Findings Memo (13-12-13) rev · 4. Findings – Intern Survey The summary learnings from the census survey of 1,800 recently graduated and Intern architects in Canada, which was conducted

Prepared by Framework Partners Inc. Page 1

MEMORANDUM To: Kristi Doyle, Executive Director, The Ontario Association of Architects

David Edwards, The Saskatchewan Association of Architects

From: Alec Milne, Principal, Framework Partners Inc.

Date: December 8, 2013

Re: 2013 National CALA Survey

1. Overview

It is the purpose of this memorandum to describe the research findings that result from two surveys

conducted on behalf of the Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities’ National Task Team (CALA).

CALA retained Framework Partners (Framework) to gather and provide both individual Intern

Architects’ and Practices’ opinions and statistical research, and analysis services, in support of their

planning efforts.

The Architectural Regulators in Canada are responsible for setting the Canadian education standards

as well as the national student performance criteria and the conditions for accreditation of the

Schools of Architecture. CALA tasked Framework with gathering information to assist in an

upcoming conference to validate the appropriateness and efficacy of those documents. Much

anecdotal information, feedback and perception have been gathered since the last validation

conference, however, true data is needed to determine if that feedback is real or perceived. The

profession has a desire to gather information which will assist in the refinement of those documents

in order to meet the changing needs of the practice of architecture now and into the future.

This memorandum is divided into the following sections:

1. Overview;

2. Notice To Readers;

3. Reliability And Response Rates;

4. Findings ‐ Intern Survey;

5. Findings ‐ Practice Survey; and

6. Statistical Definitions.

2. Notice to Readers

The information and data provided in this report has been obtained or prepared from sources that

are believed to be reliable and accurate but have not necessarily been independently verified.

Framework Partners Inc. makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or

completeness of such information and data nor the conclusions that have been derived from its use.

Further the data in this report is generally of a forecast nature and is based on what are believed to

be sound and reasonable methodologies and assumptions; however these cannot be warranted or

CALA RESEARCH REPORT 2


guaranteed with respect to accuracy. Therefore, any use of the information by the reader or other

recipient shall be at the sole risk and responsibility of such reader or recipient.

The information provided in this report and the facts upon which the information is based as well as

the information itself may change at any time without notice subject to market conditions and the

assumptions made thereto. Framework Partners Inc. is under no obligation to update the

information or to provide more complete or accurate information when it becomes available.

Framework Partners Inc. expressly disclaims and takes no responsibility and shall not be liable for

any financial or economic decisions taken by any person based in any way or information presented

in this report, for any interpretation or misunderstanding of any such information on the part of any

person or for any losses, costs or other damages whatsoever and howsoever caused in connection

with any use of such information, including all losses, costs, or other damages such as consequential

or indirect losses, loss of revenue, loss of expected profit or loss of income, whether or not as a

result of any negligent act or omission of Framework Partners Inc.

3. Reliability, Response Rates and Methodology

RELIABILITY

For this research Framework used an online methodology, which gave the project both accuracy and

breadth. The online surveys were designed as a census, meaning that all members of the two

populations are allowed to choose whether or not they will participate in the survey. This is

contrasted with a sample survey, where the researcher chooses who will respond, therefore

producing more accurate, but often not as deep, results.

Framework prides itself on producing exceptional response rates for our clients, and has frequently

far surpassed response rate goals. Framework has a proven yet respectful response rate generation

system. In this survey Framework obtained a response rate of 32% overall for the Interns, with a

completion rate of 86%. This exceeded the goal and the level that was needed to reach a response

rate that is consistent with a small Margin of Error. The 1,800 responses to the Intern survey, which

include over 1,500 full responses, are consistent with a Margin of Error of plus or minus 1.9% 19

times out of 20.

Final Response Rates

Count %

Initial Population 6,130 100%

Less:

Bounces 473 8%

Net population 5,657 92%

Responses survey 1,795 32%

Full Completes 1,535 86%

Required sample size for 5% MOE 362 6%

Consistent with a MOE of 1.9%



The National Survey of Architectural Practices produced a response rate that was sufficient to

analyze the data. We were able to determine that the profile of responses is highly similar to the

profile of architectural firms overall, and therefore allows us to conclude that we have a healthy

sample. For this survey we received 527 responses, or a response rate of 16%, which is consistent

with a margin of error of 3.9% 19 times of 20. While this response rate was not what we had hoped

for, it surpassed our minimum requirement of 345 responses.

