Don’t Call Me a Student!

What is the career status of people who have not acquired the Part III qualification?

For the RIBA, Part II is not a destination. It is merely a stepping stone to Part III. The RIBA only seem to recognise Part II’s on the basis they will all move on to Part III. If you don’t acquire Part III after five years the RIBA quickly disown you. OK, you can join the RIBA as a ‘second class’ member but what is the point of that? They don’t lift a finger to represent you and why should they! Fair enough, the RIBA are only interested in architects but are registered architects the only members of the architectural profession? Is there no room for Part II’s? 

Having acquired a post-graduate qualification you are in the top 5% of the working population even without Part III.  So how does the architectural profession reward you for all that hard work and what we now know to be an investment of £50,000 plus? 

Well, first it labels you as an ‘assistant’ (so you don’t get ideas above your station no doubt) and then it terminates your career. The RIBA don’t or won’t publish statistics that would undermine its members so no-one knows exactly how many Part II’s are working in architects offices, It doesn’t publish statistics on what proportion of ‘associates’ or ‘directors’ or ‘partners’ in big architectural practices have not acquired Part III. (Anecdotal evidence would point to a heavy majority being architects and a tiny minority being non-architects.) So without Part III you can kiss goodbye to any meaningful career progression if you remain in the big architectural offices. 

What is the status of Part II on its own merits? Perpetual student? Fodder for architects? WC detailer extraordinaire? The role Part II’s play in the construction industry needs to be better defined and we need a collective voice of our own. Now!

How the RIBA ‘Control’ Architects Fees

Why would anyone seek to promote a suggested (or even fixed) fee scale in a competitive marketplace? 

Surely every independent practitioner knows their cost base and how they are able to effectively deliver the required services professionally and to the best of their ability? If Practice A can deliver to a client the requested services for a lower fee than Practice B what is wrong with that?

So why has the RIBA introduced a ‘Fees Toolkit’ to help clients better understand the process and professionalism involved in delivering architectural services? (Incidentally, the toolkit is only available to RIBA members so clients can’t even find out what the benchmarks are!) Could it be the RIBA is an organisation that seems to believe in an anti-competitive, out-dated Victorian mode of doing business? Could it be the RIBA believe a professional (and heaven forbid, an architect!) is not supposed to embrace the world of commerce? Accepting competition is not for the RIBA! Oh no; and especially not competing on fees! No, fees must be controlled and regulated by the RIBA. So how does the RIBA manage to control architectural fees without it being unlawful?

As its charter states the RIBA’s current mantra that it promotes architecture not architects is severely tested when its current President Ruth Reed claims fee competition causes “…serious damage…” (RIBA press release 25.11.10)  Clearly, the RIBA (effectively a union for architects regardless of what its charter says) cannot get past the fact the government legislated against price fixing years ago. It is now unlawful for architects (as they did in the past) to collaboratively ‘fix’ their fees. Yet the RIBA appears to do its best to circumvent the law by recommending its members adopt ‘benchmark’ fees. The toolkit is obviously designed to assist in determining what the benchmark should be. In other more straightforward words, the ‘Toolkit’ is the return of the outlawed fixed fee scales in everything but name. It is no more than a comfort blanket to try and protect architects from free market economics.

Taken in isolation, the ‘Toolkit’ initiative is one example of how out-dated the RIBA’s thinking really is and how it diverts resources down a dead end. That practices only take cursory notice of ‘suggested’ fees now is of no consequence to the RIBA and the RIBA also knows fee bidding (ie undercutting) is here and here to stay. Unless you are prepared to turn work away, commercial practices (even RIBA Chartered Practices) also know that insisting on ‘benchmarked’ fees is futile. So the reality of addressing fee competition head on is rejected by the RIBA in the forlorn hope that ‘clients’ will be prepared to stump up benchmark fees to prop up a profession that cannot accept it should get paid what it is worth and not a penny more. The fundamental flaw in the toolkit is the basis on which the assumptions essential to determining a fee are based as they underpin the toolkit. For example; architects believe they have a divine right to exclusively deliver those services when the law states they don’t. If architects are confident their services have a value beyond a benchmark arbitrarily set to what they think they are worth, they have nothing to fear from market economics. The reality however is quite different. Architects hide behind a protected title and most would like to see – and more importantly assume – the function is protected as well. This distorted view produces flawed logic.

