CSI Building Technology Education Program

Construction Specification Institute Institute Discussions
1

A current topic of discussion in forums and on blogs is the lack of technical knowledge by young professionals in the area of building construction - an area most specifiers are experienced with. See Architects, Take Back the Reins by Liz O-Sullivan as a good example (http://lizosullivanaia.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/architects-take-back-the-reins/#comments). What Happened to the Master Builder by Sheldon Wolfe (http://swconstructivethoughts.blogspot.com/2012/02/what-happened-to-master-builder.html) is another. Absence of Thought by Ralph Liebing (http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/4542/5946.html?1330524217) is another.

One must remember that our current architectural education system is based on a combination of schooling and internship. This traditional system relies mainly on the internship side to teach the professional and technical areas while the schools concentrate mainly on the design side. Both are required to be qualified to take registration exams.

Most professional architectural schools do not spend much time with professional and technical issues. Traditionally, it was assumed that architects to be would learn these elements of the profession during internship. Years ago, the technical aspects of building construction were much less complex in comparison to today, so that the office mentoring of this subject area was not such a complex task. There is a strong question of whether the traditional system of technical building education during internship is still a viable method.

The situation has changed considerably over the years. The technology of how we research and prepare documents has changed radically. The technology of how we build buildings has also changed radically there are many more options and it is much more complicated than years ago. The available information and knowledge is much greater. It is very questionable whether the internship served in most offices is capable of meeting its educational responsibilities under our traditional system in todays world.

CSI has some programs to meet the needs of emerging professionals to understand the basics of how the design/construction industry operates and the basics of contract documents (CDT). It also has advanced programs for understanding the principles of specifications (CCS) and construction contract administration (CCCA).

An effort to try to change professional schools of architecture to fully cover technical subjects will not be very fruitful or at least take a very long time to accomplish. The most fruitful effort would be to provide a program for the building technical education of emerging professionals a program that would supplement the education provided by internship in offices.

See discussions on LinkedIn CSI: Technical Education Is There a Better Way (http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=706547&type=member&item=87313037&qid=a487c56f-6fb9-4edf-9220-5c37984dd669&trk=group_items_see_more-0-b-ttl), Do you believe CSI should create a Building Technology Education program for emerging professionals since schooling and internship does not seem to be fulfilling the need? (http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=706547&type=member&item=119226841&qid=4430a7ac-ea9c-4d69-95b6-96aa2479cb36&trk=group_most_popular-0-b-ttl&goback=%2Egmp_706547), If you voted yes in previous poll about CSI and Building Technology education, what are your preferences for such an education program? (http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=706547&type=member&item=117261680&qid=4430a7ac-ea9c-4d69-95b6-96aa2479cb36&trk=group_most_popular-0-b-ttl&goback=%2Egmp_706547).

This proposal is not intended to replace or downgrade our existing education programs, but rather to expand them. It is not intended to replace firm lunch and learns or region conference and convention education programs on technical subjects. These programs can provide continuing technical education, but they do not comprise a structured comprehensive course to cover all the necessary subjects.

Such a building technology education course might best be organized by systems and assemblies or UniFormat so that sessions would be held on foundations, exterior wall assemblies, windows, doors, roofing systems, expansion joints, interior partitions, etc. The sessions could be taught by a combination of technically oriented architects, specifiers, engineering consultants, specialty consultants, specialty contractors, and product representatives as appropriate for the various subjects. The goal of such a course would be to teach young inexperienced emerging professionals the principles of how to put a building together. This is an opportunity for CSI to organize the various participants of the industry that the membership represents to work together to fulfill the need for an education program. This program would be quite different from the CDT and other education/certification programs concentrating on contract documents and how to operate within the industry.

CSI has been trying to solve a declining membership problem by trying to be attractive to younger people in the industry. What better way to attract more young people than to provide an education program that meets one their major needs to know more building technology. Although a major audience would be young architects, it would also be attractive to all the participants in the design/construction who are new and do not have a building technology background.

It just seems like it is time to do something to make sure emerging professionals receive a good building technical education early in their careers instead of having to learn it all by the school of hard knocks.

2

VERY GOOD NEWS!!
THE BUILDING TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION PROGRAM IS TAKING OFF!!