GENERAL METHODOLOGY

The survey was conducted in four stages:

Stage One – Questionnaire Development

Stage Two ‐ Electronic / Online Survey

Stage Three ‐ Data Smoothing & Analysis

Stage Four – Recommendations, Report & Presentation

BENEFITS OF OUR APPROACH

Expected outcomes and benefits of this process can include the following:

Reliability & Accuracy. The engaged approach produced both reliable & accurate

information, and information with depth and breadth.

Better Understanding of Perceptions. The process identified respondents’ perceptions of

CALA’s strengths, and areas needing improvement.

Focus on Key Issues. The study identified key issues upon which the CALA can focus to

enhance its relationship with its membership. Since no organization has the advantage of

unlimited resources, it is important to deploy those resources toward improvement efforts

in areas that will yield the best return.

Enhanced Engagement. Conducting a survey is, by its nature, a two‐way communication

exercise, and it will impact perceptions of the value and effectiveness of communication

with the organization. A properly designed and executed survey tends to enhance those

perceptions, in part, by helping the respondent to feel that his/her opinion matters, and to

some extent has valuable input.

Strategy. By understanding what issues drive sector loyalty and positive attitudes, one can

increase the effectiveness of strategies designed to achieve those goals.

Expertise. Senior partners at Framework work to analyze and interpret data and provide

recommendations.



4. Findings – Intern Survey

The summary learnings from the census survey of 1,800 recently graduated and Intern architects in

Canada, which was conducted in the fall of 2013 and are as follows:

General satisfaction. The general satisfaction of the respondents to the survey is indicated by

the responses to the following question: “Please indicate how well or poorly your internship

prepared you for practice”. Respondents expressed low satisfaction with how their internship

prepared them for what they would face in the practice of architecture. The general satisfaction

top two rating is 37%. In this researcher’s opinion, having conducted several hundred other

surveys frequently for membership‐based organizations, this is a failing grade. Using a seven‐

point scale that ranged from very well to very poorly, only 37% of the respondents responded

with “Well” or “Very Well”. The average score was 3.2 out of 7, which translates to 63%.

Further, over 1 in 5 respondents indicate that their internship poorly prepared them the practice

of architecture. The chart below is a histogram that profiles the over 1,600 responses to this

question.

It is the results of this question that we have used throughout this section of the report to

determine how well the segment is satisfied with their internship. Later in this report the reader

will see instances where this memorandum refers to the general satisfaction of a specific

segment; it is the cross correlation with the results of this question (general satisfaction) to

which those statements refer.

Appropriateness, satisfaction, and responsiveness. Respondents were asked how strongly they

agree or disagree with a series of statements that focused on how well the program specifically

met their needs. Respondents indicated that in no instance did the program that they went

through meet their needs. The left‐hand axis indicates the proportion of respondents who either

strongly agree or agree with this statement at the bottom of the blue column. It is the

experience of this researcher that these are remarkably low results even when the subject

matter is considered.



Position. The survey is dominated by two positions: architects at 40% and Interns at 58%.

Unfortunately neither segment is satisfied with the Intern program. Examining the orange/red

line on the table below, which reads from the right‐hand axis, one can see that neither of these

two large segments are satisfied and Intern architects are the less satisfied of the two groups

(31% versus 36%).



Gender. Respondents were evenly split with respect to gender, 52% of respondents are male

and 48% female. Female respondents are slightly more satisfied with their Intern Program than

male respondents (37% versus 35%). This difference is very close to the margin of error of 1.9%,

which means these two satisfaction levels are not statistically discernible. This allows us to

conclude that female and male respondents are equally satisfied, or in this case dissatisfied,

with the Internship Program.

Age. The age profile of respondents produce a bell shaped frequency distribution with the

modal response of 30 to 39 years of age. Interestingly, satisfaction with the Internship Program

increases with age, as is indicated by the orange/red line below.



