Search indeed and you’ll find that the term “architect” is actually meant for the technology sector. Anyone complain?
citizen
Aug 9, 20 9:45 pm
.
Non Sequitur
Aug 9, 20 10:33 pm
I know almost as many software "architects" as I do real architects and none of them would ever be confused as being able to do architecture.
natematt
Aug 9, 20 10:37 pm
Actually a huge pain for entry level job searching, or at least it was 6 years ago when I was looking....
Koww
Aug 11, 20 4:52 am
it's a general term. like you can be a plumbing wizard without having a license in wizardry.
randomised
Aug 11, 20 9:03 am
Or as indeed would put it, a plumbing architect...
BulgarBlogger
Aug 11, 20 9:00 am
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....no architecture firms on google...
randomised
Aug 11, 20 9:04 am
Job hunting again?
BulgarBlogger
Aug 11, 20 10:13 am
Actually Im not necessarily job hunting. I am looking to move out of NYC. I have my own firm, but if I move somewhere, I'd have to probably take on a job somewhere, at least temporarily.
randomised
Aug 11, 20 3:35 pm
Ah yes, well good luck, no software architect jobs here on “archinect jobs” ;)
b3tadine[sutures]
Jun 8, 21 9:58 am
GPAC is an architect placement firm.
Wood Guy
Aug 11, 20 9:31 am
As an unlicensed building designer, it is definitely annoying that a computer geek has more right to use the name "architect" than I do. I don't begrudge architects' earned right to keep interlopers like me from using that name. But if I can't use it, why can others?
joseffischer
Aug 11, 20 11:24 am
they typically have signifiers tho "software architect" for instance or the like... so you should be able to qualify as long as you use a noun-type adjective beforehand
Wood Guy
Aug 11, 20 11:27 am
Nope, not allowed. I can't use any form of the word "architect" or "architecture." (My own fault for not following a conventional path. I do fine as a residential designer who took a circuitous, unconventional route.)
joseffischer
Aug 11, 20 12:26 pm
yeah, I've heard... I just think it'd be funny in court. He's called "software architect" and you allow that... "ok Mr. Guy, what name do you propose?" How about "building architect?"
chigurh
Aug 12, 20 7:50 am
hats off to the AIA and state boards for protecting the title.
monosierra
Jun 8, 21 8:58 am
This could be an issue if it has an impact on the NAICS occupational classification or other standards that affect how wages are calculated - if enough tech people get grouped along with architects (non-naval) it could even skew the median wage calculations.
RJ87
Jun 8, 21 9:47 am
If you introduce yourself as an architect & someone assumes you're a software architect than I don't know that it's someone you want to talk to in the first place.
rcz1001
Jun 8, 21 6:24 pm
I agree especially considering the context. I would likely think most people on default will normally assume when someone uses the architect title that they design buildings but however, if they include the word 'software' then that would be designing software much like if someone uses the title landscape architect.... it says they design landscapes. Architect without any preceding word like 'landscape' or 'naval' or 'software' will typically imply the person designs buildings..... a "building architect".
rcz1001
Jun 8, 21 1:32 pm
First, if you use the title architect and you design buildings then you need to have a license for the title architect. The reason the title architect is not enforced against those who are designing buildings like software architect is that they do not design buildings. The title architect is regulated to those who are licensed to when it comes to the designing of buildings. The licensing for architects has nothing to do with unrelated occupations. The reason Wood Guy can not use the architect title is not merely only because he is unlicensed. It is because he is unlicensed *AND* he designs buildings not required to have a stamp of a licensed / registered ARCHITECT. This restriction is about protecting the public of confusion between who is licensed and who is not.
Licensing boards and state laws have some legal and Constitution limits. The licensing laws are instituted on grounds of protecting the public health, safety, and welfare. There has to be some legitimate and reasonable justification support those laws. There is political factors involved in this.
For example, in a software business, I can call myself a software architect or whatever but I can not exactly do that if I offer services that involves the designing of buildings and other physical structures. If my business activity involves designing buildings, I can not use the architect title for services offered or conducted in jurisdictions where a license is required.
In a way, I have multiple business entities. A business entity that designs buildings and therefore I can not use the title Architect in jurisdictions where the title requires a license. However, I can use the title architect in connection with services offered to jurisdictions where a license is not required or that said title is not regulated. However, you are on a tight rope of careful wordage and clarity of jurisdictions where such title/services are offered.