This past weekend, the CSI Board unanimously agreed that a Building Technology Education program was worthy of serious further consideration and directed the President to appoint a Task Team to develop the initiative to the next level. The task team’s charge will relate to developing the outline curriculum, determining the audience and delivery method for this education material, and developing a business case proposal. The task team will primarily meet by conference call.

We now need people to work with the task team! People interested in participating with this task team should contact me at rwj@jandjconsultants.com.

3

Where’s the “Like” button?

4

While I agree with the need for this type of education, I simply do not see CSI as the appropriate provider of this type of program. CSI is not “building technology” oriented. it is document oriented, and I cannot see CSI as ever been seen as authoritative in this realm. This sounds like a boondoggle just waiting for funding.

5

Anne, I see your point. However, I haven’t encountered another organization that has so many members who are knowledgable about building technology - how an entire building gets put together. I don’t know what other organization could do it.

Because construction is so specific to location, I see this effort as merely an outline at the Institute level, that would be fleshed out and taught at the Chapter level.

6

Ann: Look at it from this perspective:

If they don’t know how it goes together, they won’t know how to document it–either in the specifications or the drawings.

CSI needs to move with the times and fill in the gaps where the industry lags–and building technology education is one of those gaps. No other organization provides this level of education. AIA surely is not the taking the LEAD in this–except for LEED. This is an area where CSI can be the leader.

As an organization, CSI needs to add value for its membership–and members and nonmembers alike have asked CSI to do this. If CSI is successful in this endeavor, and I think it will, those nonmembers may become members.

We have to let go of the anchor that has been holding CSI back and look for new ideas that help advance the industry and still support the CSI (i.e. “our”) mission:

“The mission of CSI is to advance building information management and education of project teams to improve facility performance.”

If teaching professionals how building should be designed and constructed doesn’t improve facility performance, then I don’t know what does.

7

Odd, isn’t it -

  • CSI focuses on specifications, yet had no specification product until recently
  • AIA focuses on design and drawings, yet spun off the what I suspect is the most commonly used master guide specification product
  • CSI focuses on text documents, yet is a key player in the National CAD Standard
  • AIA produces the most commonly used general conditions, the heart of specifications, yet CSI explains how to put it all together
8

to all: CSI has not managed to even get the CDT – its prime product – as a requirement on federal projects. (yes, I know we’re developing a “Federal” CDT – that is not the issue. )
CSI is not an organization of educators (even though some of us do that); and we are not an organization of individual building technology experts – most of the various experts are not CSI members. We do not have the staff to organize a venture like this, and furthermore, we cannot legitimately promote ourselves as experts in the entire building. I’m sorry, but this is REALLY a dumb idea.
Our organization has gone down these side-roads in the past (like: developing our own CEN program, which had almost zero credibility in the industry and has now been shelved). "The Entire Building " is not something we can credibly sell. We do not have the staff to administer or even manage something like this. Otherwise, the CDT would be a federal requirement. We’re not doing a decent job of promoting the products we have.

we would be better off looking at the intersection of BIM and documents (which no one is really doing); looking at how to develop a good office reference library – which is an ongoing issue in every office, or other places where we can make our member’s lives easier and more productive. Honestly – do you REALLY think CSI would be accepted as an authority on the whole building?

9

We’re only beginning the development process. The Institute has only approved the concept–no funding has been provided.

Very little staff is required except for a liaison. For the most part, this will be a volunteer effort. We have plenty of educators and experts in CSI to assist in the effort, and I’m sure we can find experts outside of the organization to fill the gaps (they may eventually become members).

This program can be as big or as small as we want to make it. We start with a few modules and add others as permitted. How the program will actually work has not been determined yet–it could be offered in any number of ways and can be used to develop course curriculums in schools, chapter seminars, on-line courses, or webinars.

Please don’t discount the idea without seeing what the full proposal will be.

10

I think that content for the program should be developed only from existing resources books already published. But an Institute level task team could figure out what books and what content would be appropriate, and then provide a course outline and names of these resources and books to Chapters. (Anne, this ties into your comment about helping people develop good office reference libraries.) Chapters could select instructors from within their membership and outside of their membership (from local architects, specifiers, engineers, building envelope consultants, code consultants, specialty contractors, and product representatives).

