by Heather Livingston
Contributing Editor

Summary: Cheyenne, Wyo., native Randy Byers, AIA, is an AIA Education Practitioners’ Network (EPN) committee representative for the AIA White Paper for the 2008 National Architectural Accrediting Board Accreditation Review Conference (ARC). The purpose of this white paper is to present the AIA vision for the future of architecture education. NAAB holds the Accreditation Review Conference once every five years, at which time changes can be made to the Conditions for Accreditation of architecture programs.

Educational background: Architectural-Structural Drafting, Denver Institute of Technology, 1978.

Professional background: Partner in TDSi, an architecture and interior design firm located in Cheyenne. [I also was] the facilities project coordinator for the local school district for a term.

Involvement with EPN: I served on the AIA Board of Directors from 2003-2005 and during that time worked with the AIA scholarship program and with the AIA’s emerging professionals committees. My appointment to the EPN is a continuation of those efforts.

Currently reading: The Soul of a Tree, by George Nakashima

Primary issues addressed in white paper: There are other collateral organizations involved with the ARC and each one of the collaterals has their own focus as well as common issues that will be brought to the table. For the AIA, many of our issues are practice-related: sustainability, integrated project delivery, leadership and collaboration, internship, diversity, and design.

I think [the AIA’s principal goal is] to help bring the criteria by which the Academy is judged more closely in line with current practice and global issues, in particular sustainability. With the world finally acknowledging our heavy footprint on the earth, and in turn the building industry finally realizing our role in global warming and failure to be good stewards of the Earth, there’s a need for the profession to respond quickly and decisively to design buildings that are more sustainable, utilize renewable energy sources, promote healthy indoor air quality, and are better stewards of water resources. Then, in turn, it’s important that the Academy integrate those sustainable practices into the lecture coursework and the studio courses for students of architecture.

Five-year Accreditation Review Conference span: The timing of the ARC is determined by NAAB and based on accreditation cycles primarily. It’s a fairly significant undertaking and affects the schools appreciably when the accreditation criteria are changed. You could certainly make the argument that the issues with the profession—globalization, sustainability, and technology—are all issues that are moving at a very rapid pace and that, at some point, the process may need to evolve to keep up with the pace of the changing issues. Right now it’s five years. That certainly could be a subject that will be discussed at the conference next year: to see if there’s a means by which it can be more of an ongoing process rather than a once every five years reaction to what has happened and what we see happening.

Changes in the process: Bruce Blackmer, FAIA, who is the president-elect of NAAB in 2008 and chair of this process, has laid out a much more collaborative process than what’s been done in the past. I was involved with the AIA’s white paper in 2003, and previously the collateral organizations worked pretty much independently in preparation of white papers and position statements that were forwarded to NAAB and presented at the ARC (formerly the Validation Conference). There was relatively little collaboration among the various organizations during that process. Bruce is advocating, and I think as a positive change, a more collaborative process where the collaterals work together, starting in January or February 2008, identifying issues and opportunities to prepare stronger and more complete statements that will be presented at the ARC. It’s a more collaborative process this time and certainly has the potential to be a much more effective process.

The 45-day open comment period: This will be the primary opportunity for members to offer comments, suggestions, and criticism about the white paper or accreditation. Certainly anyone who has an interest or wishes to have input should offer an opinion during that 45-day comment period.

Role of members: I think that all of us in the profession understand the importance of the preparation of future generations of architects. This is our opportunity to have a voice in the Academy and in the criteria by which the Academy is judged. The criteria that are set forth or changed as part of the 2008 ARC will have an impact on those students and those schools for at least five years hence, so it’s far reaching and it’s at a critical time with many issues—sustainability not being the least.

We need students coming out of school who are well-educated in sustainable design as well as integrated practice and who have an understanding of the other issues, diversity being one. The AIA and the profession in general continue to work hard at developing a more diverse profession that’s more representative of society in general. Having the students understand that as they come out of school is important.

What happens in the intervening year between the comment period and the ARC? According to NAAB, all of the white papers from the various collateral organizations are supposed to be received no later than February 2008. The next step in the process is that collaterals and other stakeholders will review and comment on trends, challenges, and educational needs. That will mostly be done through the NAAB Accreditation Review Conference Task Force that has been put together. Along with the AIA, representatives from the five collaterals and other stakeholders make up that task force. That is where the collaborative effort will primarily take place. Each of the organizations will have prepared some background, whether it’s a completed white paper or one still in process, and they will bring those ideas and suggestions to the table to work collaboratively with the other members of their various subcommittees to prepare the final input that goes to the conference in October 2008.

Final thoughts: I want to emphasize the importance of members taking time to review the white paper during the 45-day comment period and offer suggestions. After the comment period, the EPN will review and consider all input as we prepare the final draft of the white paper that will be presented to the AIA Board of Directors at their December meeting. That 45-day comment period is quite important, because that’s the time during which members will have a chance to influence the final product that is presented to NAAB.