Location. The top 25 respondent locations mirrors, not surprisingly, the large urban centers of

Canada with almost 60% of the respondents coming from either Toronto, Montréal, Vancouver,

or Calgary. Satisfaction varies significantly by where the respondent is located. The top three

cities with respect to satisfaction are all from Ontario. They are Hamilton, Willowdale, and

Kitchener. The respondents least likely to be satisfied with their internship come from cities in 4

different provinces: Laval, Halifax, North Vancouver, and Scarborough.

Employment. The vast majority of respondents to the survey are employed full‐time.

Interestingly those who are employed part‐time, as defined by 30 hours a week or less, are

more likely to be satisfied with their internship.

Location Count Abs % Rela % Cumu % 0% 23% Gen Sat

1 Toronto 264 15% 23% 23% 32%

2 Montreal 240 13% 21% 43% 33%

3 Vancouver 98 5% 8% 52% 36%

4 Calgary 80 4% 7% 59% 35%

5 Quebec 80 4% 7% 65% 48%

6 Winnipeg 71 4% 6% 72% 45%

7 Ottawa 43 2% 4% 75% 30%

8 Edmonton 36 2% 3% 78% 42%

9 Mississauga 24 1% 2% 80% 42%

10 Halifax 21 1% 2% 82% 19%

11 Kitchener 21 1% 2% 84% 48%

12 Saskatoon 21 1% 2% 86% 38%

13 Willowdale 20 1% 2% 87% 55%

14 Etobicoke 19 1% 2% 89% 26%

15 Richmond Hill 18 1% 2% 91% 39%

16 London 14 1% 1% 92% 43%

17 Scarborough 13 1% 1% 93% 23%

18 Laval 12 1% 1% 94% 17%

19 Verdun 12 1% 1% 95% 42%

20 North Vancouver 10 1% 1% 96% 20%

21 Regina 10 1% 1% 97% 40%

22 St. John'S 10 1% 1% 98% 40%

23 Thornhill 10 1% 1% 98% 30%

24 Gatineau 9 1% 1% 99% 33%

25 Hamilton 9 1% 1% 100% 67%

Other 297 17%

Unusable 37 2%

No Response 296 16%

Total 1,795 100% 100% 100%



Years the profession. The strong majority of the respondents have been in the profession for

more than five years. There is a small correlation between the number of years in the profession

and the likelihood that one is satisfied with the internship one received.

Size of firm. 60% of the respondents to the survey are employed at large and medium‐size firms,

while only 7% of respondents describe themselves as self‐employed. The distribution by size of

firm is as follows in the pie chart below.

As the histogram above indicates, there is no discernible trend that correlates satisfaction with

size of firm, other than to say those in small firms, defined as 10 or fewer employees, are

marginally more satisfied than other respondents.



Nature of practice. The most popular type of practice, as measured by frequency response, is

commercial, followed by multifamily, followed closely by other institutional. The least frequently

mentioned practices are research, which also has the lowest level of satisfaction.



Informed entrants. In what is one of the more important findings of this study we have learned

that over three quarters of Intern Architects believe that they were not well informed prior to

entering the profession. In response to the question “Prior to entering an Architectural degree

program, how well do you feel that you were informed as to what an architect does or about

the profession of architecture?” Most Interns indicated that they were not well informed.

Further, the level of satisfaction drops appreciably when correlated with how well informed the

respondent feels that they were. Stated differently, those who felt that they were very well‐

informed are far more likely to be satisfied than those who are very poorly informed. If it is a

goal to have Intern Architects proceed through their Internship Program believing that the

program is well preparing them for their career then, clearly, it is vitally important for those

promoting the profession to ensure that students entering an Internship Program have fair and

realistic expectations.



Further, only 31% of respondents indicate that they had what they felt to be an accurate or very

accurate perception of the profession. Most felt they had only a somewhat accurate perception.

There is a very strong correlation between satisfaction with the Internship Program and how

accurate their initial perception was. Those with accurate perceptions are almost twice as likely

to be satisfied with their internship. Once again this indicates that ensuring perspective

architectural candidates have an accurate and full understanding of the profession is central to

them being satisfied with their internship.

Sources of information. When seeking to inform themselves about the profession most

respondents indicated that they spoke to architects, family and friends or other students. Some

visited an architectural Association’s website or spoke to the faculty or school of architecture.

