Pathways to Practice is built on years of research, analysis, and volunteer collaboration. This episode unpacks the foundation behind NCARB’s future licensure model: the Competency Standard.

Andy speaks with Jared Zurn about NCARB’s Analysis of Practice, a large-scale study designed to understand how architecture is practiced today and how it is changing. The conversation explains why NCARB moved beyond a traditional job task analysis to better understand the future of practice.

Then, Andrew Portis and Whitney Martin, members of NCARB’s Competency Task Force, share how the Competency Standard was developed and why defining competency at the point of initial licensure is so important.

Find out more about Pathways to Practice.

Well, welcome to the NCobb podcast, where you get an inside look at licensure, regulation,

and the initiative shaping the future of architectural practice.

2

I'm your host, Andy McIntyre.

3

So in this episode, we're stepping back to look at the foundation for Pathways to Practice

and the research that's shaping everything we've discussed so far this season.

4

We're unpacking the years of exploration, collaboration, and analysis that led to NCobb's

competency standard and why this work is an essential step.

5

developing the future of licensure.

6

We'll begin with a conversation about the research that set this work in motion.

7

I'm again joined by Jared Zern, NCARB's Chief Programs Officer, to talk about NCARB's

Analysis of Practice, an industry-wide study designed to understand how architecture is

8

actually practiced today and how that practice is changing.

9

Jared, welcome.

10

Thank you very much Andy, glad to be here.

11

And Jared, you are NCARB's Chief Programs Officer.

12

Tell us a little bit about that role and what you oversee.

13

Certainly the Chief Programs Officer is actually a fairly new role at the organization and

it really puts me in a place to oversee all licensure programs inside of the council as

14

well as the NCARB certificate program.

15

So it really is everything from someone pursuing education through documenting experience

as well as taking the examination, eventually earning that license to practice and even

16

continuing on.

17

through the world of continuing education, maintaining your NCARB certificate, and

hopefully being incredibly successful as an architect all across the United States.

18

Anyone who follows NCOP may be well be familiar with you and has listened to some of the

previous episodes, but just to level set, we've had several episodes talking about the

19

history of NCOP's programs and really getting us up to speed in terms of where we are

today.

20

And now we're really pivoting to talk about where we're going.

21

And I'd like to start talking with you, Jared, about I think what was NCOP's of jumping in

point to our evolution or future evolution, which was a study that we did

22

coming out of COVID in the early 2000s called NCARB's Analysis of Practice.

23

Could you tell us a little bit about that study and why it was important that that was the

sort of, shall we say, the starting block for our organization?

24

Yeah, every licensing organization all across the country does something like an analysis

of practice.

25

Oftentimes though, they don't refer to it as that they will refer to it as a job task

analysis.

26

And they tend to take a more narrow focus and really think of what exactly are just the

specific knowledge and skills that somebody needs to do this job.

27

And NCARB actually pre pandemic, I remember because I was at the organization, we started

28

to go down this path and instead of doing just a job task analysis, we really wanted a

broader perspective.

29

So the decision was made to do a true analysis of the practice of architecture.

30

And that gave us the freedom as an organization to not just ask questions about what do

you do as an architect on a day-to-day basis, but also what is changing in the profession?

31

What is changing outside of the profession that will influence the profession?

32

And what are some of the challenges inside of the profession that we should try to address

as a national regulatory organization supporting the jurisdictional license?

33

Just to level set up for anybody who's listened to those words, the analysis of practice,

and isn't quite clear what we're talking about.

34

This is basically a big study where our organization, and actually we did this study with

the third party who helped do that and give us some triangulation and independence on the

35

data analysis, went out and said, all right, what is happening in architecture in the US

and how should we view practice today?

36

That is a very good high level summary and it was a purposeful decision.

37

We talked to a lot of architects, right?

38

I think our data showed that we had, we eventually engaged with over 19,000 different

individuals on this massive study.

39

said large, I will say massive study, but that also included people who are in the

construction management industry or their engineers, as well as like I said, a whole lot

40

of architects and architects that are architectural educators and architects.