Compare a talented fledgling designer with a talented young tennis player of similar age. If the RIBA represented tennis players its view would be all professional tennis players should be paid equally, according to a formula set by the RIBA, regardless of individual talent. (Translated; all architects provide identical services and deliver them equally competently therefore the base cost of those services should be standardised.) The modern competitive world however, ensures that tennis players are paid according to their ability to compete and win. For anybody with a talent for tennis, the only barriers to success are application and effort. For anyone with a talent for architecture however, the barrier to success is how to compete in a saturated, mature but declining marketplace. Application and effort is not enough and ‘standardised’ fees make competing virtually impossible. Why would any client employ a start-up practice who insists on charging benchmarked fees (as the RIBA imply they should be doing by using the toolkit) as opposed to a practice that has been in business for ten years or more but also charges the same fee? Quite obviously a client is highly unlikely to employ the start-up practice. It is therefore self-evident to any business person that a less experienced start-up practice (who cannot rely on patronage for work) has no option other than undercutting fees thereby allowing them to compete with more experienced and established practices that will always have an advantage in a competitive marketplace.

In conclusion, the RIBA’s covert aim to ‘control’ fees is intended to maintain the monopoly of an established elite and to make sure competition is stifled. A ‘Fees Toolkit’ is not a modern solution to getting paid what you are worth and is no more than a manifestation of an ingrained culture where work is divvied out by men in smoke filled clubrooms; much like those that exist within the RIBA in fact.

11,000 members of the RIBA aren't architects!

There are apparently 44,000 members of the RIBA (source: wikipedia) but only approximately 33,000 architects registered with the ARB. So who on earth are the 11,000 odd members of the RIBA who aren't architects? They can't all be students or fellows can they?

Why is there no Alternative to Part III?

The Architects Act is quite clear in stating there should be an alternative to the prescribed qualifications (Part III), yet the Architects Registration Board steadfastly refuses to explain why it does not provide one. Below the truth is revealed.

As this is quite complex issue, a non-technical explanation first.

It is a commonly held view that to register as an architect in the UK a candidate must first successfully complete the Part III professional examination. However, and this is crucial, the law also states that a person who can demonstrate “equivalent competence” to that of the Part III examination is also entitled to become a registered architect. 

So why is this fact deliberately concealed by both the Architects Registration Board and the Royal Institute of British Architects? The simple logic of it is if an alternative to the current Part III qualification in the UK was offered – for example a technical assessment of competence similar to that provided by the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland – there could be an abrupt shift from candidates signing up for a Part III course (provided by a number of Schools of Architecture) to opt for the alternative examination and/or assessment. It doesn’t take a genius to see that the income received by the Schools of Architecture could then be threatened and so would the continued existence of the Part III examination as we know it. This is why neither the ARB nor the RIBA offer any alternative to the hegemony of the Part III examination even though they are legally obligated to do so.

On this basis it is entirely understandable (but legally dubious) for the ARB/RIBA/Schools of Architecture triumvirate to selectively implement the Architects Act. The RIBA quite obviously has no desire to undermine its own exam and the Schools of Architecture effectively have a gun held to their head by the ARB; acquiesce or have your accreditation removed. But what if you cannot for any reason complete a Part III course? Not because you cannot reach the standard set – as that would be lowering the standard expected – but simply because for example, you cannot meet the ARB/RIBA requirements in order to complete the Case Study element of the course? Should you not then be offered an alternative solution as the law stipulates? 

Buried deep in the ARB’s publication ‘Routes to Registration as an Architect in the UK’ is the proof that candidates can (and do) register as an architect without having first obtained the Part III qualification. (The ARB has also acknowledged this as a fact.) True to its secretive nature the criteria the ARB applies to the select number of candidates who were able to demonstrate “equivalent competence” and have subsequently registered by this route, remains known only to the ARB. It is not difficult to see that if it is done not on applying rational ‘equivalent’ criteria but more on a nod and a wink basis, those who are effectively forced down the Part III route would feel mightily aggrieved if it were to become public knowledge that candidates can get on the register without having first achieved the standards set by Part III. The only rational explanation for the ARB to continue concealing the criteria it applies in these cases is that the criteria are in fact less stringent than the Part III qualification and that is precisely why it remains secret.