Very few spoke with an architectural regulator.

Advice to incoming Interns. When respondents were asked what single piece of advice they

would give to someone entering the architectural profession, they responded with 67 pages of

contributions. The responses were varied and fulsome. Almost 50% of the classifiable responses

focused on two observations: that the students had better feel the passion or love for this

profession; and that they had better expect low salary. Further, 1 in 10 would tell the students

to make sure that they researched the profession and that they should get work experience. The

frequently mentioned pieces of advice were:

Passion/love

Low salary

Research the profession

Work experience

Long hours

Choose different profession

Be patient

Be creative

Keep an open mind

Work hard



Prior experience. 86% of respondents indicated that they either worked in architecture or

worked in a related field prior to getting their architectural degree. However, the 14% who

indicated that they work in neither are far more likely to be satisfied with their internship. In

what is also critical finding of this study, those respondents who indicate that their previous

work experience was very effective in helping the transition from school to architectural

employment are far more likely to indicate that they are satisfied with their Internship Program.

This leads us to conclude two findings: previous employment in a related field is not an

indication of how effective previous employment is in preparing a student for internship; and

those who do have employment that is effective in preparing them are far more likely to be

satisfied with their internship.

Difficulty in finding employment. Only one in five respondents indicated that it was very easy or

easy to find employment, conversely only one in four indicated that it was either difficult very

difficult to find employment.



Year of graduation. The respondents to the survey graduated, on average, 8.2 years ago. The

modal or most popular response was six years ago. There is a strong and persistent correlation

between the year of graduation and how likely a respondent is to indicate that they are satisfied

with their internship. This downward satisfaction trend has leveled off in the last six years but is

quite strong years preceding 2003. This is clear statistical evidence, that in the mind of the

respondents, the quality of the IAP has decreased over the years.

Education. Other than the exception of the syllabus program, most respondents indicate that

they have a graduate or Master’s degree in architecture and if they do they are somewhat more

likely to be satisfied with their internship.

78% of the respondents indicate that they graduated from a Canadian University, and if they did

they are far less likely to be satisfied than if they graduated from American university or from

university somewhere else (32% versus 40% and 48% respectively). 32% of respondents indicate

that their education was effective in preparing them for a career in architecture. If respondents

indicate that their education was effective in preparing them for career in architecture, then

they are far more likely to indicate that there satisfied with their Internship Program.



It appears architectural schools are very good at preparing students in the area of schematic

design (Top Two score of 72%), and are also strong in the areas of Design Development, Site &

Environmental Analysis, and Programing. The 6 areas where the respondents indicate that their

education poorly prepared them for entrance in the profession are, in order from most poorly

prepared to least:

Bidding & Contract Negotiation

Building Cost Analysis

Construction Phase '‐ Office & Site

Management of the Project

Construction Documents

Engineering Systems

Code Research

Professionalism & Professional Practice

A slight majority indicate that the content areas where their education poorly prepared them for

entry into the profession as an Intern, would be better provided by the Internship Program, as

opposed to the degree program at school.



Long internship. Those respondents who indicated that they have been an Intern for more than

three years where asked a follow‐up question with the goal of better understanding their

situation. Almost half of the respondents to this question indicated that the reason that they are

still Interns is the process takes too much time, or that it was difficult to arrange for work and all

the required categories. As the table below indicates, affordability is not a primary issue.

Relationship with their employer. Most the respondents indicate that they believe that their

contributions are valued by their employer and that there employer has been supportive of

their efforts to lobby the hours necessary to complete their internship. In what is perhaps the

least surprising finding of the survey, almost 60% of respondents indicate that they are not fairly

compensated by their employer. Those respondents with employers who are supportive and

given the correct duties responsibilities to complete their internship are far more likely to

indicate that they are satisfied with the internship process.

One word. In order to use a more qualitative and perhaps visual approach to understanding the

respondent’s perception of the Internship Program they were asked, using unaided recall, to

volunteer one word to describe the Internship Program. As is often the case the responses

yielded a strong consensus which is demonstrated by the word cloud below.

