Value of Certification for Architects

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Anonymous   Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 10:23 pm:    I need some help here! I have been having an ongoing "discussion" with a person in my chapter regarding the value of Certification for someone who has already passed the professional portion of the Architectural Exam. This person does not believe the CDT or Certification exams have value for a registered professional as "the CDT tests on the same material and knowledge as the professional section of the RA Exam." "Therefore if someone is an architect they do not need the Certification program for themselves or their firms except for the specifier in the firm." I'm fighting a losing battle with this person because I am a specifer without a RA or PE. I get the impression that I am a few notches below the status of an intern, therefore below notice, altho' this person would deny it if called on it. I know where part of the problem lies, but this person is of authority within the chapter right now, and as Certification Chair I really need to convince this person of the Value of the program for all CSI members and professionals in our industry or any efforts I make toward promoting the program may be poisoned. Any CSI Certified Architects and Engineers out there that can help me with some convincing words of wisdom? Please forgive me for posting "anonymous", as I don't want to embarrass this person or my chapter. Thanks Ralph Liebing Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 94 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 06:51 am:    It is too bad that so many people feel that their RA is the end of the line for expertise. Unfortunately, the ARE is very restricted in what it does test, and certainly specification writing, material selection ande evaluation, and the legal aspects of construction ARE NOT included. It is an illusion to think that the ARE is so complete, when in fact it is merely aimed at providing some minimal indication of expertise on the part of three-year interns [and I say that in the BEST light for interns]. We all need to continue to grow and expose ourselves to new levels of interest and achievement. Some pople carry many set of initials after their names, and rightly so-- each represents another achievement which is to their credit. Also, we all ned to keep current and to date, and that is best done by keeping active in some organization[s] which distribute the newest and best infroamtion. Lastly, to be a principle in a firm or a chapter you need to make yourself the best you can be! Image and role modeling are the best ways to show newer professionals how to act, achieve and present professional services. Also a personal note-- you are in no way a second-class citizen becuase you do not carry RA or PE. While that training and expertise is most helpful, one can rise to be a good specifications writer without them, but with the proper personal drive, interest and skill-- this is borne out on this site,and in life daily. You contribution is valued and important! Keep the faith, friend and good luck! Russell W. Wood, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: woodr5678 Post Number: 19 Registered: 11-2003 Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 08:45 am:    Next time you feel belittled by an non-CSI-certified RA...just ask he RA the difference between: 1. Construction Documents & Contract Documents? 2. Open Proprietary & Closed Proporietary? 3. Source Quality Control & Field Quality Control? 4. Legal significance of the words "will" & "shall"? 5. What's the correct language for a substitute, "or equal", "equivilent", or "approved substitute"? Nuff said! Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 56 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 10:41 am:    Certification is so integral to the mission of CSI that this sort of conversation shouldn't come up. CSI leaders should be expected to have a CDT as a minimum. A bylaw to that effect addressing the makeup of the Institute Board did not pass a few years ago - an unfortunate circumstance that may correct itself within a few years. I cannot imagine making the contributions that I make to my firm and to the industry without having had the benefit of CSI's CDT, CCS, and CCCA programs of study. That's also a reason why NCARB cites the MOP as a primary reference to the IDP program. Ronald J. Ray, RA, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: rjray Post Number: 23 Registered: 04-2004 Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 11:04 am:    Yep, I’ve got some initials going there. To some extent, it is no big deal. From other perspectives it might be a big deal. I look around at my local professional community and see very few registered architects that have expanded there knowledge base by seeking CCS and CCCA certification. Of those that have, few have passed these exams with their first attempt. Maybe I’m not much of a promoter of these accomplishments when I tell them that the CCCA exam was more difficult than any portion of the architectural registration I took. Maybe that’s something to tell your fellow CSI member. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 78 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 12:32 pm:    "the CDT tests on the same material and knowledge as the professional section of the RA Exam." Huh? Maybe it's changed since I took the ARE, but I don't remember many questions about the A201, and certainly none about Division 01 or how to write a specifications section. My years of work in architectural and engineering offices, public and private sector, and offices small and large, leads me to the firm belief that far too many architects know little and care less about text documents of any kind - agreement forms, conditions of the contract, specifications, addenda, you name it. They live in a visual world, and have little knowledge or respect for the written word. The word "specifications" was probably mentioned once in our architectural practice class, and there was no explanation of the difference between a project manual and specifications. We were not required to read or - heaven forbid! - write any specifications, or to achieve even basic understanding of the conditions of the contract. Small wonder that architects look at specifications the same way they do structure - things of less importance than "DESIGN", to be done by others. