Back to School
IT'S SEPTEMBER, which is traditionally associated with "back to school," therefore, this seems like an appropriate time, at least chronologically, to comment on the integration of architectural education and the practice of architecture. Are the academy and the profession communicating? Based on a recently completed study by NCARB, the answer may be yes, but if consensus regarding when and how professional knowledge and skills are or should be acquired is any indication, we may not yet effectively understand each other.
The Practice Analysis Study, conducted by NCARB, has attempted, as one of its goals, to assemble information to help guide the education of architectural students. The results of this study indicate an interesting disconnect between educators and practicing architects regarding when the necessary pre-design, design and project management knowledge and skills required to successfully practice as an architect are acquired.
Responses from approximately 1600 architects, educators, interns and consumers of architectural services indicated that nearly seventy-five percent of architects felt that pre-design, design and project management skills are acquired after completion of a first architectural degree, during internship or after licensure. Forty percent of educators felt that these skills are acquired with completion of the first architectural degree. It is not difficult to conclude that greater communication between the profession and the academy is necessary to define a common ground for the expectations of these skills. There does seem to be some common ground in that over a third of the educators and nearly half of the architects indicated that the necessary skills acquisition occurs during the internship development period. This could lead one to conclude that in the opinion of many of the respondents that educators are providing the necessary foundation of knowledge and skills and the profession is successful in the mentoring and development of these skills.
Responses regarding practice management knowledge and skills yielded similar questions as to whether these skills should be more fully integrated into architectural curricula or developed through the acquisition of professional experience. Recognizing a rapidly changing profession in which many architectural graduates are increasingly utilizing their degree knowledge and skills in non-traditional ways, the AIA has identified as one of its major objectives of the AIM strategic plan the need to encourage a greater emphasis on practice management and the integration of practice culture into architectural curricula. AIA views the practice skills of leadership, management and team-building and collaborative abilities as critical to preparing graduates for a seamless transition to the profession and for success in other non-traditional areas of the marketplace.
A former dean of the school of architecture at the University of Tennessee, William Rudd, AIA, said in a white paper published several years ago; "The most effective learning environment is one which integrates subject matter with the student's experience. Neither the vision of a teacher nor the experience of a professional can substitute for the learning experience, which each student must acquire. Formal education cannot establish that state of integration for the student."
Taken collectively, the views of the respondents to the NCARB study and of an educator, and the objectives of the AIA AIM document, the need for and the benefits of closer collaboration and communication between practicing architects and educators is clear. Also clear is the importance and the responsibility of practicing architects to actively participate with and mentor the development of critical knowledge and skills of future architects. If you are interested, abundant opportunities to do both exist with AIA Houston.
Below are articles by Dan Brents, FAIA, Director for Civic Affairs, and Hal Caton, AIA, Director for Industry Affairs. Both of these Directors play an important role in furthering our relationships with our partners in the design and construction industry and in encouraging the involvement of our membership in various civic and public boards and organizations. Don't miss reading about their insights as architects and as members "On the Board."
Ray Leiker, AIA
On The Board - of Directors, That Is
Architects express frustration about our lack of influence on community issues. Politicians and business leaders may have more traction, but cumbersome political institutions often thwart their efforts.
Reflecting on this as headlines appeared questioning the Sports Authority's future, I thought of the connection with Houston's new convention center hotel groundbreaking. From my experience with both, I considered their similarities, success factors, and how architects can make a difference.
The Sports Authority was created to build and manage sports venues. Although the city and county choose its board, it acts independently. At its beginning, I served as its development coordinator, witnessing the political crosscurrents surrounding its activities, and how its separation protected it from red tape and political tangles. The volunteer board worked tirelessly to complete large new projects on time and on budget, an impossible task had any governmental unit undertaken it.
In 1999, the City Council created the Houston Convention Center Hotel Corporation, chaired by former Mayor Lanier. It was an outgrowth of recommendations by Mayor Brown's special advisory committee to get a hotel built downtown. Where private efforts failed, this new entity, like the Sports Authority, has access to public funding and financial tools that are unavailable to the private sector. Despite strong political ties, it operates like the private sector, and one of the board's members is an architect. The hotel plans proceeded successfully, without red tape.
The accomplishments of these two "quasi-official" bodies suggest an approach to addressing major challenges by sidestepping institutionalized bureaucracies - one that might also be successful in tackling broader problems: mobility, air quality, revitalization and sprawl.
Architects have a role in these endeavors. We are idea people, technically skilled and tested in managing complex and difficult problems. As architects have been involved in Houston's extra-governmental successes, we can be constructively engaged in addressing these larger issues.