Response Count Abs % Rela % Rank

1 Process takes/took too much time 198 18% 24% 1

2 Difficult to arrange for work in required categories 196 18% 24% 2

3 Family leave, maternity leave, parental leave or other personal leave 98 9% 12% 3

4 I think there is no measureable benefit in becoming licensed 95 9% 12% 4

5 I am comfortable with my current status 88 8% 11% 5

6 Difficult to get credit for non‐Canadian experience 67 6% 8% 6

7 Couldn’t afford NCARB'‐ ARE or ExAC fees 44 4% 5% 7

8 Failed NCARB‐ARE or ExAC 32 3% 4% 8

9 Other (please specify): 301 27%

10 Not applicable / I am licensed as an architect 319 29%

No Response 205 19%

Total* 1105



By far the most frequently mentioned word is “Long”, which was mentioned by almost one in

five respondents. Also mentioned frequently was the word “Necessary”. The list of those words

that were mentioned more than five times is contained within the table below.

Strengths and weaknesses. The reader strongly is encouraged to examine the detailed report

that has just over 200 pages of responses regarding the top strengths and areas for

improvement of the IAP. Any summary here cannot do justice to the contributions given there.

However having invested significant time analyzing those responses, the author can state the

top 20 strengths are in order of frequency of being mentioned:

1. Experience

2. Mentorship

3. Education

4. Comprehensive

5. Informative

6. Practical

7. Variety

8. Organized

9. Complete

10. Exposure

11. Networking

12. Breath/Broad

13. Diversified

14. Structure

15. Learning

16. Professional

17. Practice

18. Thorough

19. Supportive

20. Flexible

Response (5+ mentions) Count Rela % Cumu % Response (5+ mentions) Count Rela % Cumu %1 Long 153 17% 17% 27 Outdated 10 1% 80%

2 Necessary 96 11% 28% 28 Acceptable 9 1% 81%

3 Okay/Fine 39 4% 32% 29 Learning 9 1% 82%

4 Tedious 39 4% 37% 30 Paperwork 9 1% 83%

5 Good 32 4% 40% 31 Practical 9 1% 84%

6 Comprehensive 31 3% 44% 32 Confusing 8 1% 85%

7 Bureaucratic 25 3% 47% 33 Important 8 1% 86%

8 Useful 25 3% 49% 34 Incomplete 8 1% 86%

9 No comment 23 3% 52% 35 Ineffective 8 1% 87%

10 Effective 22 2% 54% 36 Lacking 8 1% 88%

11 Experience 19 2% 57% 37 Satisfactory 8 1% 89%

12 Complicated/Complex 18 2% 59% 38 Unnecessary 8 1% 90%

13 Essential 17 2% 60% 39 Cumbersome 7 1% 91%

14 Lengthy 17 2% 62% 40 Excellent 7 1% 92%

15 Arduous 16 2% 64% 41 Informative 7 1% 92%

16 Adequate 15 2% 66% 42 Rigorous 7 1% 93%

17 Onerous 14 2% 67% 43 Vague 7 1% 94%

18 Frustrating 13 1% 69% 44 Apprenticeship 6 1% 95%

19 Difficult 12 1% 70% 45 Educational 6 1% 95%

20 Fair 12 1% 72% 46 Extensive 6 1% 96%

21 Thorough 11 1% 73% 47 Inefficient 6 1% 97%

22 Training 11 1% 74% 48 Needed 6 1% 97%

23 Challenging 10 1% 75% 49 Reality 6 1% 98%

24 Correct 10 1% 76% 50 Time‐consuming 6 1% 99%

25 Helpful 10 1% 77% 51 Valuable 6 1% 99%

26 Laborious 10 1% 79% 52 Hoop 6 1% 100%



The top 20 most frequently mentioned areas for improvement are:

1. Mentorship

2. Lengthy

3. Logging Hours

4. Exams

5. Employer

Support

6. Flexibility

7. Support

8. Education

9. Cost

10. Web site

11. Simplify

12. Personal

Circumstance

13. Experience

14. Communication

15. Study Materials

16. Employment

17. Clarity

18. Employer

Engagement

19. Networking

20. Duration

Information provided by the regulator. 44% of respondents indicated that the information

provided by the regulator was effective. Further, there is very strong correlation between

effectiveness of information provided by the regulator and whether the respondent indicated

that they are satisfied with their Internship Program. Once again indicating that the better

prepared, and the more properly and fully informed the perspective candidate is, the more

likely they are to be satisfied and perhaps successful in the Internship Program.



