CE survey underscores thirst for knowledge in professions

"Continuing education in many professions is a proven means for ensuring that the profession remains current." So stated the American Institute of Architects in its 2003 report, "The Business of Architecture." For that very reason, the AIA requires its members to earn 18 "learning units" every year to keep the "AIA" after their names, and it is why 33 states have mandatory continuing education (CE) requirements for architectural licensure. Of course, engineers, contractors, and other Building Team members need lifelong learning just as much as architects do.

Based on an exclusive Building Design & Construction survey of AEC professionals, however, the commitment of professional Building Team firms to continuing education appears to be in question. Consider these somewhat dismaying findings:

• More than three-fifths of survey respondents (61%) said their firms did not have a structured CE program in place.
• More than one-fifth of respondents (22%) said their employers did not pay even partial expenses for CE courses.
• One-third of respondents (33%) said their firms did not hold any in-house CE courses in their offices. This is quite remarkable, given that there are hundreds of building product manufacturers out there willing to sponsor "lunch-and-learn" technical courses at no cost to professional firms.

On the plus side, those who participate in CE programs report taking positive actions as a result of their course work: Nearly three in four (74%) said they had "implemented an idea from the program" in their work, while a nearly equal number (71%) said they had discussed the content with colleagues, and nearly half (48%) copied handout materials for others in their firm.

Almost three-fourths of respondents (74%) said they worked in a state or belonged to a membership association that required them to obtain learning units to keep their licenses or memberships. This was particularly true for architects, 86% of whom cited such requirements, and for engineers, 72% of whom said they had to take a minimum number of courses to stay licensed or remain enrolled in their membership societies.

But the source of motivation for learning was not entirely external. It is interesting to note, for example, that two-thirds of respondents (67%) said they would participate in a CE program even if the course did not offer credit toward licensure or association membership. Even if you take away those who work in states that do not require learning units to maintain licensure, 45% of respondents said they would still take courses without such a requirement.

Courses that offer "health, safety, and welfare" (HSW) credits are seen as crucial to respondents' needs, and for good reason: Of the 33 states with mandatory CE requirements for architects, all but Kansas require the equivalent of eight HSW learning units a year. Three-fourths of all respondents (60%) said this was a motivating factor in whether they would take such a course.

What respondents wanted to study produced at least one surprise. The top-rated topic: building codes, which was of "greatest appeal" to 55% of respondents. Design topics (51%) and construction issues (46%) did well. Green building/LEED/sustainability (36%), HSW issues (24%), and project management or delivery (24%) showed some strength. (Totals exceed 100% due to multiple answers.)

Respondents' choice of venue was understandable: Nearly three-fourths of the 253 who answered this question (74%) said they preferred to get their learning units at conferences and conventions (such as the AIA's or the Construction Specifications Institute's), while two-thirds (61%) favored in-office lunch-and-learns from building product makers; a slight majority (53%) would choose an out-of-office program, such as one at a university.

Online "distance education," such as programs from Red Vector, scored slightly better (41%) than learning units in print publications (38%), but even in-house programs taught by experts in the firm did fairly well (31%), as did the relative newcomer webcasting (30%), one of the fastest-growing forms of continuing education. (Will podcasting be the next big thing?) Again, multiple answers were permitted.

Training programs at conferences were deemed "most effective" by respondents (28%), followed by extramural programs (e.g., at a university) at 22% and manufacturer lunch-and-learns (21%). Print, online, in-house "experts," and webcasts all fell into single digits in terms of perceived effectiveness.

The majority of respondents (54%) wanted to keep their CE efforts local or regional, with another 31% saying that they could not stray beyond local programs. Only a chosen few (15%) said they were "free to travel anywhere in the U.S." to take a course.

For in-house training, the bulk of respondents said either that their firms offered courses "about once a month" (22%) or "every few months (22%). Nearly half (49%) said their employers offered no in-house program at all or did so only once or twice a year.

As for the preferred format, the case-study approach proved to be a clear winner (61%), with ol' tried-and-true-lecture-cum-PowerPoint-slides holding on just south of 50%, in a near-dead heat with "product or technology demonstration" (49%). Hands-on workshops drew a respectable 35%, as did job-site visits (24%). But only a few respondents were willing to risk role-playing or game-playing.

The typical AEC respondent spends $1,109 a year on average for learning units ($559 median), with nearly half (47%) devoting less than $500 a year to further their education. This includes out-of-pocket costs and employer reimbursement.

Who pays for CE? For a good number of respondents (43%), the employer pays all expenses, even travel. Another 35% said they were partially reimbursed. But better than one in five (22%) said they got zilch from their firms.