ARB / RIBA Competency Checks - Predictions
Recently, both the ARB and RIBA released their plans for future competency checks for architects. The ARB's plans focusses solely on the development of Fire and Life Safety, and Sustainable Competence, both in line with industry-shaking changes over the last few years (The Grenfell Tragedy and the Climate Emergency resulting from the 2018 IPCC report). The RIBA presents an holistic overhaul of the professional development and education of its members, both pre and post-registration. Both result in an impact for the industry; mandatory competency checks.
As it stands, the ARB checks will be implemented from 2022/3, and the RIBA will implement the first of its checks (Fire Safety) from 2022.
Before looking at the proposals, it is worth noting the language of these documents: Against the backdrop of negativity surrounding the issues of climate change and fire safety in the industry, and globally, and in light of the pandemic, it is incredibly refreshing for the language to evoke the feeling of opportunity and excitement, a chance for architects and those in the field to positively impact builders, consumers and the environment in which we all live. Professional development being shaken up and framed as a tool for betterment is a great antidote to the gloom and doom of the last 18 months.
Industry reaction?
This could be a divisive decision by the bodies, but one that I think will result in an overall benefit to the industry. Working in this industry, we have a huge responsibility as custodians of public faith and confidence, which can only be strengthened by intermittent competency checks, reinforcing the exceptional standard expected of architects working in the UK. This in and of itself will continue the work of the RIBA to raise the profile of the architect, and the ARB's agenda of ensuring the public have faith in and are willing to appoint architects as consummate professionals.
However, the exceptional expectations both professionally and academically already in place may be a barrier to entry for many and could result in significant push back; the already archaic system of 7+ years of study/engagement to qualification is contentious amongst many, and then to hit periodic walls of assessment may well deter some from entering the field, given the comparative remuneration rates we experience as an industry and the level of continuous training required. I personally see the process of studying architecture and working in the field as a life-shifting occupation, and one that should absolutely be encouraged, but many may dissuade themselves from engaging in the first instance knowing the rigorous dedication required. In addition, it could certainly impact to the non-legislative RIBA subscription, whose expectations are over and above that of the ARB. This sits within wider discussions of industry challenges, but I can certainly see the proposals demanding further practice and educator consultation and examination of potential impacts to retention of students and young professionals.
Initial Concerns
Some initial concerns of mine include the RIBA Career Roles Levels. At an initial glance, it seems like a broad-stroke banding principle, and whilst I understand that it is to be used as a generic framework for tailoring education and professional development, I suggest that a finer strategy for identifying levels of competency and career progression may be required (I disagree that a recent Part 1 graduate holds the skills and competency of an experienced Part 3 Assistant, and that they would require similar types of training). In addition, I am fully behind the RIBA supporting specialist training, and see this as an exciting opportunity for architects with specific skills and interests to have a framework within which to develop to a specialist level. Given the absence of Advanced Study routes within the document, however, I suggest the RIBA have a way to go to cement this as a true route for professional diversification.
Conclusion
I appreciate the flag-in-the-ground approach that the RIBA has taken to overhauling its system. The potential Mandatory Competences including Research Literacy is an exciting opportunity to close the gap between practice and theory, whilst Fire Safety and Climate Literacy make a clear decision to push the industry towards amending its current flaws. The ARB proposals build on their existing competency expectations and reinforce the two most pressing issues the industry is facing; a logical step. These proposals will be met with passionate debate over the coming years, but it is a debate that will certainly be worth following.
Associate Director / Chartered Architect at Whittam Cox Architects
3 年An interesting read Jacob. I think it's admirable that our professional bodies want to address these important issues, however, my concerns at this stage are that they have concentrated too much on the "what", without considering the "how". The risk is that this agenda is used as a money making scheme, both for training (which needs to focus on quality) and on examination. Were this to be included within our existing professional fees, this would show the requirement to be a genuine attempt to raise the bar. Otherwise, additional costs (both in fees and time) may prove too much of a burden to a profession that already struggles to compete with those who offer similar services but without the qualification and regulation we offer. Secondly I would suggest that competancy needs to reflect the great range of practice and project types and sizes - a sole practitioner specialising in domestic extensions for example, will need a different knowledge base to those working on commercial or high-risk high rise residential projects. Knowledge needs to be appropriate lest we risk becoming a Jack of all trades and a master of none.