I just want to verify the title "Project Architect" is protected nationwide under the same law as "Architect." A quick search only yields results for CA and MA which makes me think it's regulated state-by-state?
If your RFQ response presents an unlicensed person as a "Project Architect", you are violating the rules. In this context, you can't dodge the state's control on the title "architect" by putting another word in front of it.
I suspect "Project Architect" is a controlled title in very few states, maybe just the two OP was able to find online. In general, firms that are legally practicing architecture are allowed to give their licensed architects titles like "Project Architect", "Senior Architect" or "Intermediate Architect" if they want to.
If the title has no relevancy to the designing of buildings, then the licensing law doesn't matter or apply. If the title does, then any title containing the word "Architect" or "Architectural" or similar title then yes, the title would be regulated and require a license.
Project Architect can be outside the scope if it is for a software company, like software project architect. Context matters.
reallynotmyname - correct. You have to be involved in the A/E field for you state licensing boards to take notice of you illegally using the title architect. That or someone has to report you to the relevant state board.
"Architect" is a regulated professional title in every US state, relative to the practice of architecture. "Project Architect" is just a specific instance of that, and covered by the more general laws. For someone to have the job title "Project Architect" in an architectural practice which engages in regulated professional work, they would need to have a license. However, regulatory boards typically don't enforce that too strictly, and getting them to act may be difficult except in egregious cases.
the state gets to say if you're an architect or not. if you use the title in a way that it looks like you're being dishonest with people, you could get in trouble. so if you say "i'm a project architect" and it sounds like you're telling people the state gave you the authority to say you're an architect but you're not, that's usually when you could get in trouble.
In such a situation, this is a dicey area. In some case, a person may have dual title in a firm (project architect and project designer). In which case, you may be called a project architect if you are legally entitled to stamp the drawing where the project is located. On the other hand, you may be a project designer in places where you are not licensed. As you would be essentially a 'building designer' in those places until licensed. I know there is limited exceptions in the laws of some states for out of state architects to be able to use the title architect but those exceptions are limited. Such as consulting architect or something like that. I know the laws do kind of suck like that but it is what it is.
Babble, you are right in large part that and that you should reserve the title project architect to those who will be stamping the drawings. In the company, a person may have essentially a dual job title but use one or the other depending on where the project is located, like in b3tadine's case, he's licensed in one state but if the project is outside the state, he would be a project designer in a firm that may sometimes be allowed to refer to himself as consulting architect or something like that. For the project, you'll want to be clear about the use of the architect title consistent with the licensing laws. Otherwise, things can run afoul and lead to trouble. Not only can it be a problem for the individual that uses the title but also the firm. Licensing boards have fined the firm as well. Although it is kind of rare, though but that's an issue of the way the licensing boards investigations are handled. This doesn't mean they can't decide to get aggressive and do a crack-down campaign.
Everyone above seems to address that “architect” is the protected part of the term. However, it’s probably worth considering that “project architect” is a very common and fairly well understood title that usually refers to someone with a license doing licensed architect stuff.
So while calling yourself an architectural designer or a project architect are technically both illegal in many places if you are not licensed… I think you’re much more likely to get in trouble for calling yourself a Project Architect. Which also echoes a few of the comments above.
If you are talking about the U.S., if the work pertains buildings and the designing of them, you are legally required to be LICENSED or REGISTERED as an Architect by the state licensing board.... AS LONG AS THE SERVICES ARE FOR PROJECTS LOCATED IN THE RESPECTIVE STATE IN THE UNITED STATES.
Stuff outside the U.S. are different jurisdictions. So you follow the laws of the government having jurisdiction. The mere word "Project" doesn't make the title protected and no law particularly regulates it. It is the word "Architect" as a title that is regulated so any title containing the word Architect would be regulated if it pertains in any way or form to the designing of buildings. There are titles that are not regulated as they are not related to the designing of buildings where the purpose of the regulation matters.
marketing people chase RFQ/RFPs all the time and get 'funny' with wordings. Typically the proposal request asks for very specific roles in flushing out your team and it's your firms decision to fill those roles with who you think best fits, including someone who may not be registered. If you go that route, just figure out a way to inform the client you'll have an unlicensed person at that location in the org chart. Often PA is the most junior role/name mentioned in RFQ/RFPs (if it's mentioned at all). I'd expect both the PM and Principal roles to be registered professionals. Just be clear what you're doing as a firm. Individually, if you're trying to tout your license over unlicensed colleagues to get more face-time/politics in your firm.... good luck with that, but I think that would not be wise.