41

that are practitioners and architects that are kind of maybe doing a related profession,

but not actively practicing.

42

Because we wanted that broad knowledge base to inform where we're going.

43

And part of the challenge we have at NCARB is by the time you do a big study like that, if

you're only asking what are you doing today, and then you want to build new licensure

44

programs, by the time you build your new licensure programs, they might be misaligned.

45

because the world has changed since you captured the data.

46

So purposefully it was where are we headed as a profession so we could try to design

programs that are going to be where we are as a profession, not where we were back in

47

2021.

48

When you mentioned there that NCARB didn't just do a job task analysis, which is maybe

more typical of a regulatory organization or someone who wants to do that check-in with

49

what's happening in their field, why would that not have worked for NCARB at this time?

50

I think the challenge if we had done a very traditional job task analysis, but knowing

that we wanted to take a larger look at re-envisioning licensure as a holistic process,

51

what we would have had was out of date information by the time we really got around to

building the future.

52

And so to some degree, if you want to build to the future, you've got to look into the

future and then iterate as we're going, which is the other thing that NCARB talks about a

53

lot.

54

If somebody were to ask me today and somebody's listening to this podcast and says, what

exactly is it going to look like when you launch the future licensure programs?

55

My answer is I don't know.

56

And that's the best answer I honestly can give you.

57

And it should be the answer you are most happy to receive.

58

Because only a fool would stand in front of you and say, I know exactly what I'm going to

turn on two and a half or three years from now.

59

Because if they do, that means they're going to make no updates for the next three years.

60

That's terrible from that perspective.

61

So we're

62

purposely iterating as we go, learning new information, but building from a very important

mass of study.

63

And anyone who's listening to this who hears about, was talking about their last year's

practice and says, well, I don't know if I was involved in that.

64

Maybe I missed the opportunity, but maybe my voice or type of voice wasn't represented in

that study.

65

What could you say to them?

66

There are certainly some people who are hearing this that did not actively participate in

the analysis of practice.

67

I think what I will say though is from a measurement perspective, when you look at how

broad our feedback was.

68

So did we talk to every architectural educator out there?

69

No, we did not.

70

Did we talk to architectural educators?

71

Absolutely.

72

Did we talk to every practicing architect?

73

No, we did not.

74

But the reality is we talked to enough of them that we're confident in the results that

came back and actually we're highly confident.

75

getting the results that came back because we had a massive participation rate, which was

fantastic.

76

I know on a personal level, I was involved in some of the promotion and the push and the

effort we put in as an organization to get the message out there and encourage people to

77

participate.

78

So yeah, it was probably our biggest study in our history, think.

79

Fair to say.

80

Just in terms of participation, anyway.

81

in a collaborative study that it wasn't yes, NCARB was pushing behind it and we wanted all

this data so we could react to it.

82

But I also remember collaborating with our other organizations across architecture that

they helped promote it.

83

So their members, if you're not an active NCARB member, or you're not an active NCARB

certificate holder, so you don't come to our website, you don't know what we're doing.

84

But AIA was talking about it.

85

ACSA was talking about it.

86

NAV was talking about it.

87

Our state licensing boards were talking about it.

88

some of us probably got inundated myself as a practicing architect.

89

I think I got messages from everybody telling me about get involved, take this study my

state licensing board was telling me NCARB was telling me as well as AA chapter was saying

90

make sure you participate.

91

So it was fantastic that everybody was also behind me.

92

So that was the sort of jumping in point, if you will, or the start point for NCoB's

evolution or programmatic evolution.

93

As you say, we're not there yet.

94

We're in this process.

95

Like a lot of things, people do studies and the question is, well, what are you going to

do with that information?

96

And what did NCoB do with it?

97

How did it use it?

98

How did it plug into the next step?

99

Well, the first thing we did is we actually made the data available to everybody, which a

lot of organizations don't do.

100

A lot of organizations capture all this data and they keep it behind their walls.

101

And NCARB did it.

102

We made a report and we posted that report online and it is still available today.

