NAAB Accreditation Requirements

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

Author Message (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 03:50 pm:    The NAAB is the governing body for colleges and universities and developed requried curricula for architectural programs. The link below will take you to the current draft. Note that there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO mention of specifications in section A.4, which seems to me a complete and egregious oversight. If you feel so compelled, it would be good for all the spec writers to send in comments about this and ask that "specifications" be added in A.4. http://www.naab.org/news/view.aspx?newsID=25 Ellis C. Whitby, AIA, PE, CSI, LEED® AP Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 54 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 04:33 pm:    I have sent mine Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 856 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 05:17 pm:    Me, too! Robert W. Johnson Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 3 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 05:21 pm:    I don't think that the absence of the word specifications is so much the point as the asbsence of contract documents of which specifications would be an important part. What about the procurement process? What about the administration of construction contracts? None of these are included. This just documents what has always been true of schools of architecture (in contrast to community colleges and technical schools) - they do not include the creation of contract documents and their administration as part of the curriculum. Though not stated in this document, I believe learning that part of the profession is left to be accomplished during internship in the office. Pretty ironic that the great majority of the people in an architect's office spend the majority of their time with tasks that are not included in the curriculum of schools of architecture. Margaret G. Chewning FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: presbspec Post Number: 168 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Friday, March 27, 2009 - 09:28 am:    I took an opportunity to read the criteria for the Student Performance Criteria, and it doesn’t say Construction Documents per se. However, The instruction of putting together those construction documents (including specs) can be construed in item B6. "Comprehensive Design: Ability to understand, and to produce a comprehensive architectural project that integrates the following SPC: A2; A3; A4; A5; A8; B1; B2; B3; B4; B5; B7; B8; and B9." A4 deals with Technical Documentation, and for a complete building design for an architectural project, the graphics (drawings) and the text (specs) must work together. It would be better if it was spelled out. (Requiring the info we go through in the typical CDT Prep Course would be a start) Yes the verbiage is weak and this important exposure to the nuts and bolts of design can be overlooked. But a comprehensive program using this criteria will include it, if only in an introductory form. I am a proponent of a graduate being able to go to work productively right out of school; but then I'm a product of the technical schools not a design school. There has to be a middle road to provide the education to make an emerging professional (graduate) productive in producing documents that can be built, yet allow for the freedom for creativity in design. Robert W. Johnson Intermediate Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 4 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Friday, March 27, 2009 - 10:52 am:    Trying to construe the criteria to get to say what you would like doesn't really get you anywhere. I don't think schools are going to look at this criteria and try to figure how they can get the preparation of construction documents out of it. These criteria, which I had never seen before, just illustrates the major obstacles involved in getting subjects such as construction documents, procurement process, administering construction contracts to be covered in the curriculums of schools of architecture. I would be interested in hearing from those who have made or know of those who have made inroads into the schools of architecture (in contrast to community colleges and technical schools) in terms of any of these subjects. Ron: What has been your experience at Arizona State? Though quite a few years ago, I taught specifications at the University of Colorado - that consisted of one class session a year in the professional practice course - in other words, the students learned that there was such a thing. Robert W. Johnson Advanced Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 5 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Friday, March 27, 2009 - 01:23 pm:    It is interesting to look at the proposed changes in comparison to the current 2004 edition. Proposed 2009 Edition: A.4. Technical Documentation: Ability to make technically clear drawings and models illustrating the assembly of materials, systems, and components appropriate for a building design. Current 2004 Edition: Technical Documentation: Ability to make technically precise drawings and write outline specifications for a proposed design. The background of this particular critera is not contract documents but rather to describe the proposed design in some detail - what we would probably call Design Development drawings and outline specifications. Based on the lack of the use of the words contract documents or contract drawings and current edition of this criteria, I would submit that A.4 Technical Documentation is not intended to deal with contract documents at all, but rather design development documentation. Interesting to note that at least outline specifications are mentioned in the current edition but deleted in the proposed edition. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 6 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Friday, March 27, 2009 - 03:02 pm:    This is the comment that I sent in to NAAB: I do not find anything in the conditions for accreditation about the architect’s roles and responsibilities in the preparation of contract documents, the administration of the procurement process, or the administration of the construction contract. I believe that these activities represent approximately 70 percent of typical full service architectural service agreements. The majority of the professional staff in an architect’s office spend a majority of their time at these tasks. Not all of these people are graduates of schools of architecture but a great many of them are. Those responsible for leading and managing these tasks are usually graduates of schools of architecture. I would assume that the reason that these responsibilities are not included in the conditions for accreditation is that graduates are supposed to be taught these responsibilities during their internship after graduating. I do not know how far back this traditional division of architectural education goes, but I would assume that it is long before our current sophisticated contractual relationships under multiple project delivery systems. I would question the validity of that division in today’s world. Learning the principles of the procurement process, the preparation of contract documents (drawings and specifications), and the administration of construction contracts as an intern in an office is a hit and miss operation. You may be lucky enough to be in an office where people know and understand the principles and have a good program to teach them. In many others you are just taught to do it the way that office does it without any education in the basic principles. The office may have good, mediocre, or bad practices in these areas. I have had considerable experience teaching these subjects within offices (from medium-sized regional offices to large multi-office international firms). A very common reaction from the students is: “This is great, this is the first time someone has taught me the “why” of what we do. Before I have only been told to do it this way.” It would seem reasonable that the curriculum of schools of architecture should have at least some material that would include at least an introduction to the basic principles of these roles and responsibilities. I am not proposing an extensive detailed program of how to do it as might be found in a community college or technical school, but rather one that just covers the basic principles. I am talking about things like: o who the parties are and what their responsibilities are under the various project delivery methods o what are the basic documents used (general conditions, contract forms, etc.) o what are the elements of contract documents and what type of information goes where o what formats are used o what are procurement requirements o who has what responsibilities during the construction stage of a project o basics of how changes are made, submittal process, field observations, project closeout o etc. It would seem like these basics could be accomplished in a one-year course. This would have the advantage of covering everyone with an architectural education. If this type of subject matter cannot be included in the curriculum, I believe that requiring getting some structured education in these areas should be a requirement of internship. This would not necessarily cover architectural graduates who do not seek registration as an architect. I realize that this comment should really be addressed to NCARB rather than NAAB. Such structured education is available in the CSI education programs; in particular the basic Construction Documents Technology (CDT) program. This type of education can be provided in-house by larger firms and is available on a continuing basis by CSI and CSI chapters so that it is available to everyone. This would ensure that interns do receive some proper education on the basic principles of these subjects. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, March 27, 2009 - 03:11 pm:    As an instructor at a major university (I teach a specifications course) I can report that this criteria is very carefully scrutinized and implemented by the university. My course is offered because of the word "specifications" in the current criteria. Eliminating the word "specifications" will likely result in the class not being offered at all, which would be a shame. Every student that has taken my class leaves with light bulb over head in full blaze. I encourage all on the list to lobby fervently for the inclusion of the word "specifications" within the criteria. We need to let these folks know how important this subject is, and the value in teaching it to budding architects, CMs, and engineers. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 968 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, March 30, 2009 - 06:54 am:    Guest-- pleae convey your thoughts and experience to the NAAB. It is vital that they see and come to understand exactly what you said. Thanks Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 13 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Friday, May 22, 2009 - 12:46 pm:    See "CSI Comments on NAAB’s Decision" on the CSI Blog for the Institute's response to NAAB. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 331 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 - 06:22 pm:    Comments that I sent to NAAB about a month ago were also sent to CSI and posted on a Blog entry there. CSI's posting is more focused on specifications and construction documents, my contribution touches on broader issues. As noted in that posting, I was able to "bootleg" a course into the curriculum as an elective by crosslisting it both as an upperdivision course open to architecture majors and a continuing education course open to others (primarily those who were signed up for the CDT exam). There were incredible benefits to having such a diverse class. The were times when the students just could not believe something I was trying to tell them, but my observations would then be backed by at least two others. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 992 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 07:12 am:    To me, this is a very positive situation and one I hope NAAB reacts too in a correct manner! If they do, then I think there is a need for the initiation of a suitable and continuig effort for us to provide the best input, insight and actual "teaching" effort into the programs [keep the pressure "on"]-- not all are endowed with the likes of Mr. Jordan as creative instructors. Stopping wrong action is one thing; providing proper follow-up shows true interst and dedication and a willingnness to make better!! Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1054 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 09, 2009 - 07:51 am:    Great News!!! If you've received your CSI Weekly you already know that NAAB has decided to retain "specifications" in its accreditation criteria-- in direct reaction to the response received from CSI National and many,many members. This is a victory even though some may call it "small". Part of this is the fact that spec writers when acting in unison and common cause can bring change or challenge wrong-headedness. We need to do this-- like this-- more often. Thanks to all who responded. You did a very good deed for spec writers yet to come who may come by some academic effort [ah, yet another area of concern that we need to address!] Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 987 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2012 - 03:27 pm:    It has been over two years since we discussed this subject and I want to bring forth my experience with the NAAB team that just completed its visit to Taliesin, The Frank Lloyd Wright School of Architecture. Only the masters program is accredited, so that was the only program reviewed by the team. During the team's out-brief (unfortunately, I was teaching a CDT seminar and could not attend), they identified that Student Performance Criteria A.4, Technical Documentation, was not met. Since I teach the CDT at Taliesin, I was a little miffed, so I spoke with the Dean about it. To my surprise, it was not that what I taught was insufficient, but that specifications and building assemblies were not integrated in the design studio enough! Thus, NAAB has gone from deleting specifications to requiring its integration in the design studio--what a change! As a result, I'm working with the professor who oversees the comprehensive design studio to have students prepare outline specifications for the project and thoroughly investigate wall and roof assemblies. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2014 - 12:14 pm:    It's time to get your comments in again! The NAAB Conditions for Accreditation is up for public comment again. No big changes with regard to specifications requirements (aside from the proposal that "write" be changed to "prepare") but I would like to encourage all on this forum to send comments in to strengthen the language - something along the lines of "understand the relationship between General Conditions, General Requirements, and Contract Documents." and maybe a requirement beyond "outline" specifications - how about just simply "specifications?" Please get your comments in before the June 24 deadline! http://www.naab.org/r/news/view.aspx?record_ID=149 Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 514 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Monday, May 19, 2014 - 01:12 pm:    On a related but different topic, the NCARB recently posted information on the upcoming transition to version 5 of the architectural registration exam (ARE 5.0). This new version will first be offered in 2016. It will consist of 6 divisions, one of which is Project Development & Documentation. In this division there is a separate section called "project manual and specifications", which includes 3 objectives: Identify and prioritize components required to write, maintain, and refine project manual. Identify and prioritize components required to write, maintain and refine project specifications. Coordinate specifications with construction documentation. Other than the third objective, where "construction documentation" should be "drawings", it is good that NCARB at least recognizes the existence of specifications and that testing for a familiarity with them is necessary in order to become licensed as an architect. Margaret G. Chewning FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: presbspec Post Number: 248 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Monday, May 19, 2014 - 03:49 pm:    Dave, I agree that it is good that NCARB is recognizing specifications. However; it is somewhat disheartening to see that they don't understand that the Project Specifications are integral to the Project Manual, as indicated in the first two items. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 516 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Monday, May 19, 2014 - 04:07 pm:    Margaret, I don't see that there is a conflict between the first two objectives. As we all know, the project manual consists of more than just specifications. Now whether they really understand that subtlety is another issue, as you note. At least they didn't call it a "book spec" which is more than I can say for some licensed professionals. anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, May 19, 2014 - 06:24 pm:    I note that NCARB doesn't actually expect an architect to actually WRITE specifications or Project Manuals, just to "Identify and prioritize components required" to do so. What the ?? I do like that architects are required to coordinate specifications with "construction documentation" - which I take to mean "drawings." Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1226 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Sunday, June 22, 2014 - 03:47 pm:    This was posted by a member of the Building Technology Educators Society, of which I'm a member. "It is time for NAAB to be replaced. In 2009 it missed the opportunity to require that all graduates of architecture schools be competent to design carbon neutral buildings, and it is missing it again in 2014. This is a major disservice to the profession and to the country, because the energies and good will of students as well as faculties are being squandered on meeting otherwise also valuable SPRs. It’s a disgrace, and in particular a disgrace of those on the writing team for NAAB who don’t understand that the sole regulatory body of the architectural education profession is in the process of postponing for another 5 years the above-said and measurable competence of all graduates from architecture schools." The post goes on, but you get the gist of it in this first paragraph. My favorite quote: "...require that all graduates of architecture schools be competent to design carbon neutral buildings..." Heck, it is difficult enough trying to get graduates competent enough to design ANY building, let alone a carbon neutral one. Sometimes I wonder if anybody that is fully immersed in academia has any concept of reality. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, June 23, 2014 - 11:50 am:    My concern is that the "carbon neutral" agenda is foremost in many individual's minds but in my experience someone just out of school has little knowledge of exiting requirements, occupant loads, fire separations, as well as a number of other items. If we want to create a ground swell of support for change why not champion the cause for a graduate having an understanding of life safety as well. I went to a cont. ed. seminar once about energy efficiency and related subject matter. The presenter asked for a show of hands for individuals who where not LEED certified and a number of us raised our hands. A fellow architect went into a rant about needing to be environmentally responsible and how not designing to a LEED standard was "nothing short of criminal". He went on to insist that GG was nothing more than green-washing and was worse than doing nothing at all. When the seminar ended I followed him out to the parking lot. I got into my Honda Civic Hybrid while he got into his Cadillac Escalade and drove away. The hypocrisy would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1835 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2014 - 12:30 pm:    To "spiper": I, too drive a Honda Civic hybrid - 2005 - with 300,000 plus miles. The service guys where I take it are pushing for 500,000. It's not so much what you say, but what you do and how you live. spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2014 - 06:34 pm:    Lynn; I not longer have my hybrids (drove two and liked them - company leases)and have now moved up to a midsize because I am getting old and wanted a more comfortable ride. I drive a Subaru Legacy now but it is a PZEV so it is still fairly clean burning and the all wheel drive was handy last winter. I don't get the mileage I once got but it has it advantages. Drove up to a job site one day a few years ago and one of the tradesmen sitting on the tail gate of his Heavy-Duty Ford truck gave me a hard time for showing up at a union job site in a Japanese car. I pointed out that my car was built in Lafayette, Indiana while his Huge pickup was actually built by Navistar, under contract with Ford, at the Navistar plant in Escobedo, Mexico. Ford is actually ending it's relationship with Navistar and they are bringing the assembly back to the US but it was nice to silence my critic that day. Richard Gonser AIA CSI CCCA SCIP Senior Member Username: rich_gonser Post Number: 69 Registered: 11-2008 Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2014 - 08:16 pm:    I had one of those hybrid civics. I just got tired of have to get out of the car and push the hamsters along if I needed to go faster than 60 on the freeway in the hills. It was like driving with a slipping clutch all the time. Nice car, quiet, etc. just too small. It could barely hold two suitcases. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1836 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2014 - 10:01 am:    Most cars have at least some parts that are made elsewhere. And most Japanese cars are now at least partially built here. It'd be tough to state a vehicle was completely made in one country (at least the vehicles we drive). Richard, the only place I've had difficulty is in the Missouri hill country. And I've driven this thing all over. The roads in Missouri are too sharply steep, so like a semi, if I can't get a run at it, I'm down-shifting. (Yes, it's a manual). As to trunk room, we easily manage two suitcases and then some. Maybe we use smaller suitcases. The only time I've noticed the small size is when I park it and get out - it looks tiny. My husband and I are both about 6 feet tall, and have no trouble fitting in the car. We cannot, however, take more than 3 grandchildren at one time in the back seat. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 775 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2014 - 12:52 pm:    Isn't that the problem with "sustainability"? It's a great idea, but this or that part of it isn't convenient for me. Look at the thousands of things that are a convenience, not a necessity. Convenience is the heart of a throw-away society. No time to do this, don't want to carry that, can't stand to be even a bit uncomfortable, gotta have a 3/4 ton pickup because I might haul a piece of plywood, need to have a 120 mph car even if I never go over 70. Is the fact that we're a CONSUMER society significant? We are continually encouraged to consume, not to use and reuse; to own rather than share things that are rarely used; to collect countless things just because. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 781 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2014 - 02:05 pm:    Oh Sheldon, please don't get me started. I am so sick of the rich liberals who say pithy crap like "Live simply so that others may simply live" as they climb into their hybrid SUVs and drive to their 5,000 sf homes, all the time feeling holy because they recycle their Coke cans. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 776 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2014 - 02:11 pm:    Sorry, I don't know what brought that on. Lack of sleep, probably. spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2014 - 12:23 pm:    I also enjoyed driving the civics' I had and I never had any issue with power, acceleration, etc. However I live in Illinois which is about as flat as it gets so hills were not part of the equation. I am trying to convince my partners that I need to lease a Tesla for my next company car but I fear that I am not going to get my way on that one. Sorry, I seem to have turned this tread into "Car Talk".