Note: Job position titles are set by the firm. So if you have an experienced person who is not licensed involved in a role substantially the same as a project architect then identify them as project designer. Role, duties, and tasks performed are ultimately decided by the firm. Outside organizations do not dictate the job role. In the OP case, you can name a project designer and the person who will be the Architect of Responsible Charge under "Project Architect". With the extra note of clarity who is AOR and who is the project designer.
Thus, complying with the licensing law that all work prepared is prepared under the responsible charge. Make that clear with the client that QC and QA is not being compromised here, if that will be the case. Be clear you aren't putting some fresh out of college person in this level of role. You may note those as "other professional/technical staff" assigned some role or duties relating to the project. So you are showing you have a project team. A licensed person MUST be in charge. Just be mindful that it is clear the unlicensed person isn't going by the title project Architect but project Designer and that there is an architect who will be exercising responsible charge over the preparation of document and stamping and also listed in Project Architect. In fact, you can list an Architect as Project Architect and indicated will be assisted by an experienced Project Designer.
So you are ultimately answering the RFQ/RFP. It is best if firms complies with the Architect title & practice licensing laws when it comes to job titles. I seen firms use job titles in ways that are problematic in a legal perspective. Job titles should be consistent with the regulation on the architect title. You know damn well the employees introduce themselves by their job title and there is no practical cognitive difference in how a job title and professional title is used by most employees. In their minds, "what's the difference?".
To the general public, what's the difference to them. They don't make such nuance legal distinction. A title is a title.
If you work for a sole-proprietor architect like some really small practices, you use the prior. If you work for a company that has multiple owners (frequently, 2 or more architects/engineers, etc.) then you may call it an architectural firm. There may not be absolute requirements for 2 or more architects or engineers. If there are more than one owner, it fits the common meaning of a firm (regardless of profession). You can say you work for an architect or an architectural firm if it is true. If you work for a solo-practitioner architect as an employee for a particular project (they usually don't have sustained employment), then saying you work for an architect would be most appropriate. If you work for a company with multiple owners (often referred to as principals), then you would be more accurate to say you work for an architectural firm. The key in either is, you actually are presently employed by the architect or architectural firm. I hope that is clear and accurate for you.
what if someone called themself 'Design Architect', 'IT Architect', 'Data Architect' or any type of Architect without the name appearing in the Architect register, are they all illegal?
First off, lets be clear about something. The word "architect" being a word in the dictionary can not be entirely protected. It is protected under the context of the role being involved in design of buildings to be built.
If the role has nothing to do with designing buildings like software and IT, it is outside the scope of the licensing law and the authority as that would become inadvertently unconstitutional. There are limits to the "police power" of States. States can not adopt or enforce any law that unconstitutionally abridges the freedom of speech or any rights. The power to enforce title must be reasonably associated with addressing a reasonable health, safety, and welfare risk.
Is the public at risk or harm by an IT person using the title IT architect or Data Architect or Software Architect?
Can a reasonable person of the public tell that an IT Architect or Data Architect or Software architect does not design buildings for human occupancy as part of their role and duty?
Nov 15, 24 2:48 pm ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
Yes, under my administration, anyone that calls themselves an architect, that is not an architect, will be shot on site.
Do you build what you design? If not, you're not an architect. Not a real one. Real architects designed and built. They were adept in the trades. They may not be absolute masters of all the trades but they knew many trades. They would be not only the one that designs but also the general contractor in charge of construction.
I appreciate your perspective. However, suppose an IT Architect engages in actions that impact health, safety, and welfare risks. In such cases, they would be violating the laws within their professional field. Similarly, if an Architectural Designer carries out incorrect practices in the architectural industry, they would be breaking the law as well. Given these scenarios, do you think it is still necessary for these titles to be protected?