103

So people can search for the NCARB analysis of practice and it will come up.

104

So if you've never heard of this, I would suggest just do a quick Google search.

105

Look at the report.

106

So that's the first thing we did.

107

The other thing we did is we then started taking all of those different data sets and

started sharing them amongst our different committees.

108

At NCARB, we work with hundreds and hundreds of volunteers every year.

109

We put them on various committees to study different areas.

110

And we took the data and we started saying, we want this group to look at this data.

111

What does this mean?

112

How can we evolve this program?

113

We want this other group to look at this data.

114

What does this mean?

115

How could we evolve?

116

So part of it was now distributing that data and using it to inform the next.

117

conversations that we needed to have.

118

There's a lot of committees and there was a lot of different ways that that data was

sliced, parceled out and shared.

119

But there are a couple of big initiatives that came out as next steps.

120

I want to segue into one important one, which was NCARB's approach to competency and our

evolution of that.

121

Can you tell us a little bit about that and what led to that as the next step action for

this organization?

122

We knew we wanted to at least take a fresh look at the licensure process.

123

Maybe we wouldn't redesign it.

124

We don't know, but we wanted to take a fresh look.

125

Whenever you start on a project like this, the first thing you have to do is make sure

that whatever we're going to measure, because we're a measuring organization, this is

126

about granting a license or not, you have to make sure that you're going to measure the

right thing.

127

That's probably the most important question to start with, because if NCARB rolls out

128

an examination, let's say in the future, but we're not measuring the right thing.

129

Well, who cares about the exam?

130

That'd be a silly exam to administer.

131

So what we purposely did, as we said, we want to focus on the competencies that matter to

practice architecture independently.

132

So not everything that architects do, and not just the one or two most important things

that architects do.

133

It was really looking at what it takes to deliver architectural services.

134

for the health, safety and welfare of both the public and the clients that we serve.

135

And those are what we are calling competency.

136

So we wanted to create a competency standard that allowed us to show these are the core

things we believe every, that's an important statement.

137

We believe every architect should possess before they hold a license to practice our.

138

You know, Jared, I'm just reflecting on what you just said and thinking about the job task

analysis that may have traditionally approached that piece.

139

And the fact is that often when you do a job task analysis, you tend to be reliant on

what's come before.

140

And it's hard to give yourself that clean piece of paper and say, start again.

141

If we didn't assume knowledge of what we've been doing for all this time, and we really

went and tried to evaluate the practice as it is today.

142

do we get there and how do we give ourselves that fresh view?

143

And I think that that's really one of the different shores between the analysis of

practice study and a traditional job task analysis is it didn't have any basis or basis on

144

the current state in terms of its approach.

145

But that, as you mentioned, led to the conversation around competences.

146

And I think that one of the things that's interesting for me as a non-architect employee

147

It didn't replace a previous competency standard.

148

was a new, which is kind of strange, isn't it?

149

like, okay, we didn't have it before, but now we're intentionally framing our work in and

around this competency framework.

150

You must reflect on that and why that was the right thing to do.

151

And I just wanted to hear your take on it.

152

To me, it's an exciting thing to do.

153

Because I have been at NCARB long enough to have lived through the 2020-12 refresh of our

then, in essence, job task analysis.

154

And then we did something very similar in sort of the 2012, well, actually the first one

155

And then we did it again, like in 2012.

156

And exactly like you stated, what ends up happening is you kind of look at what you have

and then you tweak around the edges.

157

And what that does is it causes some things to stay in that probably don't need to be

there.

158

And it causes you to miss some things that probably should be there that well, it wasn't

in the old one.

159

So maybe you really don't need it in the new one.

160

Starting with a blank sheet of paper was hard.

161

I'm gonna say that though, that start with is like you start with a blank sheet of paper,

and it gets really hard because at first you want to put everything in, then you start

162

challenging yourself about should it really be in there.

163

So then you start taking things out.

164

then you kind of go back and forth and it's this ebb and flow to get to that right landing

point of what really should be a requirement because that's what these are.

165

These are going to establish the requirements for licensure.