5. Findings – Practice Survey

The summary learnings from the census survey of 370 Architectural Practices in Canada, which was

conducted in the fall of 2013 and are as follows:

Preparedness. Only 26%, or one in four, of the architectural firms responding to the survey

indicate that the Interns their firm has hired in the past 2 to 3 years are well prepared for

internship in general. Only 8% of respondents indicate that the Interns their firm has hired are

either poorly very poorly prepared. The majority respondents indicate that they are somewhat

indifferent to the quality of the Interns recently hired by their firm. The breakdown responses to

this question are contained in the table below.

Selected key statistics that summarize this data are as follows:

Clearly there is a strong and decisive consensus of opinion

held by the architectural firms in Canada the recent Intern

Architects are not meeting their needs. However, the good

news is that while the Interns are poorly prepared, they

are no more poorly prepared than the Interns of five years

ago. As the pie chart at right indicates most firms believe

that the Intern Architects are the same as five years ago or

marginally better than they were five years ago.

Response Count Abs % Rela % Cumu % Rank

1 Very well prepared 11 3% 5% 5% 6

2 Well prepared 44 12% 20% 26% 3

3 Somewhat well prepared 66 18% 31% 56% 1

4 Neither well nor poorly prepared 49 13% 23% 79% 2

5 Somewhat poorly prepared 28 8% 13% 92% 4

6 Poorly prepared 15 4% 7% 99% 5

7 Very poorly prepared 2 1% 1% 100% 7

8 Don’t know / not applicable 8 2%

No Response 148 40%

Total 371 1

Selected Key Statsistics

Central Tendency

Mean 3.4

Median 3.0

Mode 3.0

Dispersion

St.Dev 1.3

Performance

Score 60%

Top Two 26%



Responsibility for preparing Interns. In a finding that is a clear contradiction to the findings

from the Intern survey, the majority of architectural firms believe that it is the schools

responsibility to better prepare these Interns and not the regulators.

Years in practice. The majority (56%) of the responding practices indicate that they been in

business for more than a decade and over third in business for more than 20 years. There is a

strong correlation between the length of time in practice and the satisfaction with Interns.



Form and nature of practice. 90% of the respondents to the survey are solely architectural

practices and the majority of the remainder are architectural and engineering practices. 63% of

firms responding to the survey are either sole proprietorships or are corporations with a single

owner, and correspondingly 41% of the respondent practices work out of a home office. Those

respondents who indicate that they are either of partnership corporations or of a corporation

with multiple owners are far more likely to be satisfied with the quality of Interns. The practice

survey is dominated by smaller firms which mirrors the practice architecture in Canada. While

there are more small firms, larger firms employ more Interns. The larger the practice, the more

likely they are to be satisfied with the quality of Interns, up until the point of 100 employees at

which point the satisfaction with the quality of Interns drops off appreciably. It has been

hypothesized that this drop‐off with very large firms is due to the fact that the individual

completing the survey may well be too far removed from the Interns to express an accurate

opinion and instead of responding with “I don’t know” they parked their vote was neither

satisfied nor dissatisfied.

Focus of practice. Most of the responding practices work in the area of commercial architecture

followed by single‐family and multifamily residential. This is a finding that mirrors the Intern

survey. What does not mirror the Intern survey is the level of satisfaction based on the focus of

the practice. In the Intern survey those Interns who indicate that they work in a firm whose

focus is research are far less likely to be satisfied, however, in the practice survey we learn that

practices that focus on research are far more likely to be satisfied with the quality of the Interns.

However this has to be tempered by the fact that regardless of focus almost all practices agree

on the low quality of Interns.



Number and type of employees. The practice survey received responses from many different

types of firms. Most firms have full‐time principal architects, and few landscaper Architects or

urban planners. Most frequently, employed contract employees are technologists and architects

who are not principles, shareholders or officers.

Screening. In order to ensure that only those firms who hire Intern Architects were asked

questions wherein Intern Architects were rated, the survey screened and streamed respondents

by whether the firms have hired any Intern Architects in the past five years and whether the

responding architect works at a practice by themselves.