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 319 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 01:09 pm:    Tell the architect that if he does not write, read, review or enforce contract writen documents, that he should not bother taking the class/exam. If he sits in his office all day and draws/colors pretty pictures and does not do any written communication with the Owner or Contractor, fine, he probably does not need it. BTW, our interior designer is taking the class next year along with an administrative assistant. We are encouraging them to take the class to expand their knowledge of the game of construction. You could also make it "interesting" by challenging him to take the exam without studying for it. Tell him that you will pay for the class and exam if he passes.....hell, I'll pay for his class/exam if he passes! You're probably fighting a lost cause, his mind is probably already made up. Better to encourage another architect to better themselves than that idiot who thinks he knows it all. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 320 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 01:10 pm:    BTW, that I can remember, there were 3 questions on specifications in the Construction Document part of the ARE. Lynn Javoroski Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 129 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 01:41 pm:    David, I'll chip in on that! I think many of us would. I've listened to Contractors bemoan having to read specification sections/project manuals written by an Architect - "it's an unedited master", "it doesn't address installation as it's shown on the drawings", "it's not even pertinent to the project"... And I know that the particular set of documents the Contractor is referencing was written by someone without any knowledge of what specifications are all about. But it is certainly difficult dealing with someone who thinks they have nothing new to learn. Anonymous   Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 01:53 pm:    Thank you to all of you who have responded. All you have said is helpful. I should note that this person has taken the CDT and passed, but only took it because it is a path to leadership in CSI. Otherwise considers it of no value to anyone other than a specifier. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 321 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 01:55 pm:    From a joke that has been circulating the net: "Architect: A person who knows very little about very much and continues to know less and less about more and more until he knows virtually nothing about everything." Lynn Javoroski Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 130 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 02:00 pm:    I remember hearing a fact snippet some years ago that stated that those who understand specifications have less difficulty passing the architect registration exam. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 323 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 02:28 pm:    I hate to brag, but I found the ARE written portions of the exam to be not so difficult, just long. The graphic portions on the other hand were a bear and I had to take them several times. (I had my CCS before I took the ARE.) What has been other peopele's experience? Richard L. Hird P.E. CCS Intermediate Member Username: dick_hird Post Number: 4 Registered: 02-2004 Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 11:33 pm:    To obtain your P.E., in the initial exam, you have to answer questions in all disciplines of engineering. This is not so you can practice in these areas, but is so, as an engineer, you know enough about these subjects that you know your limitations. Another part of the exam is engineering ethics. The most important ethic is that you do not do what you do not know how to do. I do not know that Architects have a similar ethic. jgcapell (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 10:01 pm:    J. Gerard Capell, AIA, CSI, CCS As David said above if this "architect" only draws pretty pictures with or wihtout a full understanding of what he is doing, he may survive. What I know is that due to a lot of hard work and a frim belief in the value of CSI's Certificaiton program I have been able to get work when there was little to to be had, adn have had a much richer professional life. I have taught specifications and contracts at a univeristity which led to other classes, while still running my own firm. I have provided specification consulting to other firms when I have been between positions or projects; and others search me out to problems they have knowing that either I know the answer or know someone who does. The self-imposed limitation and arrogance of the architect in question is a sad, but far too often common thing in the profession. Having served on the Certificaiton Committee for 4 years and written and graded questions for all four exams I can tell you that in one sense the certification exams are easier than the ARE, but only because the questions come from know sources (the MOP and A201). The detail of the questions both as simple recall type and higher order thinking types requires that the candidate study and study well to obtain a full understanding of the concepts and facts. He certainly may not comprehend or apprciate the value of what is before him. His arrogance may carry him far, lord knows there are many architects and others who rely on solely that to sell others of their worth; but at some point the facade does wear thin and they are exposed. Doug Brinley Senior Member Username: dbrinley Post Number: 22 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 12:06 pm:    Richard, Either you're being funny (it's not obvious), or you have a problem with architects. Questions for you What is learned if learning is not accomplished in the process of doing? When did engineers become so sure of what know how to do? Richard L. Hird P.E. CCS Advanced Member Username: dick_hird Post Number: 5 Registered: 02-2004 Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 02:19 pm:    Doug: I have