On the other hand, I have a software business, the regulation and restriction of the title 'architect' does not apply. What if I design virtual buildings in a virtual cityscape in an online realm? Perhaps, I could use the architect title but THEY can NOT be used in services relating to services of designing buildings that maybe used in the real world built environment. Clarity and limits must apply. So if a client wishes to take a virtual building designed in a virtual cityscape in an online realm, they may need a licensed architect to prepare technical submissions in order to get permits for having it built in the real world.
What is important and clear is the public should know you are offering as a service and what you are not. Like would I be concerned about someone going by a title like "web architect" ? Probably not. If the nature of the work is creating websites. Why would we regulate the title on them and then those 'sandwich architects' and so forth. It would be a colossal waste of government money to go after all those people.
For Wood Guy, if you want to call yourself a software architect, you can do that if you know how to do that work. There is nothing that prohibits you. However, you will need to not muddy the waters with co-mingling the services with that of your business that designs buildings. You'll be better off separating the business entities. I would recommend keeping these silos segregated enough that they are A) separate business entities and B) separate activities... so they are not confusing in terms of advertising.
Yes, a person can be both a building designer and a software architect. Just keep the businesses separate entities. I can't use the 'architect' title for designing buildings in Oregon (or throughout the U.S.) but I can use the title software architect for software related activities. Don't muddy it by calling yourself a software architect while offering and performing building design services (not talking about virtual buildings in a virtual realm but for actual buildings designed with the intent that they will be built in the real world in a real location).
Wood Guy, if you offer services in countries that don't regulate the title architect, you can call yourself an architect in connection with projects in those countries. You will have to be clear about where the services are offered. If you don't make such clarity about where the services are offered, the licensing boards will make the assumption that you are offering such services in their jurisdiction especially the licensing board where you are located based on your location.
Yes, it may cause job searching harder if the job search site database has job positions for every job posting that has a title using the word 'architect' in the job position title. This can be complicated but if we have our own professional field job search site, with competent management of the database, we can certainly have positions strictly pertaining to firms posting jobs. Guess what, we have sites with that database. It is the job of educating people to go to these sites to search for jobs in this field instead of going to Monster.com or others. That would make it easier for people searching for jobs to find jobs because it filters out all the bullsh**.
tduds
Jun 8, 21 2:31 pm
Calm down,
Rickipedia.
RJ87
Jun 8, 21 4:43 pm
That's why when I call myself a doctor I make sure that I don't ever treat patients. Nobody will know if I'm a people doctor, a plumbing doctor, a car doctor, etc.
But really as an attorney friend of mine once put it. "Technically you can call yourself a lawyer even if you haven't passed the bar yet, but technically people will also still call you a moron for doing so". Similar rules apply.
rcz1001
Jun 8, 21 6:17 pm
However, that maybe true. If you have a doctorates degree in whatever, you got the Dr. in front of your name.... so. okay. However, unlike that issue you mentioned about lawyer, software architect does have a meaning in the software field and is not regulated in that sense however, you wouldn't call yourself a software architect if you don't know anything about the designing of software systems. It's a distinct (albeit unregulated) title from "architect" in the sense used here.
Context matters and it matters with the regulation of the Architect title as far as state law is concerned. However, in other countries, U.S. laws or the laws of its member states does not apply.
Therefore, if Wood Guy picked up a project to design in say.... Sweden, he can call himself an architect and design whatever within his competency. However, he can't use the title in the U.S. in anything associated with the designing of the built environment (not counting virtual reality and virtual realms where protection of public health, safety, and welfare does not apply or matter).
The Architect title is regulated on the premise of protecting public health, safety, and welfare. When public HSW is not involved within the jurisdictional authority of that state or governing body, there would not be any regulation of the Architect title as it would not hold up to political scrutiny when the law is challenged. I would argue that one should not be concerned about those "architects" that don't design buildings for the built environment.
RJ87
Jun 9, 21 10:35 am
I don't worry about the Plumbing Doctor or Mold Doctor (both real examples of business names where I live) either. Take it for what it is, another profession utilizing a title in an attempt to raise the perception of their role.