Response None FT Employees PT Employees Contract Employees Totals

# % # Ave % # Ave % # Ave % # %

1Architects‐principals /

shareholders / officers / directors 24 9% 236 2.4 85% 8 1.5 3% 9 3.6 3% 277 100%

2Architects‐not principals /

shareholders / officers41 22% 118 7.7 63% 11 1.0 6% 18 1.2 10% 188 100%

3 Interns 41 20% 139 3.8 67% 10 1.1 5% 17 1.2 8% 207 100%

4Architectural Graduate (not

Intern)48 30% 93 5.1 58% 4 1.0 3% 15 1.2 9% 160 100%

5 Landscape architects 68 82% 11 5.8 13% 2 1.0 2% 2 1.0 2% 83 100%

6 Urban planners 69 83% 14 3.1 17% 0 0% 0 0% 83 100%

7 Engineers 67 67% 25 62.9 25% 0 0% 8 13.5 8% 100 100%

8 Technologists/technicians 23 9% 179 15.9 72% 13 1.3 5% 33 4.6 13% 248 100%

9 Interior designers 55 43% 61 3.8 48% 5 1.4 4% 7 1.0 5% 128 100%

10 Support staff 30 13% 155 7.1 67% 23 1.1 10% 23 1.1 10% 231 100%

11 Other 42 47% 39 7.9 44% 4 38.3 4% 4 1.0 4% 89 100%

No Response 71

Total 371



Required skills. Responding practices were asked to indicate which skills they look for when

hiring an Intern or recent architectural graduate. The top 3 skills selected by the responding

practices are far more in demand than the remaining 13 skills examined. Those top three are:

Construction Documents mentioned by 32%, Design Development mentioned by 31%, and

Schematic Design mentioned by 29%. The skills least likely to be mentioned as being required of

new Interns are: Bidding and Contract Negotiation, Building Cost Analysis, and Office

Management.

Response Count Abs % Rela % Rank1 Construction documents 148 28% 32% 1

2 Design development 142 27% 31% 2

3 Schematic design 136 26% 29% 3

4 Code research 91 17% 20% 4

5 Specifications and material research 69 13% 15% 5

6 Document checking and coordination 69 13% 15% 5

7 Site and environmental analysis 63 12% 14% 7

8 Construction Phase ‐ Office 60 11% 13% 8

9 Programming 48 9% 10% 9

10 All of these 48 9% 10% 9

11 Engineering system coordination 41 8% 9% 11

12 Construction Phase ‐ Site 39 7% 8% 12

13 Project Management 33 6% 7% 13

14 Office Management 22 4% 5% 15

15 Building cost analysis 19 4% 4% 16

16 Bidding and Contract Negotiation 15 3% 3% 17

17 None of these 2 0%

18 Other (Please specify) 33 6% 7% 13

19 Don’t know / not applicable 6 1%

No Response 55 10%

Total 528 100%



Performance at content areas. Fortunately, Interns are performing best at what is most

important. In the previous learning we learned the Schematic Design and Design Development

are important requirements of Intern Architects. In the survey, practices were asked to rate

each individual Intern that they hired in the past few years with respect to set of skills. The areas

where the Interns performed the best were the areas of Schematic Design and Design

Development. Therefore we can conclude that there is a relatively small expectation gap with

respect to the skills. Unfortunately responding practices also indicated that they have a

satisfaction rating of only 14% with respect to the training of Interns in the area of Construction

Documents and yet this is the single most important skill required of an Intern. Clearly, there is a

significant expectation gap or disconnection between what the architectural schools are

producing in this area with what the architectural practices expect them to produce in this area.

It should be mentioned that in none of the 12 content areas examined did the Interns receive

a passing grade. The rating of recently hired Intern Architects across 12 different content areas,

measured by the top two rating of very satisfied or satisfied are as follows:

In a follow‐up question we examined other content areas such as Teamwork and

Professionalism and see the Intern Architects receiving their first passing grades of 60 and 53%.

While this is gratifying, we also see areas such as Working Drawings, Office Systems and Project

Management receiving extremely low ratings.