They don't. The only time they do it would then be a licensed profession like LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. Got it. When or if they do anything that did intersect, they are working in conjunction with Professional Engineers in cases where it did involve life-safety & critical systems. In fact, they would more likely be called SOFTWARE ENGINEERS. The distinction between Software Architect and software engineer is the prior is more macroscopic when designing software systems. IT Architects more more involved in networks, data systems architecture such as designing the IT infrastructure which involves network and data systems architecture. I done that work and probably fit those categories as well as a building designer but I keep these two activities distinct and separate from each other. In the U.S., architectural designer would get you a fine in a lot of states. In some places in the world, I can call myself an architectural designer or even Architect but in the U.S., calling oneself an "Architectural Designer" when it is clearly associated with designing buildings would violate the law. Courts have looked at this kind of issue. In Oregon, the courts looked at this kind of issue even on the Engineering side. OSBEELS got their hands slapped by the courts. Don't get caught up over people who don't design buildings using the word Architect in their title. If they cross the line into designing buildings then it is an issue... or landscape as well. What IT/Data/Software Architects do way outside the scope of what Building Architects (traditional Architects) do. Traditional 'building' Architects do not have the training to be an IT/Software/Data Architects as a normal part of their education. They would basically have to obtain two separate degrees in these distinctly different domains. Traditional architects designs buildings and that involves its own body of knowledge. An IT/Software/Data Architects is in its own domain and involves its own body of knowledge. What is your REAL gripe, here? Is it because you are annoyed by all these job postings for IT/Software/Data Architects and their requirements, you don't qualify? Is it really about that? I can personally do IT/Software/Data architecture all day long and know what the hell I am doing but I would need to work for a licensed Architect to design non-exempt buildings. But to be required to be under a licensed architect for IT/Software/Data architecture would be asinine. To be supervised by some asshole who may barely know how to use a computer and doesn't even know how to write computer programs or understand how to construct and design information systems.... that would be ridiculous when I am more qualified than they are by 100x. Now, yes, there are individuals who are adept in both. However, the ARE doesn't even test a damn thing of IT. I can be talking in fancy computer geek language and it might as well be in some extraterrestrial language. While there are abstract concepts shared... it is a different field. Most states don't license people in many of those roles. There is only a limited case of some states licensing software engineers where it involves HSW issues like life/critical systems. Where I am, it doesn't come into play. There is cases where someone needs to be a engineer in computer systems engineering and such.
Nov 15, 24 3:48 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
Architect and it's derivatives such as architectural and whatever are protected titles up here in the frozen communist tundra... but it's simply not worth anyone's time to chase down every silly tech bro who leans on the sex appeal of my title. Besides, I know many tech bros and not a single one of them could pass as an architect. Side note, since I live in a big tech bro hub, IT architects outnumber real architects by like a factor of 20.
Yes, Canada operates on a different legal system than the U.S. and likely even then, a title such as "software architect" or "IT architects" would not necessarily violate the law protecting the use of the Architect title in the context of the built environment. Given they are their own field unrelated to the design and construction of buildings, its a non-issue. Go after all the "sandwich architects"... I doubt it. The concern with title in the title laws is explicitly for protecting the general public from being fraudulently deceived by a non-licensed person advertising himself/herself as an Architect in the context of designing buildings but is not one. They are not interested in those completely unrelated or distinctively different occupations/professions and going after those. The regulations to protect the title is appropriately limited in the extent they are enforced. There is no reason to go after an IT architect unless the IT architect is designing buildings and using the title with the intent to procure clients to design buildings. Who gives a fuck if they are trying to procure a client to design IT systems and its system architecture. It sure the fuck shouldn't matter to building architects.
PA Title. Protected?
I just want to verify the title "Project Architect" is protected nationwide under the same law as "Architect." A quick search only yields results for CA and MA which makes me think it's regulated state-by-state?
why would it be protected and what specific regulation would there be for the “project” prefix? Seems like a desperate attempt at vanity to me.
Because it has the word "Architect" in it?
https://archinect.com/news/art...
Obviously. Don’t think anyone is stupid enough to think adding project in front is a shortcut to superstar architect stardom.