I think we have enough of an issue with folks in our own profession not getting licensed, no need to worry about some software "architect" that doesn't make a difference to our field.
rcz1001
Jun 9, 21 2:21 pm
I agree.
rcz1001
Jun 9, 21 2:29 pm
Besides the intent on the regulation of the title Architect is meant so those who design buildings that are not licensed is not confused with those who were. In Oregon, when the architectural licensing laws were adopted, the title Architect wasn't as heavy handed regulated as it would be today. In the original 1919 enacted law in Oregon, the law was mainly..... if you are not licensed.... don't represent yourself as licensed. Even the practice wasn't exactly regulated like it is now. It was the evolving nature of the laws over time that lead to the laws and rules we have today. It's fair for non-licensed designer of buildings to call themselves building designers or maybe..... "architectural designers" if we loosen up on that aspect but not "Architect". However, we have rules to follow. I can use the title software architect in context to software development work where the context of use make sense but I wouldn't use that with regards to work that involves designing buildings. It makes no sense. It would be stupid and odd.
Search indeed and you’ll find that the term “architect” is actually meant for the technology sector. Anyone complain?
.
I know almost as many software "architects" as I do real architects and none of them would ever be confused as being able to do architecture.
Actually a huge pain for entry level job searching, or at least it was 6 years ago when I was looking....
it's a general term. like you can be a plumbing wizard without having a license in wizardry.
Or as indeed would put it, a plumbing architect...
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....no architecture firms on google...
Job hunting again?
Actually Im not necessarily job hunting. I am looking to move out of NYC. I have my own firm, but if I move somewhere, I'd have to probably take on a job somewhere, at least temporarily.
Ah yes, well good luck, no software architect jobs here on “archinect jobs” ;)
GPAC is an architect placement firm.
As an unlicensed building designer, it is definitely annoying that a computer geek has more right to use the name "architect" than I do. I don't begrudge architects' earned right to keep interlopers like me from using that name. But if I can't use it, why can others?
they typically have signifiers tho "software architect" for instance or the like... so you should be able to qualify as long as you use a noun-type adjective beforehand
Nope, not allowed. I can't use any form of the word "architect" or "architecture." (My own fault for not following a conventional path. I do fine as a residential designer who took a circuitous, unconventional route.)
yeah, I've heard... I just think it'd be funny in court. He's called "software architect" and you allow that... "ok Mr. Guy, what name do you propose?" How about "building architect?"
hats off to the AIA and state boards for protecting the title.
This could be an issue if it has an impact on the NAICS occupational classification or other standards that affect how wages are calculated - if enough tech people get grouped along with architects (non-naval) it could even skew the median wage calculations.
If you introduce yourself as an architect & someone assumes you're a software architect than I don't know that it's someone you want to talk to in the first place.
I agree especially considering the context. I would likely think most people on default will normally assume when someone uses the architect title that they design buildings but however, if they include the word 'software' then that would be designing software much like if someone uses the title landscape architect.... it says they design landscapes. Architect without any preceding word like 'landscape' or 'naval' or 'software' will typically imply the person designs buildings..... a "building architect".
First, if you use the title architect and you design buildings then you need to have a license for the title architect. The reason the title architect is not enforced against those who are designing buildings like software architect is that they do not design buildings. The title architect is regulated to those who are licensed to when it comes to the designing of buildings. The licensing for architects has nothing to do with unrelated occupations. The reason Wood Guy can not use the architect title is not merely only because he is unlicensed. It is because he is unlicensed *AND* he designs buildings not required to have a stamp of a licensed / registered ARCHITECT. This restriction is about protecting the public of confusion between who is licensed and who is not.
Licensing boards and state laws have some legal and Constitution limits. The licensing laws are instituted on grounds of protecting the public health, safety, and welfare. There has to be some legitimate and reasonable justification support those laws. There is political factors involved in this.
For example, in a software business, I can call myself a software architect or whatever but I can not exactly do that if I offer services that involves the designing of buildings and other physical structures. If my business activity involves designing buildings, I can not use the architect title for services offered or conducted in jurisdictions where a license is required.
In a way, I have multiple business entities. A business entity that designs buildings and therefore I can not use the title Architect in jurisdictions where the title requires a license. However, I can use the title architect in connection with services offered to jurisdictions where a license is not required or that said title is not regulated. However, you are on a tight rope of careful wordage and clarity of jurisdictions where such title/services are offered.
On the other hand, I have a software business, the regulation and restriction of the title 'architect' does not apply. What if I design virtual buildings in a virtual cityscape in an online realm? Perhaps, I could use the architect title but THEY can NOT be used in services relating to services of designing buildings that maybe used in the real world built environment. Clarity and limits must apply. So if a client wishes to take a virtual building designed in a virtual cityscape in an online realm, they may need a licensed architect to prepare technical submissions in order to get permits for having it built in the real world.