If anyone or any organisation can afford to risk about £100,000 they would have a very high probability of winning a Judicial Review of the ARB/RIBA mantra which claims the only way to qualify as an architect is to successfully complete a Part III course. The ARB/RIBA/Schools all know very well no-one is likely to make a challenge so the myth prevails.

Compare this approach with the Republic of Ireland. Over there, they offer both professional exams and a technical assessment to potential candidates both of which happily co-exist and lead to registration. However, in the UK we only have one choice and the ARB/RIBA/Schools make sure the myth is perpetuated to avoid having to provide an alternative as the law states. Worse, they refuse to explain why. So there you have it; in our so called democracy you have unaccountable UK organisations acting like those foreign dictator states the British all too readily want to democratise. 

Below is the logical legal argument.

Section 4(1) of the Architects Act 1997 states:

A person who has applied to the registrar in the prescribed manner for registration in pursuance of this section is entitled to be registered in Part 1 of the Register if:

(a) he holds such qualifications and has gained such practical experience as may be prescribed; or

(b) he has a standard of competence which, in the opinion of the board, is equivalent to that demonstrated by satisfying paragraph (a).

However, under Section 4(2) the Board may require a person who applies for registration on the ground that he satisfies subsection (1)(b) to pass a prescribed examination in architecture.

It cannot be clearer that Section 4(1)(b) creates a legitimate expectation there should be an alternative to Section 4(1)(a). Otherwise paragraph 4(1)(b) is meaningless. In response to Section 4(1)(b) of the Architects Act, the ARB publishes a policy (General Rule 14) to guide it in meeting the intentions of the Act. General Rule 14 is quite clear in stating:

The examination in architecture prescribed by the Board pursuant to Section 4(2) of the Act (for determining competence pursuant to Section 4 (1)(b) of the Act), shall be one or more of the following:

a)     an examination conducted by the Board or a Committee established by the Board;

b)     an examination in any subject area(s) nominated by the Board at final level conducted by a school of architecture which awards a prescribed qualification;

c)      any other examination which the Board may approve for this purpose;

d)     any oral or written examination carried out under such procedures as the Board may establish.

Yet the Architects Registration Board offer none of the equivalent competencies set out at a), b), c) or d) at final level to potential candidates for registration. Furthermore, the Architects Registration Board’s Board has stated their ‘opinion’ as required under the Architects Act as being:

That a person with equivalent competence required by Section 4(1)(b) of the Architects Act should hold equivalent qualifications to the prescribed qualifications.

Yet – by choice – the Architects Registration Board does not provide “equivalent qualifications” at final level nor does any School of Architecture or franchised establishment. As a direct consequence, the Architects Registration Board is acting unreasonably and beyond its powers by fettering its discretion to ensure that de facto Section 4(1)(b) of the Architects Act can only be met by obtaining the prescribed ‘Part III qualification’. In so doing, the Architects Registration Board has created a situation where it implements Section 4(1)(a) and Section 4(1)(b) of the Architects Act in an identical manner; a manner that is quite clearly contrary to the intentions of Parliament. 

Consequently the ARB’s approach to Section 4(1)(b) is unlawful. The ARB know it, the RIBA know it too; yet they do nothing about it. They get away with it because no-one is prepared to go the High Court and challenge it. So as long as Parliament is content to keep the ARB at arms-length the ARB are permitted to break the law with impunity.

How to Succeed in Architecture: Part 2

Been made redundant? Suddenly realised your future is to control your own destiny? Just set up on your own? What now?

Well, if you haven’t got any contacts or a secret stash of cash to see you through the next few years you are facing an uphill struggle because work will be very, very hard to find. As most of us aren’t born with a silver spoon in our mouths, the following is a crash CPD course on maximising your chances of finding work, avoiding unnecessary expenditure or going up a blind alley.

When I started up in exactly those circumstances (no contacts, no cash) I read everything I could on starting up in business, went to every course I could afford and regularly attended networking events in search of jobs. None of which worked at the time! Do an internet search for “how architects get work” and you won’t find much that is coherent. As you probably know, architects are notoriously secretive about revealing how they actually get work. I hope this helps.

