been doing a bunch of research lately about what adding an MBA to an MArch can do for my career over the long haul and noticed an interesting trend that goes on in the business world that most people would not even think about in the architecture/design professions. I am speaking in general terms here but what I noticed from reading multiple business, consulting, and wall street forums it seems like the way students look at their career is to work for a large company (be it a Big4 accounting firm, Bain/Mckinsey for consulting, or the likes of Goldman Sachs if they are into finance...) and transition into a higher level position in one of their clients firms/companies. In Architecture, there seems to be a general disdain for the corporate design firms while having a thought process that we should be designing for our clients for the entirety of our career and never become the client. That said, I feel like this a major reason why many in this profession complain about the low pay, the lack of creativity our clients let us have, and the overall lack of understanding how our clients businesses operate.
This notion of architect becoming a developer pops up around here quite often but anyone have any thoughts on why most architects dont have the ambition to gain the skills to transition into higher paying jobs with one of their clients? It seems to me that iwith the power the client has over the architect, working for the client would actually let you act in a position to make very powerful design desicions rather than just reacting to someones wants/demands. Most complain about low pay for this or that reason, but I think if we looked at our careers in a manner similar to whats listed above we would se a ripple effect of respect and knowledge of how much value we can provide as design professionals...thus resulting in much higher salaries. Am I crazy to think this way....or has this profession just been forced in such a linear progression (intern > architect > PA > PM > etc....) that this idea is just not practical on a profession wide basis (relatively speaking)?
This is a reasonable concept, and for reasons you suggest, architects do work for developers, and in some cases become developers themselves. But the numbers of them doing it are relatively small, for the following reasons:
There are not huge numbers of development firms large enough to keep an architect on staff. A much larger number of dev't firms hire an architect as a consultant (the much more typical arrangement we're used to seeing).
One staff architect goes a long way in a large dev't firm. In other words, a big firm doesn't need many architects on staff, only one. This is what keeps the arrangement in the rare category.
As for architect-developers: that arrangement takes capital (or direct access to it), and a personality that isn't overly risk-averse. Many architects simply don't fit into either category.
Possibly the best or most fruitful arrangement (in terms of wider job prospects) is architects working as project managers (not designers) for dev't firms.
citizen summarizes it well. To that I would only add that many middle sized companies have no need of paying a "high" salary for an in-house architect when they can buy the service cheap on the open market. It's all about supply and demand. Too many architects and too little demand for what they do. Period.
If one is interested in RE as a career, a supplemental degree like an MBA allows you to join a RE firm in a role OTHER THAN as a practicing Architect. The two posters above have it right -- if a RE firm were to hire you, in most cases it would not be either as a designer or as a technical architect. They would want you to manage -- if not lead -- a development project.
Our talent and experience in design, technical documentation and construction contract administration is valuable to a RE firm, but only in a peripheral way. That talent and experience add appropriate technical depth to a managerial role in a RE firm. However, at the end of the day, a career in RE is all about getting the project designed (by others), financed (by others), built (by others) and then leased (or sold) in the shortest possible time and with the highest possible margins.
I fully understand the role an architect would play if they transitioned over to the developer side, I was thinking more about our actual clients other than developers. Like if you do work for a major corporation, a branch of goverment, or a regional chain....i know its a very vague question but what perked my interest was the process of career progression, not just who you went to work for. In architecture most have the ambition be stay as a traditional architect where as in business, say accounting for example, most have goals set to work in public accounting, transition to industry (a clients company mostly), and move up their corporate ladder.
Please take note that I am speaking in incredibly general terms here and that most will never achieve these goals but I was just interested in the way of thinking of a business student or early professional vs an architect. We seem to have a very narrow vision of what we can or want to do and i wonder if that really is holding back the profession.
Despite all we can do with it, an architecture degree tends to lead one to a very narrow idea of what one's job can be. An MBA is by comparison very loosely defined.
cc14 - you and donna are both right. the "idea" of what an architect does leads to a vastly more narrow view of what a career trajectory should/could be.
there are examples of people transitioning to the "client's side" all the time - principals of larger firms that i've worked with in the past are now heading up the capital planning office of the largest research university here; working as a strategist for a major international furniture maker; working as the regional strategist for one of the large hotel/hospitality groups in the world - that list goes on and on. we don't hear about it as much because, quite frankly, to most they've left 'traditional practice' and tend to fall off the media's radar accordingly.
I'm totally headed over to the client side because architecture firms are complete idiots at business practices and this is why so many of them fail...I've had enough and want to work with companies that actually function!
I was "head hunted" for a large development firm many years back and thought long and hard about making the jump. As it turned out they hired a buddy of mine ( i was #2 ) and it worked out well for him. I had already been running my own office for only about 6-8 months and was just getting going and the move would have meant an upgrade at the time but thrown me into a lot higher burn rate too. Initially the pay wasn't much more than what i was making but my cost of living would have gone way up. ie ( second car, dress wear, nannies etc etc ) which would have been nice but the short term it wouldn't have been a good fit.
