In the past, NCARB’s Internship Development Program (IDP) has served the needs of both the profession and the intern alike. While the mentor/intern model has functioned well both historically and continues into the present day, new models of mentorship need to evolve as the profession expands its core responsibility of creating better environments in which to live. To this end, the role of the mentor must be expanded to include other disciplines, ultimately affecting the education of the intern.

The proposed mentor/intern model finds its source in the rapidly evolving methods of project delivery. There are three primary paths: Design/Bid/Build (DBB) Design/Build (DB), and Construction Management at Risk (CM@R). Along with these, the concept of “bridging” can be included, where the design professional serves as a go-between between the design-builder and the client.

The present state of IDP seems to prepare the intern for the traditional DBB method. The architect takes the lead, retains consultants and is responsible for building/site design and project coordination through construction. While many clients prefer this method, (some are bound by law to do so), other options are available which better serve the client’s needs both financially and schedule-wise, ultimately providing increased client satisfaction. Thus, the question arises: Why should the intern architect be bound to dedicate the vast majority of his/her internship under the tutelage of only an architect? While this may seem counter-intuitive to the advancement of the profession, the end result may produce a better architect.

Outside of (and obviously concurrent with) the traditional DBB model, many professions are involved in the building process. The idea of architecture without construction is really not architecture at all. At the academic level, an architect’s education should clearly include history, theory, art and technical courses. But while this “twittering about in the birdcage of the muses” serves to expand the design vocabulary, and also gives the architect the philosophical and aesthetic bases required to create environments, rather than just “build”, the realities of the profession are quite different. Therefore an expanded mentorship model is justified.

An engineering project, for instance, may require a tangential connection to architecture. Projects such as new roadway construction have the same administrative and bidding requirements as a building project, at times moreso, as legal, zoning and other pragmatic issues arise that are generally dealt with by consultants rather than the project architect. Exposure to a greater variety of disciplines can only serve to enhance the intern’s development as the “master builder” and gain a greater understanding of the building process.

While the IDP is geared toward three years of experience with an architect (and/or other disciplines), the reality is that it takes much longer to gain an understanding of what it takes to actually build. The current IDP model does not allow enough exposure to regain the architect’s historical title of master builder, which is really what being an architect involves. Here is found the architect’s connection between education and the profession; the concept and the reality; the past as well as the future.

An alternative to the current IDP program is proposed as follows:

• Expand credits required in the community service aspect to include more public interaction, such as serving on zoning, planning or historic review boards. This will serve the intern well in understanding what is required when presenting a project for the necessary code approvals. And yes, politics is involved as well, but this is beyond the scope of this writing.
• Expand the scope of IDP’s Section A to include experience with engineers, construction managers, surveyors, and even contractors. It may be much easier to detail a wall section after having had the experience of actually building a wall.
• A greater understanding of legal issues, such as bonding and insurance requirements, may best be learned by spending time with an insurance adjustor or attorney.
• Leave section A to only to building design and detailing – even bid documents for other entities require the same level of completeness as any “architecture” project.

In conclusion, the present scope of IDP is limited, and developing architects who have a greater holistic understanding of the building process and all aspects mentioned above can only serve to augment the architect’s role in society.