PVC King wrote:You are in an internet forum using psuedo-id; not like a membership number is attached. I have no confidence that people without part 3 are fully competent without carrying out a time consuming due diligence procedure. Proper regulation in the form of needing to be a full member to be considered a fully qualified architect removes the requirement for due diligence.
You remind me of an MRIAI I was against in a matter dealing with building defects.
He was absolutely convinced it would go to the High Court, that we'd be having a swearing match against each other in front of a judge and that he had a 12 page list of defects.
I warned him that we were referring the matter to the Building Control Officer and he laughed, stating he was powerless to interfer in a matter of self-certification between architects.
I quoted him chapter and verse from the Building Control Act [the sort of information that a Part III architect would be expected to know, but a post-graduate probably wouldn't] and he still denied the BCO's authority.
I think he continued to deny it right until the state solicitor served his client with a summons to appear in the District Court - a summons issued on behalf of the BCO.
The action was costly and embarrassing for his client, yet he was an MRIAI and I was not.
He qualified before me too, so he had both his part III's and more years post qualification on his side.
On the face of it, you would have said he was the better bet to represent the client.
But the years and the Part III's count for little when you're dealing with building disputes - attitude matters.
In reality he saw the building as a pension plan for fees, and failed to adopt a reasonable approach to the case and the defects.
In the end the BCO issued a Building Defects Sheet - which I had agreed with him over the course of a week - him calling the shots, me seeking to minmise work and costs, sufficient to achieve compliance but not to do extravagant rebuilding works, a position with which the BCO was in full agreement.
The developer/builder for whom we acted completed the work for a figure that was a fraction of the the Quantity Surveyprs costs based on the MRIAI's 12 page summation.
The substantive issue was dealt with, the MRIAI got reasonable fees, but not his pension out of it, the owner received a settlement for his trouble and we got paid.
There was no winner doing it my way, but the building was remedied, we issued a full battery of Opinions, including Engineers both structural and mechanical and electrical, and our client wasn't burnt badly.
Recently I heard that on another property, where the same MRIAI had sucessfully avoided the BCO by using a good Senior Counsel and the matter was indeed heading for the High Court, the builder went bust, the house is still defective, and everyone is owed money.
The motto is - in building matters, winning the battle doesn't mean you win the war, and in some cases a defeat on good terms is better than playing for ultimate advantage.
I'm not suggesting that all post-graduates would deal with the matter like I did, but I did and it benefited everybody concerned.
Regulation in Ireland in most fields was non-existent at the time your right to be considered qualified was enacted. Other professions recognised this and self-regulated. They certainly never regarded graduates as qualified.
None of what you posted reflects the evolution of regulation in the professions in Ireland.
The two professions which most affect us, Banking and the Law are regulated at the highest levels, the former by an appointed regulator [and we saw where that led us] the latter by its own Members, and we have one of the best Judiciaries in the EU in my opinion.
The point being that and exernal regulator failed the public in the most egregious act of light touch regulation Ireland has known, whilst peer review in the Courts keeps all the legals on the straight and narrow.
My progress through the architectural profession reflects the years in practice that Barristers must put in to develop from Junior Counsel to Senior Counsel.
Its not too shabby a way to learn the ropes, I've found.
And I say again;
Did you look at the link I posted?http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0522/primetime.html
The subject is fire safety or the lack of it.
Look at the section on Shangan Hall Apartment Block
This is an apartment block adjoining the Ballymun Civic Office
The section starts at 38:46
The pass the parcel starts at 44:14
Developer, MRIAI, Fire Safety Consultant.
You should make a complaint to the RIAI if one hasn't already been made. At least there is a membership body to complain to and if you drafted the complaint yourself you wouldn't incur the legal fees you recommend others to.
Thank you for looking at the link.
I didn't make a complaint nor is that my intent.
I just wanted to plant a seed of doubt in your mind.
I wanted you to see the side of the RIAI I know about.
I had a previous experience of a complaint being ignored.
That is to say, there was no visible censure, no loss of face or title.
Nor did I complain about the MRIAI in the worked example I wrote of above.
Perhaps his clients who followed his strategy may, but I'd say he'll hide behind the solicitor and get away with it.
That's the reality PVC King -
Its not about MRIAI's giving service to the client or the public.
Its about MRIAI's knowing enough so that the shit doesn't stick to their fur.
I'm not singling MRIAI's out BTW; this is a survival trait all architects must have.
Now you may understand my annoyance at them for attaining their pre-eminence.
They have feet of clay like the rest of us and competence in disputes is a relative thing.
And at you for promoting a group, the actions of some of some Members of which are questionable.
The reason I haven't made more of this is because I genuninely support Registration.
I don't appreciate the undermining of post-graduates' legal rights to call themselves architects.
But I'm not going to go out of my way to tear down an institution like the RIAI for no good reason.
So, to endorse my previous comments, it would be best for them and the public for post graduates to practice in a small office for a year or two, to get full exposure to all the basic skills, with a further five years in a larger office.
From the first day they would be practising as architects
, not merely as "graduate architects" which is a grossly insulting term ro apply tio someone who has completed a five year full time course in design.
The would work at a certain level of project, certainly, but they would engaged in providing the full gamut of services - signing the certs, conducting the inspections, issuing the opinions, administering the contracts, all under the watchful eye of a competent practitioner, an MRIAI if you will.
This will give them the sense of being "out there" - of being liable and responsible to their client, of not being able to hide when the shit hits the fan, of having to account for themselves and represent their office..
More importantly it will give them the full range of experience requried by an architect - forecasting the workload, sheduling the work, preparing for meetings, researching the design proper, managing draftspeople and arranging access to the technicians, ensuring correspondence gets answered, file management and retrieval, client and staff relationships, agreeign fees with teh client, budgeting of fees, scheduling billing points, issuing and following up invoices - all at a scale that can be assimilated.
Because that kind of full-on experience is what teaches you about service to the client, about not being arrogant, about seeking ways forward for the good of all, not just your own personal gain.
You're unlikely to get that outlook by achieving a badge after two years cramming for the Part III exam - an unrealistically short timeframe in which to experience a wide range of professional situations.