Some architectural technologists have approached me several times to express grave concerns about the building control amendment regulations. They argue that to protect the consumer properly, all those who play an active part in the construction process should be assessed on their own merits and competence and regulated as necessary on that basis.
The amended buillding regulations zone in on the essence of architectural technology, but they do not provide for the role of those who are trained and experienced in this area. As a result, their skills set, while relevant to the construction industry and the building regulations, is outside the terms of the Building Control Act 2007. Although the Act alludes to their role, it is not adequately catered for. To play a role in this new regime, professional architectural technologists, many of whom have decades of experience in this field, have to deny their primary qualification in architectural technology and claim instead to be either architects or building surveyors to seek entry to the statutory registers. The insistence that those who operate within the scope of the Act should declare themselves as architects or building surveyors and submit for registration in these fields is flawed and will lead to many unsuccessful registration applications and more problems for the Department. To present it as a solution to those faced with retraining or an exit from their profession makes matters much worse.
The irony is the regulations demand that architectural technologists would brand themselves as architects or building surveyors in order to continue doing what they currently do. The mantra that architects, engineers and building surveyors are those most commonly involved in the completion of construction projects is not entirely accurate, as professional architectural technologists carry out some but not always all the duties of architects and building surveyors on the basis of multiple shared competencies. Such individuals possess varying degrees of academic training but with a different focus from that of either of the regulated professions.
Many architectural technologists would have successfully completed a wide variety of construction projects but most would have done so on the basis of their particular qualification, often as part of a team and usually without the necessity to use any protected title. That is why many would now be reluctant to make a declaration regarding the breadth of their duties in comparison to those of an architect or building surveyor on foot of the scope of services provided. Some would be limited by the scale of the project with which they would be independently involved and others would have limited exposure to specialised areas. Many simply find the contradiction of claiming to be something they are not to be very difficult and attempts at registration will suffer on the back of this.
For the current system to be fair, specific provision should be made within the registration process for a particular skill set of experienced, professionally accredited architectural technologists as qualified professionals in their own right. The regulations must include a viable and sustainable role for the country's architectural technologists, and it is vital that those who can bring clarity to this issue for architectural technology professions do so clearly and without fear or favour of any other party. Architectural technologists should be included in the regulations process, as this is a very big cause of concern. In the past decade or more a vast number of architectural technologists have gone through the third level system and there has been an increase in the level of national framework qualifications. It is important these people are recognised.
