New link works, I see.

In my experience, there are two types of firms: those that are on the cutting edge technologically and may or may not be design-wise that continually require the newest software, and those that do not and possibly do not even care. The choice an aspiring architect has is 1) to continually keep themselves up to date with the latest software in order to acquire/ maintain employment with the cutting-edge firm. I imagine this is the type of firm most of us originally aspired to work for. However, staying uber-current is an incredible headache and makes you even wonder if it's all worth it in the end. 2) The other choice is to admit to yourself you don't have the desire to constantly and continually be learning new complicated software and accept a position with a firm that doesn't care/ have the financial ability to keep up with software trends and, for lack of a better way to put it, is probably more mediocre, more behind-the-times and, unfortunately, often less concerned about design, the matter you wanted to concern yourself with in the first place which is why you didn't want to ravel yourself up in constantly having to learn new software and therefore didn't pursue job #1 in the first place. It's a catch-22.

Some of the problems I have with this architectural reality is, it is virtually impossible to jump from a career in the 2nd option to the 1st, as anything more than a project manager-type anyway, unless you are very skilled and lightning-quick with hand drawings. Not only do you not have the capability in the software company #1 uses, you likely don't have the portfolio. Another problem I have is, especially in times of recession like now, the only jobs available are for people well-versed in the latest software, regardless of whether they have the slightest idea how a building goes together. The only need to hire is lack of knowledge in current employees about the latest software. It's a good way for current graduates to embark on a career and gain some construction knowledge. But it also creates a degree of obsolescence for those already a decade in, despite how much more construction knowledge they may have. Think about it. Where are all the 30-50 year olds? I think the above has a large degree to do with it.

Here's a novel thought - how about a design professional who both understands how a building goes together and can document that knowledge with contemporary software.

Architecture's always been about conveying smart decisions - both design and technical - to the building trades in a manner that allows them to implement the project effectively and efficiently.

This is not an "either / or" proposition.

Although many offices seem to require in their job ads some degree of cad or bim platform knowledge of applicants, in reality I think that is really secondary to some positions...

It depends what kind of position you are applying to... If it is a "project architect" position (responsible for producing documents) obviously you need to be able to draw in the software the firm uses... On the other hand, a "project manager" would benefit from a different set of software, things like Microsoft project... And experience managing projects... A "project designer" likewise doesn't really ever pick up cad at all maybe... They might benefit from Photoshop skills, 3d rendering, hand rendering, etc. Being able to communicate visually... I think depending what you want to do, your portfolio and resume should look different... As a pm type, your portfolio might be more finished project photos, and a long project and client list that blows the employer away... Or the guy seeking a more marketing position might list their accomplishments winning jobs, include more presentation graphics which communicate the vision, etc. Or even sales points, presentations... Keep in mind, even the rainmaker can point at outsourced 3D renderings or graphics that were done by the intern working for them... I think the point is to know how you are building your brand as a job seeker and positioning your application package to suit... Have a project list and articulate the roles and responsibilities you carried on that project... Firms also care about "team player", so articulating what your role on a larger team was is valuable I think... Give credit to your teammates and even project photographers, clients, etc. rather than being ambiguous about what you did on a project...

stone, this may not be an either/or profession, and i totally agree with you on that point, but it would seem those in with the power to hire know that too and don't care. they know they can get split the pair and pay more cheaply, a divide and conquer strategy.

now, having said that, it would seem, that in this market, when our economy is not robust - read not building much - that those with design, software, marketing talents would be in high demand. while those with the ability to assemble contract documents would be a low demand.

from what I gather the first people to get laid off were the people with the design/software skills while firms mostly kept the people who could administer a contract. I'm thinking that maybe it's because that during a recession the type of work that is available places a much higher premium on management and construction knowledge than on design.

it's unfortunate, but I know when I was looking for work a couple years ago no one seemed to care about the competitions I've helped win or my published design work - just that I had CD/CA experience on certain project types.

Doing cad and knowing different software packages DOES NOT design make. Being the cad guy/guru is great when you start out in this field, in fact it is needed knowledge. But you need to have moved up the ladder. As quickly as possible. Being the cad guy after 10 years makes you a drafstman. Why were the cad guys the first to go? Guess what? The people who came before you, and moved up the ladder, also know enough about cad/revit/bim so on and so forth to maintain their own job function and perform the cad guys as well. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

i tend to agree with stone. those that have survived at our firm have knowledge and experience in both design and construction. the key to surviving this recession is the ability to stay billable. if you have skills that allow you to transition seamlessly between ca to design, you have much more flexibility in your assignments. work is so sparse these days that firms need people who can detail an ada compliant ramp then move on to create that 3d model to help win that next proposal. which is not to over-emphasize the importance of specific software. it's not about learning revit or rhino or the software du jour; it's about having a familiarity and comfort with these tools to allow you to do your job whether that is in design or construction.

