No. Architects have the most comprehensive capability compared to “architectural designers” and architectural technologists. Because architects train in all parts of the design and construction processes. And must constantly update this training with continuous professional development.
Most architects are preferable to architectural technologists in the initial, creative, stages of the design process. Their ability to innovate, when appropriate, can solve the hardest problems. Making sure that all creative solutions are identified and explored.
Some architectural technologists are preferable in technical design to some architects (which is why architects sometimes employ architectural technologists).
Architects, only, are listed on the official register of architects. The Architects Registration Board, ARB, administers this register. To register an architect must pass certain tests. For detail see more at the ARB website. For the highest level of accreditation an architect may also, but does not have to be, a member of the RIBA.
An architectural technologist specialises in the technical part of the design process. They are usually a member of the Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists, CIAT. Which requires certain qualifications, standards and behaviours too. For detail see more at the CIAT website.
An “architectural designer” may not have any professional qualifications at all. Or any registration. Some were students aiming to be architects who did not complete all the qualifications. So their strengths and weaknesses have to taken on trust.
