Stamping a Result of lack of Integrity

Some bold construction firm recently solicited for architectural business from duly registered architects in what one would equate to a robber attempting to steal from a police station. Owners or staff of Morgan Developments Limited decided that the best way to take on architects was to taunt them by requesting for their business in form of What’s App messages. In the late of hours of Friday 13th October 2017 and into the early hours of Saturday 14th October 2017, Morgan Developments Ltd sent out messages to most (if not all) registered architects in Uganda claiming that they are Interior Designers, Architects, Property Managers, Building Contractors and Suppliers. Many architects were not amused and instantly expressed their irritation via social media (through their What’s App group ‘Architects in Practice’). Below are some of the posts from the members:
‘Quack architects testing their limit here. Let’s take our activism to another level and bombard his number with protest notes and warnings’ – Arch Amunsimire
Doesn’t the Uganda Society of Architects retain the services of a lawyer? We pay quite some annual society fees. We should be able to retain the services of a lawyer. A notice to sue such people would be enough. – Arch Mukisa
Instead of protest notes, it should be a suit that is well publicized. I have always insisted that we are to blame for our plight because the law protects us and we always tend to do less than enough to assert our rights. – Arch Bwambale
I believe ARB/USA have tried to do so (sue). At the last ARB seminar this was mentioned. I don’t remember the exact reasons given for failure to pursue such issues.......but I remember something about a weak law – Arch Bazira
Something to do with the law plus the punishment for non-architects being too small to prevent repeat offences. It has also been reported that getting actual evidence against an architect is quite difficult much as it is a known fact – Arch Kabarungi
It is high time (the) Society started biting members who work against its cause without even waiting for ARB...........We are all to blame for these issues not being dealt with.......the guy should be required to say who stamps for him in writing..... Arch Bwambale.
Some years back (prior to 1996), most architectural work was being done by engineers (especially Structural Engineers) who have an idea about the construction of buildings and architectural draughtsman who are generally schooled about the preparation of drawings or plans. For sometime, the Uganda Society of Architects through their leadership pushed for a law that regulated the practice of architecture and this was eventually passed as the Architect’s Registration Statute (1996). This law provides for the registration of architects and other related matters. I remember vividly, fresh out of the university, how this law was a source of excitement for all

people qualified to practice architecture in Uganda. Many thought at the time that this was going to bring an end to poor planning, bad architecture, non-functional buildings and above all protection of the profession from masqueraders. Unfortunately, despite some recognizable achievements, that law has not totally helped eliminate sham architects and masqueraders.
It is obvious the proprietors of M/s Morgan Developments Ltd do not know the provisions of the 1996 law. If they were, they would have known that it is not possible for one to claim to be an Interior Designer, Architect, Property Manager, Building Contractor and Supplier without contravening the second schedule of the law (Code of Professional Ethics). It is also obvious from the posts above, that many of the registered architects are tired and fed up of people who call themselves architects yet they are not and do not have to follow the strict rules under which we practice. We are competing with unregulated people. But why has this practice continued despite having a law in place?
For starters, let us look at the law. Clause 34(1) of the Architects Registration Act (1996) provides that
.... any person who not being a registered architect:-

1. a)  falsely pretends to be such, or
   
2. b)  uses the style of title ‘architect or any other name, style, title or description
   implying whether in itself or in the circumstances in which it is used that such
   a person is registered architect or
   
3. c)  holds himself whether directly or by implication to be a professionally
   qualified architect commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction, to a fine not exceeding five hundred thousand shillings or imprisonment not exceeding six months or both (emphasis mine).
   