Marketing: As a start-up, simply forget it! Did you know the RIBA’s code of conduct prevented architects from promoting themselves until the mid-1980’s? Old habits die hard so do not make the mistake of assuming a slick website and business card will get you work; they won’t. Nor will getting Part III and signing up with the Architects Registration Board guarantee you get work as an independent practitioner. So don’t spend precious money printing business cards or getting a fancy website done or spend it on advertising either. Marketing material is definitely not a priority for a typical start-up scenario. A website and other marketing material are one part of a package of measures that only kick in when you have got yourself established. Some claim ‘guerrilla marketing tactics’ will work; they might get you noticed but will you be respected for it? There are literally thousands of books on starting up in business all of which are virtually useless for architectural start-ups; so don’t waste your money on these either. Only a tiny number specifically focus on architecture. They offer sound practical advice but never tell you what you want to know; how to get work in the first place! They are only useful to know how to keep it when you’ve got it. So focus on getting work and forget marketing until you’ve got something to market.

Networking Events: You have a better chance of winning the lottery than hooking up with a significant client in the next year at a networking event. Running into a person who wants to build a new office for their business and they ask you to do it for them just because they met you at a networking event is not going to happen. Remember ‘networking events’ are run by businesses, so be wary. They are however, good for gathering information or intelligence which may lead indirectly to a job; someone may know someone who is thinking about extending their house type of thing. The only networking that really works is keeping up with the contacts you already know and with luck they – or someone they know – will give you some work. So if you can afford to go to these events or join the right clubs, aim simply to get to know people first, then cultivate your contacts and hope it leads you to a job over time. If money is hard to come by, the return on investment is poor and gestation period is years not months.

Competitions: The attraction of architectural competitions is they appear to deliver everything required to raise your profile and set you up with future work. But beware! They can be extremely expensive and as you start from scratch on each one it’s an all or nothing approach as you never build any contacts. The time and resources required to complete a competition need to be weighed against what you could be doing instead. With popular competitions the odds on winning can be low and remember, competitions aren’t always as fair as they claim to be. So if you do them, make sure your drawing style is as individual as your signature and you might strike gold.  (Isn’t it strange how some people are luckier than others at competitions?) But they are fun to do and you get some great drawings for your first web site.

So what does work then?

The EU Journal: Definitely a potential source of work from public bodies across Europe. You are (unfairly) locked out of most of them though if you are not a registered architect. You’ll have to dig deep to find it but it is a great source of potential work.

Masonry: There is no question the architectural profession is still deeply riddled with masonic influences. If you are that way inclined, joining the brotherhood is a terrific boost to getting work (or promotion) from your fellow masons. But of course, you just can’t rock up to your local lodge and ask to join. If you’ve been approached and turned it down on principle, at least you’ll know enough to be able to have a good idea of who is (and more importantly who is not) a mason and how they tend to divide the work out between themselves. Knowing as much as possible about how masons operate in society will at least stop you chasing those jobs that never seem to materialise. 

Contacts: Definitely the best and only way of finding work as a start-up. Many, many practices have started up successfully by getting to know the right people while working in a salaried position for an established architectural practice. So a great tip is that in every office you get to work in, get as close to the clients as possible and cultivate them. Some of the bigger practices even go out of their way to make sure commissions that are too small for them end up with a favoured ex-employee. They are some of the best contacts you can have if you don’t have a relative who is head of a large development company or runs the Arts Council. The ultimate contact is to know someone influential and well established with their own credibility who will introduce you to potential sources of work. Absolute gold-dust! 

Self-Initiated Projects: Very, very hard work but it does seem to bear fruit and the odds on success are definitely better than doing a competition. Go looking for sites, approach the owner and together work out how to develop it and chase up anyone who you think will pay you to realise that value. (Take care not to let some unscrupulous architect who happens – unbeknown to you – to be in cahoots with the owner or developer steal it off you. And yes they do do it!) It can be a drain on limited financial resources but it’s a gamble worth taking and an investment worth making. 