166

It needs to be rigorous, but not too rigorous.

167

It needs to be encompassing, but not overly encompassing.

168

It was an iterative process in itself just to land at where the eventual confidence

standard land.

169

don't want you to drag you into spoiler alerts because I am going to go and talk to a

couple of our volunteers who participated in that competency task force and find out their

170

take on that work and how it went and their perspectives on it.

171

So Jared, before we sign off on this part of the conversation, anything you'd like to add

or share with our audience on this sort of step from an artist of practice through to the

172

competency standard?

173

Well, what I would say first of all, thank everybody who was involved.

174

Like again, it was all of your feedback who were involved both in the large surveys

related to the analysis of practice, as well as the additional large surveys we did around

175

developing a competency standard.

176

So thank you for all of you who did that.

177

And then second, continue to stay engaged with NCARB because as I've stated, we are

iteratively building a future licensure process.

178

And that comes from lots and lots of feedback and lots and lots of involvement.

179

So please stay connected when we ask you questions, respond.

180

We want to know what you think.

181

Tell us the good, the bad and the ugly about the current and how you want the future to

live because that's how we can come up with the best programs for everybody going forward.

182

point, we're not done with our data collection and conversation with the professional at

large and the candidate community.

183

So Jared, thank you for joining us today.

184

Appreciate it and speak to you soon.

185

Thank you.

186

So Jared explained why NCARB deliberately moved beyond a traditional job task analysis and

instead took a broader, future-focused look at architectural practice.

187

By engaging nearly 20,000 architects and related professionals, the analysis of practice

helped NCARB identify not just what architects do today, but what they're increasingly

188

being asked to do as collaborators, problem solvers, and leaders.

189

That research provided a critical insight.

190

Before reimagining licensure,

191

NCUB first needed to establish a standard for what knowledge and skills are needed at the

point of initial licensure for architects.

192

To explore how that standard was set, I'm joined by Andrew Portis and Whitney Martin,

licensed architects and members of NCUB's Competency Task Force, the group responsible for

193

developing the competency standard.

194

Whitney Andrew, welcome.

195

Thank you.

196

Good morning.

197

Thank you.

198

So before we dive in to talk about the competency standard and your work on NCOT's

competency task force, just tell us a little bit about yourself, where you are in your

199

professional journey, what part of the US you're in today.

200

All right.

201

Yeah, happy to.

202

So, Andrew Fortas, I am at HDR.

203

I've been practicing now for going on 13 years.

204

Most recently, I've been leading our practice here at the Twin Studies.

205

It's been great being able to volunteer with ThinCar, which started in 2018 and been on

the re-TingTing, the competency task force, the examination committee currently.

206

It's been a great ride.

207

Whitney.

208

Yes, I'm Whitney Martin.

209

I'm with BWBR Architects.

210

I'm one of our senior architects in our healthcare sector in terms of architecture

typology.

211

Similar to Andrew, I've had a lot of involvement with NCARB from the Rethink Tank as well

as Competency Education Committee.

212

And so I'm excited to join you all here today.

213

Thank you for joining us.

214

So you both mentioned that you sort of started your NCARB volunteer journey with the

Rethink Tank, which is a group that we put together in the past to really try and help us

215

give some perspective on NCARB's programs and sort of how those programs are evolving and

what the user journey is like on the path to licensure.

216

What led you both to volunteer for that in the first place?

217

So I had finished my licensing exams and as many individuals know that takes a lot of

time.

218

And it was one where I finished and had learned a lot going through the process and ended

up in this position of like, well, now what do I do with continuing to grow, continuing to

219

give back to my profession and those that are coming up through the pipeline.

220

And so that's how I got involved with at least applying for the

221

rethink tank and being able to have conversations to really help those that are in the

process right now.

222

I had a very similar journey.

223

I think back, I pushed off licensure longer than I probably needed to.

224

And I think it was part of reflecting on getting over that finish line, looking at the

overall process.

225

Just at the core of that process and can influence it, can speak back to it and give it

back to others that are going through it.

226

That's what drew me to that opportunity.

