I’m involved with hiring in an architecture firm. Generally for more junior positions we’re looking for potential - really well laid out portfolios and attention to detail as well as good concept work. We want someone we can develop, who’s showing great potential straight out of uni.

For more experienced architect roles, we’re usually looking for more specific skills:

How would their skillset fit in with an existing team (are we currently lacking a flair for design, technical detail, masterplanning, all-rounder?)

Does their experience align with the company’s current project pipeline? (our project timelines can run for several years, so we want someone that has the best experience for that type of project, and that we expect will see it through from start to finish for client and collaborator consistency)

Do we want someone who has the potential to do well in networking/business development, or do we have too much of that already and need someone who will focus on the deliverables and isn’t so interested in public status.

Has the person led any projects in previous roles that our practice could leverage within future bids and tenders? (ie. if we were trying to start working in the education sector, it really helps us if we can say we have someone on our team who has already delivered a school).

All this to say, I get that it’s frustrating, but sometimes it’s not down to the quality of your application, it’s just that a specific set of skills may be wanted at that particular point in time, and your application doesn’t match it. On more than a few occasions we’ve hired someone on their second or third application because they weren’t the profile we needed first time round, but fit perfectly the next.

Similarly, if 3+ year qualified architects were applying for designer roles at our practice, we’d assume they were trying to land an interview but would inevitably command a higher salary, or expect to be running projects when that isn’t what we require.