We call this architectural technologist in my area and they are very-much in demand.  Job responsibilities can range but they are mostly production staff (CAD & BIM) with very little design tasks.  Basic skills, outside of software, are at a minimum a good understanding of construction and how to detail buildings for the purpose of construction.

Others in this field will find themselves producing shop drawings for contractors or product suppliers... others might find a gig doing drawings for large residential builders or home-depo kitchen renovations.  I've known some to work at Ikea.

One important thing is, and I've written this elsewhere on the forum before, is that a good tech is worth several junior M.arch grads but these folks are rare.  There is an obvious career ceiling and many become jaded that they are not/cannot/never will be architects.

aseedof ,

what Non Sequitur said is correct. Small revision - there are Architectural Technicians, and there are also Architectural Technologists - at least in Canada. Not sure how it works in USA, though.

Both are programmes taught at Community Colleges; Technician is a two year course, while the Technologists are three, sometimes four. Technologists are taught more about building technology than the Technicians, but over time and experience they end up being pretty well equal in their abilities. When it comes to preparation of Working Drawings, I would prefer to work with either over any graduate architect. Architects are simply not taught as much about preparation of Working drawings and building technology. Arguably, even when it comes to Design Development package, the Technicians and the Technologists are better equipped than young architects.

Sometimes the Technologists find it more challenging to work on the DD package. When they see two lines for a wall, their training and education will force them to think, "how in the hell are we going to build that wall?", whereas Architects don't much care about it at that stage.

Keep in mind, there is a higher turnover for Technicians and the Technologists than Architects. Once the Working Drawings are done, many of them get laid off until another project comes along.

Should both Architect and Technician passing the BCIN exam and being the AATO member?

Many thanks!

Non Sequitur,

"The good architects do care. We care alot about this."

LOL........

"So, where are the columns?"

"Oh, we don't know. You figure it out. Here is the number for the Structural Consultant if you need it"

I spent a lot of my life doing Working Drawings. I always asked to get involved at the DD package, otherwise, I would end up with dog's breakfast...and only two weeks to do the WD package, and no money, "We don't have many hours left on the job, and the Owner is already bitching".

YAAAH!

This web site is pretty funky! Sometimes comment appears, sometimes it doesn't, sometimes it's edited and reduced to a single sentence!

WTF moderators?!

aseedof,

First task as a Technician/Technologist?

Depends on your experience; if you have at least two years, you'd be put into production of Working Drawings. If you're straight out of school; take the garbage out, make prints, assemble various tender packages, check in shop drawings...

First task as an Architect in a larger firm?

Assist design staff, usually doing CAD drawings for Design Development package. Sometimes do Sample Boards. In a small firm, you'd be doing the same shit as Technician/Technologist's first task. Don't consider that as an insult; it's all part and parcel of an architectural practice. Even the principals have to take the garbage out when the troops aren't at work or have left for home.

These is important information for me to understand the difference between the technicians and the architect in the industry. I feel very thankful to have your guidances, apscoradiales and Non Sequitur.