I don't necessarily agree, On the fence. The CAD guys are the first to go simply because there are so many more of them, whereas there typically may be only 1 project architect position that can't be eliminated unless you also eliminate every single CADmonkey that's below that PA. And there are so many fewer positions at the top, not every draftsman is going to get promoted and many may not even survive in this field. Actually, only a limited number will.

I don't necessarily agree, On the fence. The CAD guys are the first to go simply because there are so many more of them, whereas there typically may be only 1 project architect position that can't be eliminated unless you also eliminate every single CADmonkey that's below that PA. And there are so many fewer positions at the top, not every draftsman is going to get promoted and many may not even survive in this field. Actually, only a limited number will.

Another note concerning what won and done mentions: I'm sure I sound like an old fart here. I'm not that old, and I actually enjoy using powerful software, just not having to break down and rebuild the knowledge I've gained on an annual basis. But wouldn't it be an incredible value to our clients as well as the job security of the members of our profession if we were all experts in the software we used instead of mainly amateurs who only learn 20% of what a software package is capable of before moving on to the next version or the differing package at our next place of work? At least more value than what we offer now? Do we really need umpteen different versions of modeling software updated and rearranged on a daily basis to keep up with just so we can move from one firm to the next? (We all know turnover is a way of life in the building field.) Shouldn't we be making it EASIER to facilitate hiring, not more difficult? And that said, shouldn't some firms be more understanding and lenient knowing that it is practically impossible for a potential employee to satisfy every or even most of the software demands they always tend to list in their job apps? Acknowledging the situation, shouldn't they be offering training? (Classes can cost $1K.) Obviously it will never happen, but in my opinion, firms, employees, and clients across the board would benefit greatly from a more standardized set of software packages. Phenomenal designers wouldn't be eliminated from applying simply because they don't know the very latest design trinket. I think every firm across the world should somehow get a giant groupon to purchase the same CAD/BIM/3D/rendering subscription and let the talent take care of the rest.

One issue to point out that draftsmen do not work for just architects.

Draftsmen also work for engineers of all types (mechanical, civil, electrical, naval), contractors, manufacturers, fabricators, information systems, cartographers, planners... and the list goes on.

There will always be places to outsource drawings, consultants, contract hires and so on. It may not be cheap as having permanent staff (staffing companies are a little bit more expensive than the total cost of an employee to an employer).

Architectural designers, graphic designers, marketing, contract writers, spec writers, estimators, planners, brokers and agents-- the guts of an architectural firms staff outside of architects-- can still work when there's no real work.

They can make marketing materials, compile competition entries, submit RFP/RFI/RFCs, court prospective clients and so forth. Any time there's downtime is time to work on in-house projects-- from data entry to quarterly reports to sprucing up a website page to article submission to herding interns around!

Many architecture firms are not run like real businesses.

Look at Gensler, OMA or Fosters + Partners. Then look at your current or previous firm. Then look back at those firms. Then look at your firm.

If your firm looks like a backwoods gas station compared to those firms, it probably is. You just haven't realized you've been mopping dingy linoleum and selling Kool 100s to hookers.

i think the short answer to your question is 'both'. but they'll only pay for the construction knowledge, because they know that they can get a fresh-faced kid with software skills who will very easily be convinced that he/she 'lacks experience' and therefore isn't entitled to a good salary...

both!!!

Everything in architecture has changed - it is important to realize this. Learn BIM and all the 3D packages and do what it takes to make it in the current and future scheme of things. One of the things I do, is to train those architects who have a lot of experience with legacy drawing methods. I show them everything, none of this "it's in the book, go read it, or go look it up" is rude IT guru BS.
–BIM is the singular tool that properly used, articulates the entire design process from concept to CA. Total traceability clean down to the last RFI this I kid you not.

Employers want plug and play BIM experts now, and it is imperative for everyone to get on board and thoroughly learn BIM to better articulate architecture – so that we can progress design.

"The future's here, we are it, we are on our own"

jbush -

Software (of any stripe) is a tool - just like a pencil, pen, rapidiograph, letraset, or pounce. You've got to know them to practice the craft (now, which ones to learn is another issue).

However, the 'craft' of what we do is what makes or breaks us. If I'm hiring, I'm assuming you know the software and what interests me is how you're putting it all together (at whatever stage you're in development wise). I can teach software and can teach the craft - the latter is so hard to acquire that I'll take people who understand it over a software program every time.