I'm asking for RFQ purposes...
If your RFQ response presents an unlicensed person as a "Project Architect", you are violating the rules. In this context, you can't dodge the state's control on the title "architect" by putting another word in front of it.
Just call the unlicensed person "Project Designer" or "Project Building Designer" or something to that effect.
I suspect "Project Architect" is a controlled title in very few states, maybe just the two OP was able to find online. In general, firms that are legally practicing architecture are allowed to give their licensed architects titles like "Project Architect", "Senior Architect" or "Intermediate Architect" if they want to.
I know in most states you can't use any title withe the word architect in it without getting in trouble from the state licensing boards.
Certainly in terms of people offering design services for buildings. The "software architect" crowd, not so much.
If the title has no relevancy to the designing of buildings, then the licensing law doesn't matter or apply. If the title does, then any title containing the word "Architect" or "Architectural" or similar title then yes, the title would be regulated and require a license.
Project Architect can be outside the scope if it is for a software company, like software project architect. Context matters.
reallynotmyname - correct. You have to be involved in the A/E field for you state licensing boards to take notice of you illegally using the title architect. That or someone has to report you to the relevant state board.
"Architect" is a regulated professional title in every US state, relative to the practice of architecture. "Project Architect" is just a specific instance of that, and covered by the more general laws. For someone to have the job title "Project Architect" in an architectural practice which engages in regulated professional work, they would need to have a license. However, regulatory boards typically don't enforce that too strictly, and getting them to act may be difficult except in egregious cases.
the state gets to say if you're an architect or not. if you use the title in a way that it looks like you're being dishonest with people, you could get in trouble. so if you say "i'm a project architect" and it sounds like you're telling people the state gave you the authority to say you're an architect but you're not, that's usually when you could get in trouble.
The purpose of my query was to prove to my colleague that we can't use it unless that person is licensed.
Well, even that is dicey. I'm licensed in one state, but can't even meet with clients in CA and call myself an architect.
In such a situation, this is a dicey area. In some case, a person may have dual title in a firm (project architect and project designer). In which case, you may be called a project architect if you are legally entitled to stamp the drawing where the project is located. On the other hand, you may be a project designer in places where you are not licensed. As you would be essentially a 'building designer' in those places until licensed. I know there is limited exceptions in the laws of some states for out of state architects to be able to use the title architect but those exceptions are limited. Such as consulting architect or something like that. I know the laws do kind of suck like that but it is what it is.
Babble, you are right in large part that and that you should reserve the title project architect to those who will be stamping the drawings. In the company, a person may have essentially a dual job title but use one or the other depending on where the project is located, like in b3tadine's case, he's licensed in one state but if the project is outside the state, he would be a project designer in a firm that may sometimes be allowed to refer to himself as consulting architect or something like that. For the project, you'll want to be clear about the use of the architect title consistent with the licensing laws. Otherwise, things can run afoul and lead to trouble. Not only can it be a problem for the individual that uses the title but also the firm. Licensing boards have fined the firm as well. Although it is kind of rare, though but that's an issue of the way the licensing boards investigations are handled. This doesn't mean they can't decide to get aggressive and do a crack-down campaign.
Everyone above seems to address that “architect” is the protected part of the term. However, it’s probably worth considering that “project architect” is a very common and fairly well understood title that usually refers to someone with a license doing licensed architect stuff.
So while calling yourself an architectural designer or a project architect are technically both illegal in many places if you are not licensed… I think you’re much more likely to get in trouble for calling yourself a Project Architect. Which also echoes a few of the comments above.
If you are talking about the U.S., if the work pertains buildings and the designing of them, you are legally required to be LICENSED or REGISTERED as an Architect by the state licensing board.... AS LONG AS THE SERVICES ARE FOR PROJECTS LOCATED IN THE RESPECTIVE STATE IN THE UNITED STATES.
