?’ inspired this article’s own title, amassed 46 comments. Another, named ‘Title of Architect - Reclaiming it and protecting it’ has amassed 76 comments. An earlier article in the Archinect In-Depth: Licensure series, meanwhile, spawned a debate on the topic in the comments section.

Specific complaints and objections vary depending on the commentator. Some architects believe that those in the information and technology industry who use the title ‘architect’ in their job title are breaking the law. Others believe that such use is technically legal, but undermines the value of the core architecture profession, confuses the public on what an ‘architect’ is, and even confuses fellow architects when reading job adverts and salary ranges. When it comes to allocating blame, meanwhile, we see similar variations. Some blame NCARB while others blame state licensing boards. Some blame the AIA while others blame the tech industry itself.

Some of these concerns are easier to address than others. As our previous article established, protection of the title ‘architect’ is born out of state-by-state legislation. Neither the AIA nor NCARB have responsibility for enforcing such protection. Instead, responsibility for protecting the title falls to the various state architecture/professional boards, who are charged with enforcing the laws passed by legislators across each individual state. If an individual in California seeks to report another for misusing the title ‘architect,’ for example, it is the California Architects Board who will receive and process the complaint, before deciding whether or not to take action on behalf of the State of California.

This is not to say that NCARB does not also weigh in on the situation. NCARB’s Board of Directors reserves the right to take disciplinary action against an individual independent of state licensing boards if NCARB deems the individual to have engaged in “violation of NCARB’s standards of professional conduct, including the ARE Candidate Agreement.” NCARB maintains a public record of the individuals they have reprimanded which, as of June 2024, contains nine individuals, all of whom have been deemed to have violated the ARE Candidate Agreement. However, the list does not include details on whether the misconduct is related to a misuse of title or an unrelated violation.

To investigate whether or not titles such as ‘software architect’ are indeed a violation of state laws on the protection of title, I wrote to all 55 licensing jurisdictions across the United States, namely each of the 50 US states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands.

The same question was sent to each: “In the state of [X], does the protection of use of the title ‘architect’ extend beyond matters of the design and construction of buildings? For example, would the board feel entitled to take action against an individual working on the design of software who labels themselves a ‘software architect’, ‘IT architect’, or ‘Information Architect’, labels which are common in the technology sector?”

The consensus among NCARB, the ARB, the state boards who directly addressed our question, and our reading of the statutes that other states referred us to, is that the technology sector’s use of titles such as ‘software architect’ does not breach laws protecting the title ‘architect.’

As of June 2024, 28 jurisdictions have responded. Of those, 14 referred me to their state’s statutes without directly answering the question in an affirming or dissenting manner, with some noting that their board was unable to provide an opinion or legal advisory on the statutes. Of the remaining 14 boards, 13 told me that the protection of title did not extend beyond the design and construction of buildings and that they would not feel entitled to take action against holders of titles such as ‘software architect.’ One final board told me they recommend a software architect instead be called a software designer, but that their board "has the authority to grant exceptions."

While the protection of title is primarily a matter for each individual jurisdiction, I also asked NCARB for its view on the proliferation of the title ‘architect’ beyond the AEC industry, including whether such use posed a danger of undermining the profession or, conversely, if NCARB believed the title’s use in the IT sector was recognizably different from its use in the AEC sector in the eyes of the public.

“While I know it remains an irritant to some that the use of the term architect is being applied in all types of contexts, there is no legal violation unless it misleads the public,” NCARB CEO Michael Armstrong told me in response. “An IT architect is clearly not a building designer, nor is the architect of a political campaign or any other similar reference. Basically, the word is in the public domain; holding oneself out as an architect who designs buildings, when unlicensed, is illegal and can be prosecuted by jurisdictional officials.”

As an aside, the position adopted by the state boards and NCARB aligns with that taken by the Architects Registration Board (ARB) in the United Kingdom, where the title ‘architect’ is also protected by law. “The term ‘architect’ is sometimes used in a way that is unconnected with the built environment, for example ‘software architect’ is increasingly used within the IT industry,” ARB notes on its website. “Given the effort it takes to earn the right to use the title, we can understand why its use by any unregistered individual can cause concern.  When investigating title misuse, we consider the likely degree of harm as well as the likelihood of the public being misled. We prioritize our resources and aim to take proportionate action so the greatest harm is tackled most robustly.”

“Misusing the title in connection to the built environment and architectural services is a high risk,” ARB adds. “However the Act acknowledges there are uses of the term that would not constitute a breach (‘naval architect’, ‘landscape architect’ and ‘golf-course architect’), and experience tells us most people are unlikely to be misled by the use of the title in a purely IT or financial context.  Nonetheless, we consider every case on its own merits and should, for example, an ‘IT architect’ offer CAD services we would consider action.”

The consensus among NCARB, the ARB, the state boards who directly addressed our question, and our reading of the statutes that other states referred us to, is that the technology sector’s use of titles such as ‘software architect’ does not breach laws protecting the title ‘architect.’ To understand this dynamic, there is merit in reflecting once again on the history of how such protection emerged. When states enacted statutes protecting the title ‘architect’ their stated aim was to protect the health and safety of the public through ensuring that the act of architecture was performed by competent persons. It is through this lens that state legislators carefully define the terms ‘architect’ and ‘practice of architecture,’ and through which state architecture boards assess whether an individual using the word ‘architect’ in their job title runs the risk of undermining public health and safety through building design.

As the laws are currently written, state boards do not appear convinced that such laws permit them to enforce the protection of title in a context beyond the design and construction of the built environment and into realms such as finance, technology, or the organization of information.

While the wording of statutes inevitably varies across states, the general consensus is this: an individual representing themselves to the public as an architect for the purpose of advertising their qualification to design and oversee the construction of a building must hold a license to do so. Beyond this specific arena of the design and construction of the built environment, a person will not be reprimanded by the state if their use of the word ‘architect’ does not risk misleading the public into believing that they are a licensed architect in the context of the built environment.

Ultimately, the question of whether or not someone violates this law is in the hands of the legal system, interpreting laws written and voted upon not by the AIA, NCARB, or state boards, but by state legislators. As the laws are currently written, state boards do not appear convinced that such laws permit them to enforce the protection of title in a context beyond the design and construction of the built environment and into realms such as finance, technology, or the organization of information.

Would such energy be better spent articulating a value for the profession that stretches beyond the possessive use of a title that is gradually slipping away from its grasp?

Since the first laws protecting the title ‘architect’ were passed in Illinois in 1897, the value of the word itself has undergone somewhat of a divergence. Practicioners then and now feel that the value of the title ‘architect’ is in a state of decline, bemoaning displacement by contractors and paraprofessionals on one side, and lower fees from clients on the other. However, the value of the noun ‘architect,’ the abstracted individual who “designs and guides a plan or undertaking,” only appears to have increased in a world of ever-more-complex systems, in need of ever-more-coordinated design, be it information, data, finance, politics, or software platforms. 

Licensed architects calling for the protection of their title to extend beyond the built environment to encompass the technology industry therefore must reason with the uncomfortable reality that, by dollar value, their ‘software architect’ adversaries have the upper hand. Would such energy be better spent articulating a value for the profession that stretches beyond the possessive use of a title that is gradually slipping away from its grasp?

A note to readers: in addition to debate over the use of the title ‘architect’ beyond the AEC industry, a tangential debate exists within the architecture community on the use of ‘architect-adjacent’ words such as ‘architectural designer’ and ‘intern architect.’ This topic will be addressed at a later date in ‘Archinect In-Depth: Licensure.’ In the meantime, let us know your thoughts on both topics in the comments section below.