Promotion: There is a fundamental difference between marketing and promotion. Promotion is what you should be doing all the time at every opportunity. Promote what you do and how you do it remorselessly. But be careful to project an image that is consistent and true. Your education has no doubt taught you to be all things to all people; that you will soon find is impossible. So it is important to identify what your strengths (and weaknesses) are and promote how these can help clients resolve problems. You have to find a way to stand out from the crowd and be memorable. Work out why clients should employ you and not any of the well-established competitors already doing similar work. Oh, and if you’ve only ever worked in big practices loose that big practice mentality because the chances are you will be unknown to the world outside that bubble.

Leads: It is highly unlikely that an unknown potential client will come up to you, slap you on the back and say I’ve got just the job for you! So forget the instant job from unknown contacts, unless you’ve been introduced that is. Focus on finding and following leads that take you to a job. Leads are free and omnipresent. 

Hopefully, you will now be aware of some of the secrets of how architects find work. Only a privileged few have parents who commission avant-garde masterpieces from their offspring as soon as they qualify. So if you are not from a privileged background, or are a ‘protected’ registered architect, or have worked your way to the top of an established practice you are one of those people who will have to earn your luck to get a break and this may help improve your chances. Unfortunately in architecture, hard work and ability gets you nowhere; only contacts and patronage bring success. Understand that from the outset and you have at least half a chance of getting established and getting to that critical mass of jobs and contacts. Take all the above with a pinch of salt and be sure to balance it against all the other advice out there!

Ten Indispensable Steps to Becoming a Successful Architect

To be successful in architecture you must follow the steps summarised below as best you can. Especially Step 1.

Step 1: Age range 0 – 9. It is essential that you are born into a privileged family. Both parents should be – as a minimum – Caucasian, university educated and successful professional people in their own right. In your formative years this will almost guarantee you receive the educational, financial and social advantages necessary to succeed.

Step 2: Age range 10 – 17. You must attend a Public School (at the very least a Grammar School) in order to gain the confidence, obtain the social nuances and learn the speech patterns required to distinguish you from similarly talented State educated students. Having received the appropriate educational support and guidance from your parents, as a budding architect you will now be equipped with the qualifications and social connections required for the next step.

Step 3: Age range 18 – 25. As a promising architect, choosing the right school of architecture is a vital component in cultivating your aim of getting the prize of  gaining practical work experience – as an unpaid intern if need be – in one or more Starchitect’s offices. (The contacts you make with visiting tutors from the relevant Starchitect’s office will help you facilitate this transition.)

Step 4: Age range 26 – 29. Spend at least three years, certainly no more than five, observing the Masters at work with the intention of learning all you can about how they operate. (This is where you will learn architects naturally place themselves at the top of the pyramid.) When complete it will be time to begin the process of getting noticed.

Step 5: Age range 30 – 35. Your privileged upbringing will give you access to private wealth. Use it to set up your own practice. (Make sure it is located in the architectural ghetto to make the right impression.) As an embryonic starchitect a private income will relieve you of the immediate pressure to become economically viable. You will then have the luxury of spending the next few years seeking the right opportunity to get noticed. If you happen to marry someone who is well connected, so much the better.

Step 6: Age range 30 – 35. It is also time to use the contacts you made at public school (or as an alternative use a wealthy family member) to engineer your ‘lucky break’ into the world of Architecture with a capital A. With your signature building complete you can now step out of the wings onto the main stage and enjoy the adulation of the audience. You will achieve this by using the opportunity as the vehicle for being widely published (and lauded) in the architectural press; an appearance on television or a feature in the week-end papers would be a bonus. As a direct consequence of your privileged background, by now you will have established an impeccable pedigree.

Step 7: Age range 36 – 40. Having stepped into the lime-light it is now essential you are initiated into the architectural establishment. (You may now have to employ a publicist and a good lieutenant to run the office.) The fastest way to accomplish this is to either win a prize – there are lots of them – or to be the subject of an exhibition or a book. The professional respectability this brings will instantly reinforce your carefully crafted media profile and complete your transformation into a fledgling starchitect.

Step 8: Age range 41 – 50. Your stature within the elite must now be consolidated with a major commission: a river side art museum would fit the bill. Your privileged upbringing will now pay dividends by providing you with the airs and graces to effortlessly rub shoulders with the super-rich patrons of the museum. The self-styled cultural elite will look to embrace you as a ‘new sensation’ to show the hoi polloi where the future lies. With their patronage you cannot now fail to make the leap to super-stardom.