Stuff outside the U.S. are different jurisdictions. So you follow the laws of the government having jurisdiction. The mere word "Project" doesn't make the title protected and no law particularly regulates it. It is the word "Architect" as a title that is regulated so any title containing the word Architect would be regulated if it pertains in any way or form to the designing of buildings. There are titles that are not regulated as they are not related to the designing of buildings where the purpose of the regulation matters.
marketing people chase RFQ/RFPs all the time and get 'funny' with wordings. Typically the proposal request asks for very specific roles in flushing out your team and it's your firms decision to fill those roles with who you think best fits, including someone who may not be registered. If you go that route, just figure out a way to inform the client you'll have an unlicensed person at that location in the org chart. Often PA is the most junior role/name mentioned in RFQ/RFPs (if it's mentioned at all). I'd expect both the PM and Principal roles to be registered professionals. Just be clear what you're doing as a firm. Individually, if you're trying to tout your license over unlicensed colleagues to get more face-time/politics in your firm.... good luck with that, but I think that would not be wise.
Note: Job position titles are set by the firm. So if you have an experienced person who is not licensed involved in a role substantially the same as a project architect then identify them as project designer. Role, duties, and tasks performed are ultimately decided by the firm. Outside organizations do not dictate the job role. In the OP case, you can name a project designer and the person who will be the Architect of Responsible Charge under "Project Architect". With the extra note of clarity who is AOR and who is the project designer.
Thus, complying with the licensing law that all work prepared is prepared under the responsible charge. Make that clear with the client that QC and QA is not being compromised here, if that will be the case. Be clear you aren't putting some fresh out of college person in this level of role. You may note those as "other professional/technical staff" assigned some role or duties relating to the project. So you are showing you have a project team. A licensed person MUST be in charge. Just be mindful that it is clear the unlicensed person isn't going by the title project Architect but project Designer and that there is an architect who will be exercising responsible charge over the preparation of document and stamping and also listed in Project Architect. In fact, you can list an Architect as Project Architect and indicated will be assisted by an experienced Project Designer.
So you are ultimately answering the RFQ/RFP. It is best if firms complies with the Architect title & practice licensing laws when it comes to job titles. I seen firms use job titles in ways that are problematic in a legal perspective. Job titles should be consistent with the regulation on the architect title. You know damn well the employees introduce themselves by their job title and there is no practical cognitive difference in how a job title and professional title is used by most employees. In their minds, "what's the difference?".
To the general public, what's the difference to them. They don't make such nuance legal distinction. A title is a title.
When people ask me what I do can I say that I work work for an Architect?
Or that I work at an Architectural Firm?
If you work for a sole-proprietor architect like some really small practices, you use the prior. If you work for a company that has multiple owners (frequently, 2 or more architects/engineers, etc.) then you may call it an architectural firm. There may not be absolute requirements for 2 or more architects or engineers. If there are more than one owner, it fits the common meaning of a firm (regardless of profession). You can say you work for an architect or an architectural firm if it is true. If you work for a solo-practitioner architect as an employee for a particular project (they usually don't have sustained employment), then saying you work for an architect would be most appropriate. If you work for a company with multiple owners (often referred to as principals), then you would be more accurate to say you work for an architectural firm. The key in either is, you actually are presently employed by the architect or architectural firm. I hope that is clear and accurate for you.
Yes. Thank you.
what if someone called themself 'Design Architect', 'IT Architect', 'Data Architect' or any type of Architect without the name appearing in the Architect register, are they all illegal?
Why do you want to know?
First off, lets be clear about something. The word "architect" being a word in the dictionary can not be entirely protected. It is protected under the context of the role being involved in design of buildings to be built.
If the role has nothing to do with designing buildings like software and IT, it is outside the scope of the licensing law and the authority as that would become inadvertently unconstitutional. There are limits to the "police power" of States. States can not adopt or enforce any law that unconstitutionally abridges the freedom of speech or any rights. The power to enforce title must be reasonably associated with addressing a reasonable health, safety, and welfare risk.
Is the public at risk or harm by an IT person using the title IT architect or Data Architect or Software Architect?
Can a reasonable person of the public tell that an IT Architect or Data Architect or Software architect does not design buildings for human occupancy as part of their role and duty?
Yes, under my administration, anyone that calls themselves an architect, that is not an architect, will be shot on site.
"on site"
i see what you did there
Nice, amiright?