This means that people who call themselves architects without being registered commit an offence and should be taken to court, yet ARB and USA have failed to successfully prosecute even the most glaring of cases. This is because there are some within us who have chosen to throw all their seven-year training to the dogs and collude with non-architects, in essence abetting commission of an offence. According to the International Union of Architects (UIA), “Members of the architectural profession are dedicated to standards of professionalism, integrity and competence bringing to society unique skills and talents essential for the sustainable development of the built environment, the welfare of our communities and preservation of our cultures”. Unfortunately, there are people within us who have chosen to live outside these main tenets (professionalism, integrity, competence) of our profession by continuing to assist non-architects.
Some particular members of our profession who are registered as architects have continued to shamelessly append their signatures, names and stamps to drawings that they have not produced or have not been prepared under their supervision. This list is not long (probably not more 10) and is known by everybody who has ever served on the Architects Registration Board. Many of them practically leave their stamps at the printing houses (especially in Nkrumah Road) and usually charge no more than Ush. 500,000 per plan/project. During my time at the Disciplinary Committee, we attempted to bring a few of these guys to face the committee and answer our questions. All of them as if on cue claimed that these drawings/plans had been

produced by their staff under their supervision. There is so much one can do and the Board with its limited resources cannot invest in a more elaborate investigation of this claim. It is clear to many of us in practice that it is impossible for one architect to have supervised or produced and submitted to one municipality, projects in the excess of 50 in one month. That would suggest that such architect or his practice has produced or worked on more than 2 projects a day. While it is scientifically possible (especially if you have a large number of staff), I believe I am speaking for many of us, when I say that it is practically impossible. Ironically, it is these same people that usually have no known fixed physical premises for their practices.
Now that we have nurtured this monster within us, the masqueraders have taken it a notch higher. This inside threat has grown so much that some of these non-architects have now evolved into big companies with a capacity to advertise on TV and other media. M/s Namulondo Investments Ltd unrepentantly and unashamedly advertise on TV that they offer architectural services, which is of course against our code of conduct. I have tried to follow this up and been told that they have employed an architect within their set up. I have asked the Registrar and Board’s lawyer to see if such registered architect is not breaching the law. Another company called Creation Architects has put up a signboard on a site in Ntinda and as an after thought or purposeful confusion included the title of the Architect as ‘ARB No. 085’ at the bottom. I am trying to find out from the Board who No.85 is and why he or she would not want to publish his name. Most architects are always proud of their work and would proudly display their name against any work under their hand. The board will also be interested in the architect’s association with Creation Architects. I am also interested in finding out if any one can register their company or firm with the word ‘Architect’ without any of the directors being an architect. By taunting us with those messages last week, M/s Morgan Developments Limited was daring us to see what we can do.
Rather than external factors, we seem to be faced with internal threats as the biggest danger to our profession. We will have to decisively deal with these people and as the Chair Practice Committee of the Architects’ Registration Board, I am open to ideas. I have been informed that the law as it is now does not adequately protect us from this new monster of ‘firms’ that advertise and contravene all the provisions of the Second Schedule of the Architects’ Registration Act (1996). This statute has to be amended to protect us from this new wave of attack on our profession, which unfortunately is being abetted by some of us. I have looked at laws of other countries and our law will have to be amended to deal with this new threat. I am aware of the fact that amending a law is a long and tedious process, but we have to start.
(3) Subsection (1) does not prevent a body corporate, firm or partnership from carrying on business under a name, style or title containing the word "architect" if- (a) the business of the body corporate, firm or partnership so far as it relates to architecture is under the control and management of a person registered in Part 1 of the Register who does not act at the same time in a similar capacity for any other body corporate, firm or partnership; and (b) in all premises where its business relating to architecture is carried on it is carried on by or under the supervision of a person registered in Part 1 of the Register. (United Kingdom)

(1) It is unlawful for any person or firm to practice or offer to practice architecture in this state, or to use in connection with his or her name or otherwise assume, use, or advertise any title or description including the word "archi- tect," "architecture," "architectural," or language tending to imply that he or she is an architect, unless the person is regis- tered or authorized to practice in the state of Washington under this chapter .
(2) An architect or architectural firm registered in any other jurisdiction recognized by the board may offer to prac- tice architecture in this state if:
(a) It is clearly and prominently stated in such an offer that the architect or firm is not registered to practice architec- ture in the state of Washington; and
(b) Prior to practicing architecture or signing a contract to provide architectural services, the architect or firm must be registered to practice architecture in this state. (3) A person who has an accredited architectural degree may use the title "intern architect" when enrolled in a struc- tured intern program recognized by the board and working under the direct supervision of an architect.
(4) The provisions of this section shall not affect the use of the words "architect," "architecture," or "architectural" where a person does not practice or offer to practice architecture. (Washington State, USA). 