I don’t believe a certificate or any kind of testing would be appropriate in the beginning. Later, maybe.

The curriculum would consist of stuff architects are supposed to know, but that emerging professionals dont know. It’s stuff that the AIA isn’t comprehensively addressing. Its stuff that people have already written about. (Its stuff that I am starting to build my own library with. It’s stuff that small architecture firms decide not to buy, because they buy more books on design instead.)

11

In the three years it will take to develop a curriculum this massive, “books” as we know them and “chapter courses” as we know them will be fading into the past, replaced by electronic knowledge resources that can be easily updated, and online course delivery that can be easily accessed asynchronously and remotely. Working professionals have less and less time to drive across a city to sit and listen to volunteer instructors give synopses of materials they can read on their own and discuss in online forums.

Fewer CSI chapters around the country are holding CDT review classes for declining numbers of local class participants; more candidates are preparing on their own. Bear in mind that the Institute has not published a set of chapter instructor tools to support local CDT chapter review classes since the CDT Instructor’s Manual of the mid-1990s. So I expect the Institute’s focus will be on Institute-delivered education programs; there will be great expense involved in this undertaking, and there must be a way to recoup the investment.

Perhaps the Institute can be encouraged to develop a body of knowledge and delivery method that can serve this emerging need, if such a need can be validated, and analyzed to see if there is actual demand (which is so different from need). It should look outside the industry at successful online education methodologies, though. I don’t think the traditional chapter class will be a viable delivery method for such a course of study.

And although it is wildly against CSI culture to even consider mentioning it, perhaps this should be looked at as a professional undertaking with experienced writers and editors paid to produce a top-notch curriculum, and competent professional instructors paid to present the material. If a means of paying for these services in order to create a top-shelf education resource cannot be identified, then perhaps there isn’t adequate demand from the envisioned students and the industry for CSI to undertake the effort. I’m sure these issues will be on the Institute Board’s collective mind when they begin to look at this proposal. Perhaps there’s a way to take only a bite of the elephant, though, before trying to eat the whole beast.

12

Phil, these are all good things to think about, especially the NEED vs. DEMAND issue. Thank you.

13

Some interesting points to consider Phil.

I don’t think you necessarily need a “demand” in addition to a “need.” Many manufacturers successfully provide and sell products to meet a need without a demand for them - consumers see a product that meets their need and they buy it. The Institute’s successful construction contract administration program (CCCA) was created to meet a need without a demand for it. I have experienced the same thing with successful in-house education programs that have been started to meet a need without any demand for them. There is of course the issue of how many people have the need if that is what you mean by “demand.” There is also the issue of getting the message out to the people with a need that there is a program to help them - the message for a program like Building Technology Education has to go beyond the membership - we have not always been great at doing that.

Determining a delivery method or methods for this program will be interesting. Today’s generation certainly likes the convenience of acquiring knowledge when they want off the internet. This subject matter is different from other CSI education programs in that it is not a static subject across the country. There are regional differences in terms of climatic differences and construction practices that need to be taken into account. The determination of delivery methods will not be a simple cut and dried decision because they are other advantages and disadvantages to each in addition to those above.

I would disagree with your statement that it wildly against CSI culture to consider using paid consultants - although maybe not done on a regular basis, paid consultants have been certainly been used in the past on CSI programs.

14

To add to Bob’s comments, I believe the focus is on building technology “basics”–the information that any emerging professional needs in order to be successful in their career.

Advanced or higher-level building technology that frequently evolves and improves is best left to continuing education sessions that build upon the basic knowledge proposed by the BTEP. That type of narrow-focused education sessions can evolve with the industry, and are probably best left to instructors with that relative expertise.

What I’m looking for in the BTEP is something that I can offer to my graduate students in the comprehensive design studio (CDS). The CDS is where students begin to think about the their designs as larger systems constructed of bits and pieces that interface and connect and how they affect the overall performance of a building.

Phil, you have some good points. Sounds like you’d be a good add to the task team–want to join?