I suspect if I was more motivated by money at the time it would have been the absolute right choice but the work / life balance I have created for myself and family has been a much better fit over the long term and don't think I made the right choice. ( I was already doing okay for my self and had a fair bit of work on the plate so I wasn't in need of their job.... that's was an important decision making aspect )
Feb 14, 12 3:45 pm ·
·
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.
Career Progression
been doing a bunch of research lately about what adding an MBA to an MArch can do for my career over the long haul and noticed an interesting trend that goes on in the business world that most people would not even think about in the architecture/design professions. I am speaking in general terms here but what I noticed from reading multiple business, consulting, and wall street forums it seems like the way students look at their career is to work for a large company (be it a Big4 accounting firm, Bain/Mckinsey for consulting, or the likes of Goldman Sachs if they are into finance...) and transition into a higher level position in one of their clients firms/companies. In Architecture, there seems to be a general disdain for the corporate design firms while having a thought process that we should be designing for our clients for the entirety of our career and never become the client. That said, I feel like this a major reason why many in this profession complain about the low pay, the lack of creativity our clients let us have, and the overall lack of understanding how our clients businesses operate.
This notion of architect becoming a developer pops up around here quite often but anyone have any thoughts on why most architects dont have the ambition to gain the skills to transition into higher paying jobs with one of their clients? It seems to me that iwith the power the client has over the architect, working for the client would actually let you act in a position to make very powerful design desicions rather than just reacting to someones wants/demands. Most complain about low pay for this or that reason, but I think if we looked at our careers in a manner similar to whats listed above we would se a ripple effect of respect and knowledge of how much value we can provide as design professionals...thus resulting in much higher salaries. Am I crazy to think this way....or has this profession just been forced in such a linear progression (intern > architect > PA > PM > etc....) that this idea is just not practical on a profession wide basis (relatively speaking)?
This is a reasonable concept, and for reasons you suggest, architects do work for developers, and in some cases become developers themselves. But the numbers of them doing it are relatively small, for the following reasons:
citizen summarizes it well. To that I would only add that many middle sized companies have no need of paying a "high" salary for an in-house architect when they can buy the service cheap on the open market. It's all about supply and demand. Too many architects and too little demand for what they do. Period.
If one is interested in RE as a career, a supplemental degree like an MBA allows you to join a RE firm in a role OTHER THAN as a practicing Architect. The two posters above have it right -- if a RE firm were to hire you, in most cases it would not be either as a designer or as a technical architect. They would want you to manage -- if not lead -- a development project.
Our talent and experience in design, technical documentation and construction contract administration is valuable to a RE firm, but only in a peripheral way. That talent and experience add appropriate technical depth to a managerial role in a RE firm. However, at the end of the day, a career in RE is all about getting the project designed (by others), financed (by others), built (by others) and then leased (or sold) in the shortest possible time and with the highest possible margins.
I fully understand the role an architect would play if they transitioned over to the developer side, I was thinking more about our actual clients other than developers. Like if you do work for a major corporation, a branch of goverment, or a regional chain....i know its a very vague question but what perked my interest was the process of career progression, not just who you went to work for. In architecture most have the ambition be stay as a traditional architect where as in business, say accounting for example, most have goals set to work in public accounting, transition to industry (a clients company mostly), and move up their corporate ladder.
Please take note that I am speaking in incredibly general terms here and that most will never achieve these goals but I was just interested in the way of thinking of a business student or early professional vs an architect. We seem to have a very narrow vision of what we can or want to do and i wonder if that really is holding back the profession.
Despite all we can do with it, an architecture degree tends to lead one to a very narrow idea of what one's job can be. An MBA is by comparison very loosely defined.
cc14 - you and donna are both right. the "idea" of what an architect does leads to a vastly more narrow view of what a career trajectory should/could be.
there are examples of people transitioning to the "client's side" all the time - principals of larger firms that i've worked with in the past are now heading up the capital planning office of the largest research university here; working as a strategist for a major international furniture maker; working as the regional strategist for one of the large hotel/hospitality groups in the world - that list goes on and on. we don't hear about it as much because, quite frankly, to most they've left 'traditional practice' and tend to fall off the media's radar accordingly.
so, expand the vision for us...
I'm totally headed over to the client side because architecture firms are complete idiots at business practices and this is why so many of them fail...I've had enough and want to work with companies that actually function!
I was "head hunted" for a large development firm many years back and thought long and hard about making the jump. As it turned out they hired a buddy of mine ( i was #2 ) and it worked out well for him. I had already been running my own office for only about 6-8 months and was just getting going and the move would have meant an upgrade at the time but thrown me into a lot higher burn rate too. Initially the pay wasn't much more than what i was making but my cost of living would have gone way up. ie ( second car, dress wear, nannies etc etc ) which would have been nice but the short term it wouldn't have been a good fit.
I suspect if I was more motivated by money at the time it would have been the absolute right choice but the work / life balance I have created for myself and family has been a much better fit over the long term and don't think I made the right choice. ( I was already doing okay for my self and had a fair bit of work on the plate so I wasn't in need of their job.... that's was an important decision making aspect )
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.