227

Well, you both obviously impressed us in your work on the rethink tank because you were

both invited back to come and serve on the competency task force.

228

Can you tell us a little bit about the brief?

229

What was the purpose of that task force?

230

What tasks did you get given?

231

It was an interesting first meeting.

232

Going into it, I don't think anybody had a real understanding of what we were there

gathered to do.

233

So we actually started with a link sheet exercise where we spent a significant amount of

time trying to deprogram ourselves of preconceived notions of the idea of trying to refine

234

something, of trying to tweak something, and really getting ourselves into the mindset of

starting from scratch, looking at this from a clean perspective.

235

on how we practice architecture, what we know is relevant to licensure and approaching it

that way.

236

So it was a really thoughtful way to start off from a blank sheet of paper.

237

And we accepted early on that if we got back to where we were today, that maybe that's the

right answer.

238

But the whole specific goal was to have zero preconceived notion on where we would lay it.

239

Yeah, and I would just add the zero preconceived notion, but then also coming back to a

lot of the core elements of licensure and what we're, as a profession, making sure that

240

those coming up really have the tool set and the skill set and knowledge to carry out

holding that license.

241

so being able to understand what is the part where it's at licensure versus

242

the developed knowledge you gain as you move through the profession and have those

experiences as well.

243

So we found ourselves a lot of times asking, is this at licensure?

244

How do we evaluate this particular task, this particular idea?

245

Is this contributing or is this an ad or an ancillary?

246

So there was a lot of discussion when it came to what

247

competencies can you use as building blocks for this profession?

248

Yeah.

249

And just contextually, so for anyone listening back in Altura 2024, NCobb launched and

publicly shared its competency standard, which was basically the outcome of all the work

250

that you and your peers in that group did, which was to say the eventual product was the

competency standard, which is basically the framing for what NCobb is going to expect

251

going forward from licensed architects.

252

And I think you made a really good point when it's worth just

253

revisiting him for a moment is you just stress this point of like at the point of

licensure.

254

Can you just hit that one more time, but also contextualize some of the challenge in and

around that conversation within the group potentially.

255

Yes, so at the point of licensure and competency, it's performing like a particular job

function and not just a task checklist and being able to have the ability to observe and

256

build the knowledge, the skill sets, the attitudes and the behavior around that particular

competency component.

257

So it's a more powerful and more

258

I don't know if rigid is quite the right word, but it gives you that framework a little

bit more sturdy in terms of kind of what we're anticipating for future candidates ahead.

259

Yeah, Whitney, if I may, it goes back to that, our newly favorite, cylinder and cube

analogy, right?

260

Where we, all of the conversations, we're trying to weed out all of the things that float

into what we do, what we can do as architects.

261

We're really, really trying to hone in on what is that four-cylinder of the just qualified

individual.

262

And everything else, you we have to put to the side a little bit and be really critical

about does it belong in that cylinder.

263

I'm familiar with the analogy too.

264

And I think that I would, for the sake of someone listening, say, your point was there's a

lot of things that an architect can do.

265

An architect could design a stadium, they could do a super tall skyscraper, they could do

a complex and extensive sort of hospital healthcare project.

266

But the reality is that when you're at the point of licensure, as you're sort of entering

the field, it may be that you may never need to do that.

267

And you may never need to build a 80,000 seater stadium.

268

So what's the reasonable requirement for licensure for the sort of the general

practitioner?

269

And I think your conversation around the cylinder, Andrew, is really about trying to limit

that down and get it really refined and distill the core elements of what it really means

270

to be an architect down to sort of a manageable and well-defined set of expectations.

271

And we ended up with 16 competences.

272

Tell us about that discussion and dialogue.

273

mean, that distillation, was that hard?

274

Was that something that was...

275

you were fighting over words.

276

mean, tell someone who was never served on a sort of NCARB committee what that process

feels like.

277

So we met over a couple of years.

278

So this was not a kind of one, two meeting and we got everything kind of hashed out.

279

There was quite a bit of discussion and it's very interesting to remember going in with

open eyes that everybody processes differently.