How relevant is Traditional Education for an Architect?

There was a big debate about the quality of education in Uganda today, following the recently released national examinations.  As results from each of the three different tiers of our formal education were released, the decibels from this debate went a notch higher.  I don’t intend to reignite that debate here.  What was very clear to me is that there seemed to be some consensus that our quality of education had deteriorated over the years.  A friend of mine ingenuously said that the quality of a graduate from Uganda’s education system gets poorer, the younger they are.  Surely this can’t be true, I argued, but I had no evidence to prop up my disagreement.  This is when I decided to examine the field that I am more conversant with.  Once or twice over my 25-year career, some clients have had the audacity to tell me that we college graduates are useless because ‘we can’t build things’ or that those we call technicians/draftsmen actually do a better job in design than the majority of us with a college degree.  On the other hand, I have learnt that there some fresh architecture graduates from the two leading universities in Uganda who have made it very clear that they don’t need to be examined about their experience in construction (and eventually get registered) because they got enough knowledge and design skills from school. 

I asked myself, is a bachelor’s degree all you need to work perfectly in construction or is it really necessary to have one at all?  I am sure many of my readers will have encountered builders who claim to have put up some of Kampala’s magnificent buildings and homes, but at the same time these lovely people do not seem not be able to tell the difference between feet and metres or if they do, they will insist that as a standard the ring beam should always be 7 feet high.    These are builders who either started in the business by recommendation when they were younger, people who had to work early and support themselves or their families as porters on sites or just have generally been around and working in the industry for yso long.  There are street-smart people.  They do not have a college degree or diploma in construction but they know their ways around putting up a building.  Some clients argue that we college graduates do not get the time in school to experience "real life construction” and as soon as we are in the field, we are bosses backing orders.  That these are the real people who matter, the ones who know how it is done.  That college graduates have no experience of ‘how’ it is done.  My argument has been that we may not know the full ‘how’ (we know some of it) but we fully know and understand the ‘why’, which unfortunately our colleagues are not equipped with.

There are 2 sides (or, rather, 2 levels of depth) of what is commonly referred to as "knowledge" in construction or most professional fields that are science based.  Firstly, it is important to know how things are done, but even more important one needs to understand why they are done the way they are done and not any other way, and what may happen if one tries to do it differently.  The ‘why’ is the theory and the science behind the way things are done.
 A builder or technician (especially a smart one), does not need to know why things are done the way they are done as long as they can give a properly finished product.  Experience will always afford you the knowledge and perfection of things – the ‘how’ and this in many situations is enough. If you keep doing things the way you have always done them for the last 20 years what can go wrong?  Probably nothing until you find yourself in the situation that you have never been before - and in this case your experience becomes useless, what you need is the knowledge of the science behind the processes that you have been working with all along so that so that you can analyze the situation and come up with the correct solution.  Make a wrong decision and your product will no longer be perfect and this is where you need education, and to a certain level.  It is true that a bachelor's degree is not the measure of one's brain efficiency, and there is no proof that it has ever added gray matter to anyone's brain. A good quality education helps you to recognize situations and come up with solutions because of your knowledge of the ‘why’.  There are times I have been faced with situations in my job and then remember that if I use the Pythagoras theorem or tangent of an angle, I can actually get the missing dimension on a drawing. Can one achieve the same without actually attending school - sure, you can, and some do however, the likelihood of somebody without formal education or having learned as much as someone with the degree to be able to come up with solutions for problems they have never encountered is very low, which is why employers understand the value of a good degree.



Going back to the experience - of course, a college degree does not replace experience and having one without the experience is also useless. One still needs to get his / her boots and hands dirty in order to become a well-rounded professional. The degree just helps explain the ‘why’, help you extrapolate the knowledge gained in class and apply it in a real life situation. This helps you make the correct decision in that situation as well.  Just as I believe that all architects should spend at least two years in the field to see first hand what is involved in a real working project, and not a project at a desk or in a classroom, I believe that builders and/or technicians without the relevant education are not fit to build or design buildings on their own without supervision.