Continuing Education: Database Decision

June 17, 2010

A prospect was put forward in 2007 / 2008 of the AIBC’s participation in the RAIC’s new Continuing Education database. The potential of that move was investigated diligently (including consultation with other architectural associations) through our Professional Development department in the Fall of 2009. The ensuing recommendation and operational decision … not to participate in the foreseeable future … were communicated with Council on November 10, 2009 and with the RAIC thereafter. Correspondingly, no monies were budgeted for either 2009 or 2010. In summary:

1. The RAIC’s initiative is sincerely appreciated and is in use in some provinces.
2. A Canadian jurisdiction’s participation with the RAIC system must entail all of its member-architects.
3. The AIBC’s cost to participate would be (at present rates and architects-volume) about $18,000 per annum.
4. There is benefit, notionally, with regard to architects registered in multiple Canadian jurisdictions.
5. There is benefit, practically, only for architects registered in more than one participating Canadian jurisdiction.
6. The AIBC, AAA, OAA and OAQ (the four largest-population jurisdictions) comprising together a strong majority of Canada’s architects) are not participating jurisdictions.
7. The number of MAIBCs who could benefit (i.e. those who are also registered in at least one of the SAA, MAA, NBAA, PEIAA, NSAA, NAA and NWTAA, so long as that other jurisdiction is also partcipating) is proportionately miniscule and inordinately expensive on a unit-basis, while the balance of MAIBCs would not benefit at all.
8. Reporting of LUs must be by the individual architect, not by the jurisdiction or an external provider. These two latter categories together account for about 42% of the AIBC members’ LUs and would require added reporting effort by members.
9. External providers are the source of significant AIBC revenue that would be at risk were the AIBC to join the RAIC system.
10. Confidentiality and protection of privacy of an architect’s data are not secured under the RAIC system.
11. The AIBC has recently invested in and implemented an integrated, organizational database which is working well for members’ input, tracking and communication.
12. The RAIC database is predicated on an honour system without the possibility of timely, helpful oversight until after the reporting deadline. Members’ compliance (highly successful with the AIBC’s current, mature system) would be at risk using the RAIC database, with serious, disciplinary consequences.
13. There is no significant labour/cost saving projected at the AIBC with the RAIC system.
14. The AIBC as a regulator (unlike the RAIC) needs to maintain responsible control of key information.

The matter re-surfaces naturally enough on occasion, most recently in the form of a ‘motion from the floor’ at our May 8 2010 Annual Meeting. Equally, we keep a watching brief on the situation and are in touch with other regulators across the country as well as the RAIC. As a result, the report was updated on May 31 2010 by Maura Gatensby MAIBC, Director of Professional Services.

The November 10 2009 recommendations and operational decisions do not merit being changed. At present and for the foreseeable future, there is inadequate value, at disproportionate cost and risk, for the AIBC to join the RAIC database.

It is encouraging, however, to note that there is a renewed effort nationally towards greater harmonization of Continuing Education standards, requirements and recognition, which we support.

Respectfully submitted;

Michael Ernest MAIBC
AIBC Executive Director