A word from Beverley McRae, Chief Executive, NZIA

Architects’ Institutes around the world are examining their membership bases against a backdrop of observed changes in practice. The RIBA, for example, recently commissioned a study, Building Futures, which set out to explore the future role of architects, asking: Who will design our buildings in 2025? What roles will those trained in architecture be doing then? And, how will architectural practice have changed as a result?
 
Through a series of one-to-one interviews and roundtable sessions the study aimed to examine the breadth of those who shape the built environment, including traditional architects and those working in expanded fields of practice. The resulting speculations have pertinence for our Institute, especially for an examination of our current membership categories and how well they will meet our future needs as an Institute of Architects. I report some of them here:

“One thing is certain – we are in a period of change and liquidity that we have not witnessed for just over a generation. This change will almost certainly reconfigure our cities, towns, suburbs and villages – and by consequence us, as a profession. Make no mistake, there will be no ‘back to normal’; we are at the tipping point of a systemically different conversation.

“Which means, inevitably, we need to think about the institution and its role in agitating, facilitating, encouraging, catalyzing, driving, narrating, interrogating and sharing our reflections – but fundamentally driving the systemic renewal of the profession – from our ethics, to our knowledge base, to our forms of practice and overcoming the existing pathways of dependencies, momentum and capability gaps buried deep within the ecology of our ‘profession’.

“This requires a progressive institution built to reflect the challenges and opportunities presented not by the 20th century but the 21st century. I would therefore argue that it may be time to explore new modalities and behaviours for such institutions. And I would suggest that as a starting point, we need to understand the following:

1] We are not a membership organisation. We are a learned society – driven by the logic of knowledge and public value and learning as opposed to the interests of its members.

2] We are a profession – not an association of consultants. Our first duty is to do no harm to the places where we work, regardless of who pays us and how much we are paid. We are privileged to co-shape places which will significantly outlast the hands and financial instruments that made them – so we are curators of that near and long term future.

3] Our knowledge and IP ecology as a profession is fundamentally fragmented and isolated across thousands of small organisations. Imagine an institution which understood the solution was not to promote larger organisations but to create a platform for sharing our individual knowledge. This would be an institution where we would all become more valuable and viable.

4] The purpose of the ‘title’ of architect is not to build a castle around the profession and help keep people out but to build a lighthouse to attract, interrogate and advocate the best talent, ideas and practice. Imagine an institution that did not have to sell its associative ‘brand’ but became a true content aggregator of knowledge and practice and a filter for evaluating and showcasing best and next practice – leading the propositional debate for the progressive evolution of our cities, towns and villages.

5] As practitioners we are increasingly operating in a complex and dynamic world where innovation flourishes through a process of iterative interaction with the locality, citizens, customers, suppliers and knowledge institutions, and deep scientific and technological research. Imagine a profession which reframes its learning ecology – from university to CPD to reflect this innovation reality and respects the systemic role of practice in innovation and research.

6] We are in a new world – where social frameworks and the modes and methods of people organising themselves are being revolutionised. Imagine an institution born today, in the age of Twitter, Crowdsource funding, personalised budgets, Wikipolicy responses, Facebook, TEDx, iPhone Apps and Linkedin for a new learned movement not just a society.

7] The physical setting of such a professional institute should not be a living history museum that merely showcases its members but a place for discourse and conversation. Imagine an institution which is made of a thousand coffee shops throughout the land rather than the single ‘awe-inspiring’ monument – a micro massive institution fit for purpose, and open to public scrutiny and engagement”.

The NZIA Council recently held a planning session to discuss these issues and aim for a synthesis upon which our own future may be predicated. Although not specifically stated, it could be inferred that collectively the NZIA’s objects are intended to ensure the ongoing development of a capable and diverse architectural community to meet future needs. However, it may be that the way we regard ourselves and our role as an institute has become inflexible.

At one level, a key issue is the inflexible nature of the label ‘architect’. This has two main implications: a practice may be being held back in terms of the type of work it does; and the Institute may not be being sufficiently flexible to allow for a wider range of member ‘types’, engaged in a broader range of activity than is currently allowed for.

The term ‘architect’ is perhaps being regarded as a ‘brand’, dictating an assumption of what you do and how you will do it. The limitations of doing ‘traditional architecture’ are embedded in the reality that that role has been changed in a variety of circumstances; some may even say eroded or invaded.

At the same time some architects are still annoyed that some designers are still presenting themselves as ‘almost architects’, offering service in the traditional manner as a means of winning clients and getting onto the ladder. There is still, for many, architects and designers alike, the ability to make a living from producing a personal service, and show resilience to change in at least the medium term.

There is another reason for examining our current membership structures: the Institute is in ridiculously good health. We can be, and indeed we are, proud of whom we are and what we have achieved. A good solid job we have made of it. We work hard; we respond to the needs of our members, we keep the peace and the faith.

The last ten years has been about growing the business in two ways:

1. getting at least 90% of eligible members to sign on

2. getting them to take up more products and services




We have focused somewhat on continuing education and this has served us well in terms of collegiality, upskilling and in creating a demand for member services. But do we now need to amend our current focus? Again, like Institutes around the world, we have to address some challenging issues:

• What will we be engaged in, in one year/five years/ten years from now?
• What is likely to be the preferred occupational regulatory model in 10-15 years time?
• What are the essential services we should provide our members?
• Who should our members be?
• Is the service delivery model for 2025 different?
• How do we portray our importance and role to the wider community so we are understood?

I have always quipped when asked for a definition of architecture: Architecture is what Architects do. And I have found this very useful because I can then say: If an Architect hasn’t done it, then it can’t be Architecture.

But, I agree this is a little flip. A recent DBH publication on the “Built Environment Skills Strategy” which aims to increase productivity in the sector by 20% by 2020, says that achieving this goal will be characterised by:

• a more knowledgeable client base that has better procurement skills; and
• vibrant firms capable of competing for projects as well as cooperating in partnerships and effective supply network relationships,
• which together provide whole-of-life value for clients and end-users at a lower overall system cost.

Overall the theme is collaboration and those of you working in the commercial sector will relate particularly well to that. Practices may need to change their thinking from “sole practice” to being a part of an integrated expert team. This is not to suggest that small practices will disappear but it does emphasise the fact they need to stay current with technologies and processes and to cease playing the role of a subservient technician waiting for someone to tell them to do something. How should we accommodate this?

Perhaps it is time for re-definition.

Council is still considering how a future Institute might allow for both traditional roles, continuing the brand “architect” as the dominant membership category, and new ones, allowing recognition of the broader reaching, interdisciplinary concept of architectural practice.

Working towards a broader definition of a member of the NZIA will assist graduates in the future to move into career paths leading to a wider range of roles in the built environment professions and to better respond to the changing nature of practice.

It may also assist those “once were” architects, i.e., those who have moved into other areas of work and who, because of the NZRAB’s requirements for continued registration, have been or will be in danger of being lost to the profession.

Consultation will be broad and proposals for change will only be brought forward once Council is reassured they are the right ones for all of our futures.

TOP