280

Everybody has a different experience in terms of those that sat on our committee.

281

We had some that have been practicing for

282

35 years and we had some that were three months out of doing their exam.

283

so going in and listening to your colleagues with open eyes and open ideas about how their

particular situation has come into play.

284

We did spend quite a bit of time wordsmithing.

285

will say realizing how powerful the words are has a big thing that has to do with that.

286

And then just

287

Understanding what's value-based for this profession and this practice was one that

competencies come out of a multitude of facets.

288

Like there's so much in terms of the behavior and the knowledge that can validate how

someone gains their experience.

289

And, but again, it's those skillsets and knowledge, but there was quite a bit of

discussion in very NCARB fashion.

290

had a lot of blue sky thinking.

291

because future forward and following what we can do for years to come for those coming up

the pipeline.

292

so understanding that, I think in terms of discussion really helped.

293

And then this committee presented several times at other NCARB committees to get feedback

from maybe someone on the, I think it's still the task force for.

294

those that are newly licensed or from the education committee and how it's tying there or

the experience committee.

295

And so we definitely put it under the stress test of the other committees that NCARB has

within and had amazing dialogue and every time came back with new ideas and tweaks and

296

modifications to make sure that what we were delivering was a solid, solid review and

response.

297

to NCARB's action on this.

298

couple of things.

299

You say discussion, I say very strong, healthy debate.

300

I think it was needed, it was good, and it wasn't just isolated to our task force.

301

We involve many stakeholders as we possibly could.

302

What you mentioned the other groups, but there was also several surveys that were sent out

at a progress point throughout that whole process to get feedback from the entire base of

303

practitioners in the field, right?

304

To see are we even headed in the right direction.

305

So taking all of that feedback in and continuing to work job and starting with this idea

of it is blue sky, but yes, we do need to really refine and have the vigorous debate about

306

does it stand the test, right?

307

Yes, we do it as architects, but is it a core thing that we would put up as the competence

board license?

308

That was a lot of debate, a lot of process, a lot of feedback from the broader membership

and base.

309

stakeholder base.

310

It was very healthy.

311

I think it was a little bit unique to some committees, but I think it was necessary.

312

Andrew, you make it a really good point, I think, there about the sort of the way some of

your concepts and suggestions were validated.

313

And we did, I know, for me personally, working with our marketing and communications team

that we supported a big validation study that went out probably in October 23, maybe

314

somewhere around then, which was really designed to sort of take the work that you guys

had all done and go to a big group of architects and say, does this land?

315

Does this make sense?

316

Do you agree with this sort of framing that the committee?

317

the task force, I should say, had come up with.

318

And I think we went out to over 5,000 architects and licensure candidates participating in

that feedback.

319

I'm just interested in both your perspectives.

320

Obviously, you can wear a couple of different hats when you think about the competency

standard.

321

You can think about it in the context of your personal involvement, but also as someone

who's gone through the licensure process.

322

But by the nature of your involvement, you went through the licensure process prior to the

competency standard.

323

So I'm just wondering, how do you feel about it as a sort of product in terms of your

involvement, but like, if you go back to your pre-volunteership, right?

324

How would you hope that a candidate today might feel about the competency standard?

325

What confidence should they have in it?

326

Andrew, you start.

327

It's a great step in the right direction.

328

It changes things from what I would consider there is some ambiguity in time, right?

329

Time does not necessarily equal competence.

330

And for me, that's a big distinction and a really positive step, right?

331

Because you could have a fantastic learner or somebody that takes in information just

completely differently and is able to say,

332

I'm competent as an architect.

333

And even for those of us that have been practicing for a while, right, we're able to

better stand and say, like, these are the core competencies to protect health, safety,

334

welfare, and we can quantify, look at it versus just saying, you know, I've spent X number

of hours or years in this process, right?

335

And it sets up an opportunity for it to be much more crystal clear about what is expected

of the licensed individual.

336

I think it adds more weight.

337

and a strength to that license, but project back as a candidate coming up, I think for me,

it would have been much more clear and almost accessible in a way to really understand

338

like, these are the expectations.