What is important and clear is the public should know you are offering as a service and what you are not. Like would I be concerned about someone going by a title like "web architect" ? Probably not. If the nature of the work is creating websites. Why would we regulate the title on them and then those 'sandwich architects' and so forth. It would be a colossal waste of government money to go after all those people.
For Wood Guy, if you want to call yourself a software architect, you can do that if you know how to do that work. There is nothing that prohibits you. However, you will need to not muddy the waters with co-mingling the services with that of your business that designs buildings. You'll be better off separating the business entities. I would recommend keeping these silos segregated enough that they are A) separate business entities and B) separate activities... so they are not confusing in terms of advertising.
Yes, a person can be both a building designer and a software architect. Just keep the businesses separate entities. I can't use the 'architect' title for designing buildings in Oregon (or throughout the U.S.) but I can use the title software architect for software related activities. Don't muddy it by calling yourself a software architect while offering and performing building design services (not talking about virtual buildings in a virtual realm but for actual buildings designed with the intent that they will be built in the real world in a real location).
Wood Guy, if you offer services in countries that don't regulate the title architect, you can call yourself an architect in connection with projects in those countries. You will have to be clear about where the services are offered. If you don't make such clarity about where the services are offered, the licensing boards will make the assumption that you are offering such services in their jurisdiction especially the licensing board where you are located based on your location.
Yes, it may cause job searching harder if the job search site database has job positions for every job posting that has a title using the word 'architect' in the job position title. This can be complicated but if we have our own professional field job search site, with competent management of the database, we can certainly have positions strictly pertaining to firms posting jobs. Guess what, we have sites with that database. It is the job of educating people to go to these sites to search for jobs in this field instead of going to Monster.com or others. That would make it easier for people searching for jobs to find jobs because it filters out all the bullsh**.
Calm down, Rickipedia.
That's why when I call myself a doctor I make sure that I don't ever treat patients. Nobody will know if I'm a people doctor, a plumbing doctor, a car doctor, etc.
But really as an attorney friend of mine once put it. "Technically you can call yourself a lawyer even if you haven't passed the bar yet, but technically people will also still call you a moron for doing so". Similar rules apply.
However, that maybe true. If you have a doctorates degree in whatever, you got the Dr. in front of your name.... so. okay. However, unlike that issue you mentioned about lawyer, software architect does have a meaning in the software field and is not regulated in that sense however, you wouldn't call yourself a software architect if you don't know anything about the designing of software systems. It's a distinct (albeit unregulated) title from "architect" in the sense used here.
Context matters and it matters with the regulation of the Architect title as far as state law is concerned. However, in other countries, U.S. laws or the laws of its member states does not apply.
Therefore, if Wood Guy picked up a project to design in say.... Sweden, he can call himself an architect and design whatever within his competency. However, he can't use the title in the U.S. in anything associated with the designing of the built environment (not counting virtual reality and virtual realms where protection of public health, safety, and welfare does not apply or matter).
The Architect title is regulated on the premise of protecting public health, safety, and welfare. When public HSW is not involved within the jurisdictional authority of that state or governing body, there would not be any regulation of the Architect title as it would not hold up to political scrutiny when the law is challenged. I would argue that one should not be concerned about those "architects" that don't design buildings for the built environment.
I don't worry about the Plumbing Doctor or Mold Doctor (both real examples of business names where I live) either. Take it for what it is, another profession utilizing a title in an attempt to raise the perception of their role.
I think we have enough of an issue with folks in our own profession not getting licensed, no need to worry about some software "architect" that doesn't make a difference to our field.
I agree.
Besides the intent on the regulation of the title Architect is meant so those who design buildings that are not licensed is not confused with those who were. In Oregon, when the architectural licensing laws were adopted, the title Architect wasn't as heavy handed regulated as it would be today. In the original 1919 enacted law in Oregon, the law was mainly..... if you are not licensed.... don't represent yourself as licensed. Even the practice wasn't exactly regulated like it is now. It was the evolving nature of the laws over time that lead to the laws and rules we have today. It's fair for non-licensed designer of buildings to call themselves building designers or maybe..... "architectural designers" if we loosen up on that aspect but not "Architect". However, we have rules to follow. I can use the title software architect in context to software development work where the context of use make sense but I wouldn't use that with regards to work that involves designing buildings. It makes no sense. It would be stupid and odd.