no problem with Architects. My comment was just in response to the insinuations "above" about “certain” Architects not appreciating the importance and complexities of specs. The ones I work with do not have that problem. First Question: I do believe that doing is more important than the ability to meet the requirements of any education program. Professionals develop skills that are a result of their practice. Education serves to set values and provide a base for developing skills. Second Question: To most Engineers repetitiveness gives them confidence. When you try to change their way of doing things, like conforming to your ideas of what a good spec is, you run into resistance. Their conventions are their trade groups, their own local practices, or in most cases their long years of just doing it. Anonymous   Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 03:06 pm:    Richard, we've heard from some of our architect friends regarding the value of Certification to them. Is certification ie CDT, CCS, and CCCA of value to Engineers beyond the PE exam? If so, how is it of value to you Richard L. Hird P.E. CCS Senior Member Username: dick_hird Post Number: 6 Registered: 02-2004 Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 09:40 pm:    Certification is very important to Architectural work because it indicates knowledge of the conventions that govern architectural specifications. It also indicates you have a good understanding of Contract Conditions. This knowledge is just not that important to engineers, even if it should be. I know a couple engineers that have passed the CCS, but never bothered to change their companies historic specifications to reflect a single CSI principal. When they go in the field it is about hardball not about principals. Based on that I have to say it is just a marketing item to engineers. I am an independent specification consultant. I can write specifications in all engineering disciplines. I believe CSI principals are applicable to all of them. Understanding principals is important; especially when you decide to violate them. Have I ever gotten a commission because I am certified? I have never been told that by an Architect, but a civil engineer once did. C. R. Mudgeon Senior Member Username: c_r_mudgeon Post Number: 27 Registered: 08-2002 Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 01:43 am:    Even if you understand a principal, you can go to jail for violating one. Synonyms, homonyms, possessive, plural - who cares? They're/there/their only words. I have come to expect archietypes to talk bad English and spel reel gud, but I cringe when I read some of these posts, coming from people who supposedly work with the written word every day. J. Peter Jordan Advanced Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 5 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 06:51 pm:    I have "taught" CDT content to a number of Architectural Interns who have reported to me that knowledge of this material made passing that portion of the ARE a breeze. About the only problem that they encountered was keeping the Design Contract issues separate from the Construction Contract issues. I have thought for about 10 years now that CSI should be in conversation with NCARB about how CDT might fit into their Internship Development Program (IDP). NCARB folks are largely unaware of CSI's certification programs (interesting conversation to have at the NCARB booth on the floor of the CSI Show), and CSI folks don't seem to have much idea of what the IDP is about. Because I am an architect with a BArch (no, I did not have any exposure to spec writing in school either, but it was over 30 years ago), I tend to be a little "architect-centric" about this discussion. I would like to see every architectural program offer an elective in construction specifications; however, I do believe that it is unrealistic to expect that schools will make this a required course given the scope of architectural education. I would really like to see CSI go after IDP. This is, in my view, where the effort is most appropriate, and probably most meaningful. It is frustrating to me to see CSI wring its hands about how architectural students don't learn anything about specs and then think that we are offering something by setting up student design competitions using paint cans. Such events have nothing to do with construction specifications and are inept parodies of serious design competitions. My experience teaching a CDT prep course as an undergrad elective in an accredited architectural program was very rewarding, and I believe that the students saw the value in the experience. My perception was that it was largely viewed by the rest of the faculty and the administration as a "service" course only marginally related to the more serious "core" courses (one of a variety of reasons I write specs in Houston rather than teach in Hawaii). I have had some conversations with principals at my firm about requiring CDT certification to perform in a Project Architect/Project Management role. I was hoping to start with 5 to 8 people who currently hold more junior positions. I reviewed the scope of the material and the types of questions on the CDT exam. Their initial response has been along the lines of "Why shouldn't everyone be required to know this--even principals?" I have not pressed the issue because they were talking about me teaching 20 or 30 people at one time. Once I get my copy of the new Project Resource Manual, I am going to reopen the conversation. Be careful about what you ask for. Robert W. Johnson New member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 1 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 11:07 am:    Peter RTKL was very supportive of educating all the staff in the basics. We had a firm-wide technical education program that included CDT, CCCA, CCS, project management, construction drawings, and proposals and contracts. The content of the CDT, CCCA, and CCS were expanded beyond the CSI principles to how it was done at RTKL and the RTKL tools available to help. These courses were offered each year in each office over about a 6 month period always ending in March in time for the CSI exams. Everyone (ranging from administrative assistants to principals) was strongly encouraged to take the CDT