339

This is what I need to be able to demonstrate as a licensed person.

340

Andrew has such good points there and the fact that just the learning landscape is ever

evolving and changing very quickly and the framework that the competency allows for I

341

think enhances the continuing education from you to go to at licensure to becoming more

proficient in your practice which I think at least for me when I finished my licensing

342

it's like okay

343

Now what?

344

Now I have to continue developing this.

345

And I think this allows for those that are going through the process and then also being

able to take that skill set and knowledge and continue and propel yourself forward in your

346

own knowledge and development to be able to share and maintain the core structure of those

that do our profession have in terms of their knowledge and skill sets.

347

And then also too, just like the behavior of how

348

Teams work together and some of those softer things that we don't always right away think

of when it comes to architecture, but are so integral and intricate in how we deliver our

349

service.

350

My penultimate question to the two of you is thinking back to the process, there any sort

of real sort of highlight moments where you really were like, this is really coming

351

together or whatever, or just rewarding.

352

And what were the hard yards?

353

What were the bits where it was, you were like, oh, this is a painfully slow where you

felt there was an impasse or whatever, just reflections on that.

354

We always like to, any story needs, you need to go to what's the jeopardy?

355

Where was the struggle?

356

So I'm sure there was some times when it was tricky and you might've been

357

sort of walking through molasses in terms of trying to get to the finish line.

358

Yeah.

359

So starting out, I know a question that continuously was reinforced to ask of would you

not give someone a license or would you take someone's license away if they didn't know

360

this specific thing?

361

And I have to say, I evaluated that question on a number.

362

I can't tell you, Andrew, we probably had over a hundred of these bullets and it's like,

would I hold that

363

true to this particular task or this particular competency.

364

And I found that to be one of great success.

365

think too, just knowing everybody holds something of value in terms of someone might be

very, very passionate about construction administration or the documentation or the

366

schematic design process.

367

So everybody has something that

368

resonates really with them.

369

And I think the beauty of it is there's something for everybody with competencies to kind

of know that they have passion in it too.

370

Mine was construction administration and just how that building comes together and that

delivering of service.

371

But yeah, really being able to say, would someone not be deserving or take away a license

based on this particular task that you're presenting in front of me?

372

So that was really about how you really narrowed it down and got to the point where you

were like, this is the core competences.

373

These are the things that we confident need to be on that list of things you need to be

able to do.

374

Exactly.

375

like Andrea alluded to, we had some healthy, healthy discussions and, you know, we went

back and forth because everybody again has a different experience at a different point in

376

time.

377

And it was one where those discussions, I think we might've come full circle, but had we

not had them, I don't think we would have given the thoughtfulness had we not.

378

I think it was alluded to earlier that the backgrounds of this whole task force were so

varied.

379

Educators, construction professionals, developers, architects from a whole different type

of project types, backgrounds, locations, all across the board.

380

When you try to have a conversation with all of those backgrounds, of course, right,

people say, well, I did it this way, or in my practice, we do this.

381

And we did use that question a lot around, you take somebody's license to practice?

382

based on them not being able to do that.

383

But for me, one of the big stress points, we're trying to get everybody on the same page

with, not talking about the aspirational aspects of what it means to be an architect.

384

We're not talking about protecting firms in the market.

385

We're not talking about trying to enhance or create a great educational program and

school, right?

386

We are focused solely on what does it mean to be a licensed architect.

387

and that the competencies that come with it.

388

And that was a big effort to get there, but the success really started to change when we

all had clear alignment and were able to test all of the different ideas, all of the

389

different debates around that specific goal.

390

So my last question is, looking forward, the competency standard has been out publicly for

just over a year now.

391

And it's already started to influence NCOMS programs.

392

The AXPE was recently realigned to better reflect the competency standard.

393

The ARE is going to be realigned and adjusted in April of 2026 to do the same thing.

394

So those two core programs are going to be adjusted.

395

But that's really a shortstop.

396

That's not really.

397

getting to the full ambition of what the Compensy Sounds is there for.