Step 9: Age range 51 – 60.  With prestigious commissions and clients beating a path to your studio you now have the luxury of effortlessly consolidating your position amongst the architectural elite. By now your atelier should be filled with salaried mini-me disciples running on autopilot implementing your ideas precisely. Take advantage of free interns queuing up for the opportunity to observe the Master at work and the trickle down credibility that comes with it.

Step 10: Age range 60+. Relax and enjoy all the honours a class ridden society and cultural elite will now bestow upon you for all your ‘hard earned’ success!

Who Scrutinises the ARB?

The following sets out how the Architects Registration Board effectively runs a collective, unaccountable dictatorship. 

The Architects Act established by Parliament in 1997 sets out the ARB’s powers. Its board operates in a quasi-judicial capacity on how to interpret the Architects Act and how European Directives in the UK are implemented. In theory it functions under the auspices of its sponsoring government department, Communities and Local Government. However, in 2010 the ARB and the CLG jointly produced a framework agreement which sets out how the ARB and CLG are content to remain at arms-length from each other for the next five years. Consequently, the government has left the ARB to operate as an autonomous organisation free from any visible democratic accountability. The Minister currently responsible for the ARB is Andrew Stunell MP. 

The ARB is governed by a 15 person board, eight of whom are directly appointed by Her Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council after consultation with the Secretary of State and other bodies the Privy Council thinks fit; none of the appointed members can be registered architects. The framework agreement states the unelected members are appointed on merit following an open and transparent process and independent assessment. Yet nowhere is it stipulated in that agreement what the “open and transparent process” is, who can apply or indeed, how to apply. Despite giving the appearance of ‘fair-play’ mystery still shrouds the Privy Council and how it makes its decisions or operates. It is accused of obsessive secrecy because of the oath its members take; until 1993 revealing the oath was considered treasonous. The remaining seven members are elected exclusively from Part 1 of the register of architects by other registered architects. Members of the architectural profession who are not on the register (who cannot refer to themselves as architects) have no voting rights yet are governed by its decisions.

It is therefore immediately apparent the unelected, secretly appointed members of the ARB have ultimate control over the registration of architects. The CLG framework agreement makes it clear the ARB operates at “arms-length” from the government even though the CLG’s Accounting Officer (the Permanent Secretary of State) is ultimately accountable to Parliament. Such a light touch, non-interventionalist policy makes it clear both the government and Parliament have no desire to ensure the ARB is not abusing its powers. Unlike the banking profession – where public opinion has forced the government to intervene – the government appear content to leave the ARB board free from even basic scrutiny.

In stark contrast to the UK government, the European Commission does hold the ARB to account. As a direct result, the CLG and the ARB have been forced (much to their chagrin) to amend the Architects Act to ensure its implementation is fair to qualified architects from other EU member states wishing to enter the register of architects in the UK. In the opinion of the EC therefore, the ARB’s interpretation of Directive 2005/36/EC was misconceived.

Where European citizens can rely on the European Commission to ensure the law is applied correctly, for UK subjects (of the Queen) the only recourse to how the ARB interprets the Architects Act is not to democratically appointed members of the government but to the Courts directly. (Confirmed in writing by Andrew Stunell MP.) The government therefore ensures the ARB effectively operates as a collective dictator at the behest of the Privy Council with little or no democratic accountability.

As the government have indicated their unwillingness to hold the ARB to account, if an organisation or individual disagrees with the ARB on a point of principle they will have to find at least £50,000 to mount a legal challenge* as petitioning a virtually unassailable 15 person board will no doubt be a fruitless exercise. The ARB, which is funded by a compulsory registration fee (the amount of which the ARB determine themselves and whose liabilities are ultimately underwritten by public money through the Treasury) can therefore sit back and smugly conclude their financial resources are superior to any individual likely to mount a challenge through the Courts. Accountability in the UK therefore comes down to who has the deepest financial resources and not who has a valid point to make.

* There is no general right to appeal on any decision made by the ARB – which is regarded as a public corporation by the Office for National Statistics – as there is for other public bodies; for example when a decision is made on a planning application. The ARB does have an internal appeals process but it is restricted to very specific instances and is generally held by the wider profession to be inadequate. For a general summary on this see “RIBA blasts ARB appeal process as inadequate” Building Design, 30^th November 2007.