and then go on and take the other courses as appropriate for their responsibilities. Nothing sent a clearer message to staff about the importance of education then a mature RTKL VP taking the courses along side interns. I remember the managing principals of one office lecturing the young folks in a class about how lucky they were to get this education provided to them, rather than having to learn it the hard way over many years as they had. All materials for the courses including MOPs were provided free. These courses were half on the staff's time and half on the firm's time. Certification was encouraged; the firm paying exam fees for successful passing. We had many people pass all three CSI certifications. We regularly had the most candidates sitting for and passing the exams in cities with RTKL offices. We had well over 200 people taking courses each year for 6-7 years. After a couple of years the program was self-recruiting with young staff who had taken courses making it clear to new people how important is was for them to participate. There were very few people that needed extra encouragement to take the courses. The education program was used successfuly as a recruiting tool during the years when staff was hard to get. It is hard to provide concrete data on the success of such a program but I can tell you that the staff always expressed their appreciation (still do when I see them) - people starting asking months in advance about when the classes were starting that year. Many project managers commented on the improvement in the production of their staff. The courses provided the opportunity for good questions and discussion. It was a major means of getting feedback on the RTKL technical programs and getting ideas of where the technical program should go next to fullfil needs. It established a common vocuabulary throughout the firm. It established "common rules of the game" for everyone - everyone knew what the principles were, how they were implemented at RTKL, and learned about all the tools available at RTKL to accomplish the projects within the system. It also provided ideas on how to improve the tools. I would strongly urge you take your principals up on their comment that everyone should receive the education. I think you will find huge rewards for your firm. Anonymous   Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 01:07 pm:    The responses from all of you have been helpful and it is encouraging to see the support some firms have for the Certification programs and the education they provide. What about areas of our industry that use documents other than the standard used in commercial practice such as in Government work? I have been told that construction and design practice for architects and engineers working in military or other government agencies have absolutely no relation to the practices advocated by the CSI MOP, therefore the certification is of no value. What say you? Dennis Hall (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 07:59 pm:    The AIA has just issued a survey of its members about specialized certification. This implies a possible major shift in thought by the AIA. With CSI considerating certification of drawing technicians under the US National CAD Standard, this will put the AIA in an awkful position. Dennis Mitch Miller,AIA ,CSI,CCS Senior Member Username: m2architek Post Number: 14 Registered: 02-2004 Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 08:17 am:    The AIA survey seems to be "slanted" toward an AIA revenue stream. I find it interesting, that intstead of working with CSI in developing joint programs and certifications, to venture out. I believe this will only serve to make the divide between the two organizations farther. Why doesnt AIA work with CSI? Margaret G. Chewning CSI CCS Senior Member Username: presbspec Post Number: 27 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 08:21 am:    Mitch, I'm curious. How do I get a copy of this survey? Lynn Javoroski Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 139 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 02:44 pm:    I was "selected to participate". It is a slanted survey, but since it's from the AIA, that shouldn't surprise anyone. I do think that the higher-ups in both organizations could work together to provide joint programs and certifications. And I will email our president and pose the question. I think we all ought to do the same - to both presidents (if we're members of both organizations). Anonymous   Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 04:11 pm:    I'm a registered architect in a very large architectural firm, and I'm a regional architectural specifier. We have (let me see...) around 400 registered architects, and all of 4 CCSs. I'm studying to take my CCS exam soon, because it shows my dedication to my chosen specialty and it shows my colleages that I know how to do something they don't. ;-) When so many firms have a poor understanding of what it takes to produce good specs, and treat it as a word-processing exercise, certification shows professionalism. I think CSI's manual of practice teaches a level of coordination and rigor that is not taught in school, nor tested by the ARE exams. Spec certification, whether you're a registered design professional or not, unequivocably shows that you're qualified for the very important work you do. To put it another way: Contractors read drawings, but LAWYERS read specs! As for AIA and CSI working together, we should all clamor for this! AIA's response to MF2004 has been painfully political around here. We don't need AIA specialized certification; we need AIA to acknowledge CSI's important role in our professional education and collaboration. I'm anonymous here, but I won't be anonymous in my firm! Thanks for the topic, and good luck! Margaret G. Chewning CSI CCS Senior Member Username: presbspec Post Number: 30 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 09:26 pm:    I think your responses have been helpful to all of us, providing arguments and testimonials for certification, especially for me as a Certification Chair in a chapter. As I'm in a huge government market I'd like to hear from those of you employed by the Government, federal, state, or miltary. Where do you find value in your certification.