398

So from your perspective of being involved in its creation, what do you think the Compensy

Sounds is going to provide going forward to NCARB and sort of the licensure system itself?

399

I think it's gonna open up a lot of opportunities.

400

The low-hanging route is gonna be so much more accessible for individuals to access a path

of licensure and not get stuck or feel like you have to redo a lot of things that life

401

just doesn't necessarily give you time to at the moment.

402

And it does it in a way that doesn't lower the bar.

403

It gives you an opportunity to prove that you meet that bar.

404

in a more accessible way.

405

think that's number one.

406

And number two, the programs that NCAR puts forward are gonna be able to be set up in a

way that it breaks out of the silos that have been put upon ourselves in a lot of ways

407

over the last decades, right?

408

And being able to look at them in a fresh perspective, thinking through how do we assess

outcomes more focused versus...

409

how do we set up other program that is really concerned with all these other nuanced

aspects, right?

410

And as an adjacent effect, it also gives the broader market an opportunity to reinvent

themselves in a lot of ways, from education to practice.

411

It provides a real fantastic turning point to be flexible in itself, right?

412

The whole goal, one of the whole goals of that competency framework was to be a framework,

a flexible framework that can change and adapt to current practice.

413

And I think it's going to be great to see the programs reinvent themselves in that

framework.

414

beautiful points.

415

And I would echo those, think, in terms of looking forward with this and looking forward

what NCARB does and how those that are in the process right now and as it rolls out, that

416

they have a good experience in terms of getting license, going through the information,

and they remain lifelong learners because the way in which, like Andrew was saying, it's

417

structured

418

allows for more flexibility versus just feeling like you're having to pass a test to pass

a test.

419

That is not what that's about.

420

as many of us know, as you get out into the profession, you don't stop learning.

421

There's so many more things that become your challenge as you move into your profession

and through your profession, and then you become the educator to someone underneath you.

422

Again, kind of paying it forward to all of those that are

423

in the trenches right now, hoping and looking out in the fact that it's a good reference

for those that are continuing down this path that we are all on.

424

I'm really excited to have more competent architects.

425

I will share that I applaud the work of you and your colleagues on the task force.

426

think that the competency standard is a really succinct document and easy to understand.

427

It makes sense.

428

It's logical.

429

And when you think about that kind of output from a committee structure, I think it's hard

to get there.

430

So it makes you realize that, wow, you really, really put the time and effort into making

this tight and making it really on point.

431

So I do believe it's something that

432

you should be proud of and I think it's really helped NCARB.

433

This is a great addition to NCARB's structure and programmatic structure because it really

does set the base for what we do next and how we move forward as an organization.

434

Thank you for your involvement in it.

435

Really appreciate it and thank you for joining us today to share your perspectives.

436

Absolutely.

437

Thanks so much, Andy.

438

So Andrew and Whitney walked us through the challenging and sometimes uncomfortable

process of starting with a blank slate.

439

The task force worked to strip away assumptions, personal preferences and aspirational

ideas and instead focused on a single question.

440

What does someone need to know and be able to do at the moment they become licensed?

441

Their reflections made clear that the competency standard isn't about checking boxes or

counting hours.

442

It's about defining a clear, shared understanding of readiness to practice architecture

safely and independently.

443

The takeaway from this episode is that Pathways to Practice wasn't a pre-established

outcome set by NCOP.

444

It was the result of listening to the realities of modern practice brought forward by

thousands of architectural professionals.

445

By grounding future licensure programs in research and a clearly defined competency

standard, NCOP is creating a foundation that will allow for flexibility without

446

sacrificing rigor.

447

and evolution without losing trust.

448

In our next episode, we'll look ahead to what this foundation makes possible as we explore

what the licensure model of the future could look like and how candidates might navigate

449

it.

450

Well, that wraps up another episode of the End Card podcast.

451

Please be sure to subscribe, leave us a rating and review.

452

And if you found this conversation valuable, please share it with a friend.

453

Thanks for listening and we'll see you next time on the End Card podcast.