The use of the "Architect" title by those who create software, develop a policy or create any endeavor is irritating at best, infuriating at worst. I spent more that 20 years on the California Architects Board's Professional Qualifications Committee. One of my fellow Principals at our firm in San Francisco would clip every article that came across his desk when the "architect" title was misappropriated, circled it in red and leave it on my desk with a nice request that I bring to the attention of the Architect's Board. Each year the Professional Qualifications Committee would meet with a Deputy Attorney General of the State to discuss issues of concern. Each year I would raise the issue of misuse of the title. The Deputy AG would listen politely, other Committee members would echo my concerns and we would be assured the AG's office would look into the issue. A few weeks would go by and the Board's Executive Director would get a lovely letter from the AG's office. After thanking us for raising the title issue, the AG's opinion usually came down to this: while misuse of the title "architect" was not legal, it was unlikely someone would misconstrue someone designing software or a policy to be capable of designing a building. As a result it was unlikely to be a public risk of software architects trying to design buildings. This was distinct from "designers", interior designers, contractors or others offering or performing building design services. At the end of the day the AG's office felt they had bigger issues to deal with than chasing software architects.
As I have talked about the title issue with other AIA leaders from around the country over the years they had experienced similar discussions with enforcement entities. While it upsets us that the title is often misapplied to individuals who are "designing" something I've concluded that we're not going to get much support to stop the practice. For my part, I've chosen to take it as a sign of pride, everyone who "creates" wants the prestige associated with being an "architect". Now when I see an "architect of the policy" reference in an article I chuckle and say "Another person who wishes they were an architect"....... And have another sip of coffee. I also spend a little more time trying to explain to friends and acquaintances what is we actually do and the proper use of the title. There's never enough public education on that front.
Resilience, climate change, zero carbon, diversity, inclusion, social justice, pandemic responses.......as architects we have a lot of issues on our plate. These are issues we can have significant positive impacts on the profession, society, our planet and the future. Plus we have businesses and projects to tend. Yes, the proper use of the title is important but compared to those other issue how much energy should we spend arguing against its misuse?
RK Stewart FAIA
2007 AIA President
Original Message:
Sent: 9/14/2020 8:52:00 AM
From: Steven P. Turnipseed AIA
Subject: RE: Architect
Yes! Although I thought that was what the AIA would be all about - seems to be distracted....I flagged several AIA Jobs Board posts asking for IT “Architects”....
Steven Turnipseed AIA
NCARB. LEED AP BD+C
Original Message:
Sent: 9/10/2020 12:28:00 PM
From: Christina T. Shampton Assoc. AIA
Subject: Architect
Dear Colleagues, can we please get together and enforce our title act to protect the use of ARCHITECT. For years, it was ours. If you were searching for a job and put in Architect, it came up with our positions, designing and creating the built environment. Now, all it is Tech positions. They hijacked our title over the past decade!
Thanks for the support.
Christina Shampton, Associate AIA, NCIDQ