There are three areas where the practices indicate that there is a large expectation gap (defined

as the difference between importance and satisfaction) between how they expect Interns to be

trained and what they are experiencing with the Interns they are hiring. Those three areas are

Construction Documents, Code Research, and Construction Phase Office & Sight.

Provincial regulators. Responding practices were asked to rate their firm satisfaction with the

programs and services offered by their provincial architectural regulator. The histogram below

indicates the top two satisfaction (very satisfied or satisfied) ratings of each of 11 provincial

regulators. Manitoba and Ontario received the highest ratings.

Those respondents who indicated that they were not satisfied with the quality of recent

graduates were asked the follow‐up question: “what additional support do you think could be

provided by the profession and by the schools to better prepare Interns in recent architectural

graduates for entering the profession.” This question was open ended wherein the respondents

could write in whatever answers they wanted. An analysis of these open‐ended responses

revealed that the top areas requiring greater attention from the profession or regulators were:

The need for supplemental programs;

The need to improve relationships with universities;

The need for mentoring; and

The need for business skills.



Architectural schools. There is a fairly even distribution of where responding firms have hired

Intern Architects with the most frequently mentioned school being Dalhousie University.

Responding practices were also asked to rate the graduates from each of the 12 schools in

Canada, with respect to meeting the firm’s expectations of skill and knowledge level required

for entering work in an architectural practice. The histogram below depicts the top two (very

satisfied or satisfied) satisfaction rating for each of the schools. There is a clear preference for

graduates from either the University of Waterloo or McGill University. Interestingly, those

responding practices who rated “Other” architectural schools, which were mostly international

or offshore schools, were rated as high as Waterloo and McGill.

Those respondents who indicated that they were not satisfied with the quality of recent

graduates were asked the follow‐up question: “what additional support do you think could be

provided by the profession and by the schools to better prepare Interns in recent architectural

graduates for entering the profession.” This question was open ended wherein the respondents

could write in whatever answers they wanted. An analysis of these open‐ended responses

revealed that the top areas requiring greater attention from the schools were:

The need for Professional Knowledge;

The need for more Technical Instruction;



The need for more Working Experience;

The need for better Business Skills;

Indication that students need a better sense of the realities of the profession; and

The need for better training area of Construction Documents.

As has been previously stated in this memorandum, the reader strongly advised to read the

open‐ended responses to these questions so they may get a better understanding of the intent

of the contributions.



6. General Statistical Definitions

In support of the conclusions described above, the following statistical definitions and explanations are detailed here to help the reader better understand the information presented in this report as well as in the survey decks.

Mean. The mean is a measure of central tendency. It is the arithmetic average of the set of values, or observations received from a question.

Median. The median is also a measure of central tendency. It is the observation or number that is at the 50th percentile in an ordered data set. Stated differently, it is the point at which half of the observations are above it and half of the observations are below it.

Mode. The mode is another measure of central tendency. It is the most popular or frequently mentioned observation in a data set. It is the value that occurs most frequently.

Score. The score is the mean or average of the responses received expressed as a percentage for easier interpretation. The Score is an important measure of all responses received; it demonstrates the overall response average, and includes all respondents. Stated differently, the score is a batting average, or percentage that helps us to better understand the average response. It is important to examine the score as interpreting the average or mean response, when a seven‐point Likert scale is used, can be difficult.

Top Two. The percentage of respondents to a question who responded with either a 1 (“Very Important”, “Very Satisfied” or “Strongly Agree”) or a 2 (“Important”, “Satisfied” or “Agree”) on a scale of 1 to 7. The Top Two is an indication of strength of opinion; it represents the proportion of respondents who have answered that they have a firm opinion about the stated question.

Correlation (Gen Sat). The percentage of respondents to an option who have indicated that they are either Very Satisfied or Satisfied. For example, if this stat is 80% for respondents between the ages of 21 and 30, it means that 80% of those respondents of that age group are either Very Satisfied or Satisfied.

Standard Deviation. This is a measure of dispersal, in that it shows how much variation or "dispersion" exists from the average (mean, or expected value). A low standard deviation indicates that the data points tend to be very close to the mean; high standard deviation indicates that the data points are spread out over a large range of values. Stated differently, a low standard deviation means that the data is tight, and that most respondents agree.