Do you build what you design? If not, you're not an architect. Not a real one. Real architects designed and built. They were adept in the trades. They may not be absolute masters of all the trades but they knew many trades. They would be not only the one that designs but also the general contractor in charge of construction.
Other than that, thanks for the humor.
I appreciate your perspective. However, suppose an IT Architect engages in actions that impact health, safety, and welfare risks. In such cases, they would be violating the laws within their professional field. Similarly, if an Architectural Designer carries out incorrect practices in the architectural industry, they would be breaking the law as well. Given these scenarios, do you think it is still necessary for these titles to be protected?
They don't. The only time they do it would then be a licensed profession like LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. Got it. When or if they do anything that did intersect, they are working in conjunction with Professional Engineers in cases where it did involve life-safety & critical systems. In fact, they would more likely be called SOFTWARE ENGINEERS. The distinction between Software Architect and software engineer is the prior is more macroscopic when designing software systems. IT Architects more more involved in networks, data systems architecture such as designing the IT infrastructure which involves network and data systems architecture. I done that work and probably fit those categories as well as a building designer but I keep these two activities distinct and separate from each other. In the U.S., architectural designer would get you a fine in a lot of states. In some places in the world, I can call myself an architectural designer or even Architect but in the U.S., calling oneself an "Architectural Designer" when it is clearly associated with designing buildings would violate the law. Courts have looked at this kind of issue. In Oregon, the courts looked at this kind of issue even on the Engineering side. OSBEELS got their hands slapped by the courts. Don't get caught up over people who don't design buildings using the word Architect in their title. If they cross the line into designing buildings then it is an issue... or landscape as well. What IT/Data/Software Architects do way outside the scope of what Building Architects (traditional Architects) do. Traditional 'building' Architects do not have the training to be an IT/Software/Data Architects as a normal part of their education. They would basically have to obtain two separate degrees in these distinctly different domains. Traditional architects designs buildings and that involves its own body of knowledge. An IT/Software/Data Architects is in its own domain and involves its own body of knowledge. What is your REAL gripe, here? Is it because you are annoyed by all these job postings for IT/Software/Data Architects and their requirements, you don't qualify? Is it really about that? I can personally do IT/Software/Data architecture all day long and know what the hell I am doing but I would need to work for a licensed Architect to design non-exempt buildings. But to be required to be under a licensed architect for IT/Software/Data architecture would be asinine. To be supervised by some asshole who may barely know how to use a computer and doesn't even know how to write computer programs or understand how to construct and design information systems.... that would be ridiculous when I am more qualified than they are by 100x. Now, yes, there are individuals who are adept in both. However, the ARE doesn't even test a damn thing of IT. I can be talking in fancy computer geek language and it might as well be in some extraterrestrial language. While there are abstract concepts shared... it is a different field. Most states don't license people in many of those roles. There is only a limited case of some states licensing software engineers where it involves HSW issues like life/critical systems. Where I am, it doesn't come into play. There is cases where someone needs to be a engineer in computer systems engineering and such.
Architect and it's derivatives such as architectural and whatever are protected titles up here in the frozen communist tundra... but it's simply not worth anyone's time to chase down every silly tech bro who leans on the sex appeal of my title. Besides, I know many tech bros and not a single one of them could pass as an architect. Side note, since I live in a big tech bro hub, IT architects outnumber real architects by like a factor of 20.
Yes, Canada operates on a different legal system than the U.S. and likely even then, a title such as "software architect" or "IT architects" would not necessarily violate the law protecting the use of the Architect title in the context of the built environment. Given they are their own field unrelated to the design and construction of buildings, its a non-issue. Go after all the "sandwich architects"... I doubt it. The concern with title in the title laws is explicitly for protecting the general public from being fraudulently deceived by a non-licensed person advertising himself/herself as an Architect in the context of designing buildings but is not one. They are not interested in those completely unrelated or distinctively different occupations/professions and going after those. The regulations to protect the title is appropriately limited in the extent they are enforced. There is no reason to go after an IT architect unless the IT architect is designing buildings and using the title with the intent to procure clients to design buildings. Who gives a fuck if they are trying to procure a client to design IT systems and its system architecture. It sure the fuck shouldn't matter to building architects.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.