Dan Brents, FAIA, Director for Civic Affairs
After being the Director for Industry Affairs for nine months, I still find myself in awe of both the title and the duties attached to it. A lot seems to fit under the title "Industry Affairs." On the one hand there are the code-related groups (local, state and national Codes & Standards Committees, the Houston Construction Industry Council) and on the other hand there are the relationships with other Industry groups (AGC, IIDA, CSI, ABC). In the middle there are special focus groups (AIA/AGC Joint Committee, Construction Users Council, the Design Construction Forum). Each of these groups has its own special interests, but they all have one interest in common: CODES. There is another common thread: ARCHITECTS. Architects participate in these groups as an association and as individual members, as both full members and associates. These relationships are important to the well being of architects as a group, but they are also important to codes. Historically these groups, and others, have looked to architects as being more involved in, and knowledgeable about, codes. This is basically because they see the architect as being the "responsible" party. That is a valid perception because, historically, architects have been the ones who are licensed to "protect the health, safety and general welfare of the public."
So, I have a question: Do you see yourself as being (a) disinterested, (b) interested, (c) concerned or (d) responsible when it comes to code compliance? Now ask yourself the same question about code development (the writing of codes). In order for architects as a group to maintain the position as being the "experts," the most concerned and the most active in the code arena we have to participate in the process. There are a few architects out there, such as myself, that work with codes for a living and we are as passionate about the impact of codes on the profession as we are about their impact on the built environment. Most, while admitting to being "responsible," are, at the same time, disinterested. They generally see codes as something to deal with during (or something that gets in the way of) the design process. They certainly do not see the opportunity to participate in the code development process as a way to profoundly influence the future of the profession.
Well, times, and codes, are changing and we, as a profession, must vigorously participate in that change or we will abdicate our leadership role. And that, friends, would not be good. There are far too many self-interested groups that would try to fill those shoes.
Participating in the code development process was not the easiest thing to do, but AIA has had a small, dedicated group of "testifiers" that have gained the respect of the code development agencies. Additionally, AIA has beat the drum loudly regarding the necessity of having a single nation-wide code. That call was heard and the three model building code groups have combined to produce a single family of coordinated codes (a set of building, mechanical, electrical and plumbing codes that are written to work together as a unit). AIA has also requested a larger voice in the code development process and recently a giant step was taken toward realizing that goal: architects can now serve as voting members on the code development committees of the International Code Council (ICC) and I encourage you to apply for one.
All is not well, however, in the code world and we, as leaders in the industry, need to pay more attention. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) is a well-respected codes and standards writing organization. They have embarked on plan to produce another family of coordinated codes. Many thousands of volunteer hours go into producing their documents, just like those produced by the ICC. The people participating in the NFPA code development process are just as knowledgeable and passionate about the codes as the people participating in the ICC process. The documents produced by both groups will be superior documents. So where's the problem?
It lies in the fact that there will be TWO families of coordinated codes, not just one. Competition, which had been low key and mainly regional, has now been introduced on a national, and possibly world wide, scale. I will say that, normally, competition is a good thing. I do not believe that to be the case in this instance. The industry has polarized into two camps, one pro development (dedicated to faster, cheaper and more performance-type codes) and one pro labor (dedicated to preserving the livelihood of the construction worker and more prescriptive-type codes). Each camp seems to be firmly entrenched in their positions regarding which family of codes they want to see adopted. This split is going to hurt relations between the various groups and associations within the industry. The contest of wills over which codes will be used in Houston has been evident for over two years. That contest was waged in the Texas legislature last session resulting in the passage of bills that allow codes produced by either group to be adopted by municipalities. Since neither side "won," the contest will continue in the large Texas cities. It will also be waged in every large city across the country and in every state that adopts codes.
The construction industry in the city, the state and the nation are in desperate need of outspoken, unwavering leadership. The focus should be in getting the two national groups, ICC and NFPA, to agree to jointly develop and produce a SINGLE coordinated family of codes within a framework of a truly open consensus process within which ALL interested parties can be heard. The goal should be to publish technically superior codes that have the "health, safety and general welfare of the public" in mind (not who will control either the code development process OR the physical production and sales of the books).
As President of the Houston Construction Industry Council and a member of the Board of AIA/Houston I encourage you to become involved with at least the local code development process, if not the national one. If you are interested in being a part of the ongoing amendment process of the 2000 Houston Building Code Review Committee, email me at Hal
Hal Caton, AIA, Director for Industry Affairs