15

What I mean as a “demand” is the willingness of a consumer to expend resources on something. We “need” mass transit in this country. But taxpayers are not willing to spend tax resources on mass transit due to complex reasons. Instead, they spend their money on the existing inefficient transportation infrastructure. Likewise in our situation: we perceive a “need” for building technology education, but the students who either have or borrow tens of thousands of dollars to purchase education services from universities do not demand an education in building technology - they demand an education in “design.”

What has made the outstanding CCCA program work for the Institute is the existence of an underlying demand: candidates in the industry who are willing to pay fees to obtain an education. And Robert is absolutely right: it is essential to get the message out - in this case, the message that this great gap in our education system can be addressed at least in part, provided there are one or more sources of funding, because these things don’t happen without people being paid for the effort, as Bob corrected my “attitude” by pointing out that this does indeed happen.

We should look at who will benefit from such an effort, and see whether facility owners and product manufacturers might help underwrite some of the development costs for assembling such a program.

16

Most students in professional architectural schools do not have a very good idea what they are getting into. They do not demand an education in building technology because they do not understand that a majority of them are going to spend a majority of their professional time dealing with building technology - most of them have other aspirations dealing with design. Read Liz O’Sullivan “The Fervor of a Convert (part two)” (http://lizosullivanaia.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/the-fervor-of-a-convert-part-two/) for a viewpoint on this.

Most young architects don’t realize what they don’t know and what additional things they need to learn until they have been out in the real world for a few years. I believe the CDT program works that way in terms of the benefits of understanding the roles and responsibilities of the participants of the industry and the principles of contract documents - knowledge that most professional schools do not spend much time on.

As you point out, the financial aspects of such a program are always important. One of the charges for the task team will deal with the business plan. That again is a complex subject with many options to be explored.

College students of today are facing much different financial problems then in previous generations. It is hard for me to believe how bad it has gotten for today’s students - I see it first hand as my grandchildren are starting college. In fact one of the reasons I am still consulting is to help fund their educations. The business plan has to be realistic to meet their needs and be viable for CSI.

I have always been the optimistic type of guy - glass is half-full, not half-empty. Yes, you face a bunch of potential road blocks in starting a new program, but the potential problems should not stop you from trying something new to help solve an identified problem. If you see a viable way to help solve a problem, go for it! If we don’t attack this problem, who is going to?

17

One thing to consider is the NCARB IDP requirements. As an intern, graduate architects will be seeking to satisfy the IDP as the prerequisite for the registration exam. Currently the passing the CDT only counts toward elective credits, not any of the 120 core credits required for specifications and materials research. I have been pushing CSI for a while, and Peter Jordan has taken up the challenge to open discussions with NCARB to accept CDT as part of the core credits.

Acceptance by NCARB as IDP core credits is an essential issue this new proposal will need to address. If the program does not help interns complete the IDP, they may not demand the program, nor consider it worthwhile. So I recommend beginning discussions with NCARB early in the process to be sure they will embrace the program.

18

Dave

CDT is accepted for elective NCARB IDP credits and CCS and CCCA for core credits (http://www.ncarb.org/en/Experience-Through-Internships/IDP2-Experience-Settings/IDP2-Supplemental-Experience-Core/Certificate-Programs.aspx).

From the NCARB IDP website (http://www.ncarb.org/Experience-Through-Internships/IDP2-Experience-Categories-Areas.aspx):
“Interns must acquire 5,600 hours to satisfy the IDP experience requirement.
There are two types of hours:
Core Hours: Experience earned in IDP experience categories and areas. Core minimum hours are the minimum number of hours you must earn in a given category or area.
Elective Hours: Experience earned through core hours or supplemental experience to satisfy the requirement of 1,860 elective hours.”

The value for core (3,740) and elective (1,860) credits to meet the 5,600 credit minimum are equal.

Although I would agree that it would be good for all CSI education courses to be eligible for core credits, I don’t understand why this is an “essential issue” since both types of credits are equal in meeting the 5,600 credit minimum for interns to complete the IDP. To me, the essential issue is that the education program receive IDP credit, whether they be core or elective credits.

Could you explain why it is an essential issue?

19

This NCARB stuff needs to be better publicized at csinet.org

20

Bob, unless I misunderstand, elective credits are elective. Interns need not use CDT to satisfy the elective credits. If CDT counted toward core credits, there would be more incentive to take and pass CDT.