1

NZILA ASSOCIATE PROCESS AND

MEMBERSHIP REVIEW

Full Report

NEW ZEALAND INSTITUTE

OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC.

Published March 2009

www.nzila.co.nz

2

Contents Section

1A Executive Summary 3

1B Summary of recommendations 6

2 Introduction 9

3 Membership categories 12

4 Associate Membership 11

5 Registration 35

6 Graduates 38

7 Students 41

8 New Membership Category ‘Non-Active’ 41

9 Reciprocity 42

10 Cross-Credited Qualifications 47

11 CPD 51

12 Appendices

A

Communication with NZILA members

56

B Feedback from NZILA members 60 C Existing assessment schedules 62 D Assessment Schedules for Core Areas 64 E Evidence of Professional Competence 67 F Sample Revised Project Record Sheet 69 G NZILA Constitution and Sponsor Statements. 71 H Resourcing for Revised Associate Process 72 I Member CPD Feedback 73 J Review of Allied Organisations 74

3

NZILA Membership Review

1A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background The New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects (NZILA) Executive Committee undertook at its July 2007 Executive Committee Meeting to initiate an Associateship and Membership review of the NZILA. This review and the associated process were endorsed by the membership at the 2008 AGM held in Auckland. In recent years a number of issues have arisen from the existing Associateship Application process and Membership categories. This review of the Associateship Application process, Membership categories, and Registration process was commissioned by the Institute to ensure that the NZILA is able to service its membership at an appropriate professional level, and to have certainty that the status conferred by membership levels is appropriate. The review was undertaken by Julia Williams of Drakeford Williams Limited between July 2008 and February 2009, in conjunction with a programme of canvassing members for opinions and feedback through email questionnaires, branch workshops and discussions with stakeholder groups. A number of allied professional bodies and overseas Landscape Architecture Institutes were contacted and provided valuable guidance as to how their membership processes are managed. Overview The most important issue, and perhaps the main impediment to the on-going growth and longevity of the Institute, is the relevance of corporate membership, the relevance of the Institute and the profile of the profession.

The Institute needs to be more meaningful to landscape architects if it is to sustain the profession as a vigorous, influential force over time,

It must promote collegiality and build the professional community.

When landscape architects remain outside the membership, it potentially weakens

the Institute.

While the Institute should aim to retain existing members, it must consider its relatively small membership and limited resources. Growth and relevance may be best achieved by focussing its engagement with students and young graduates, the landscape architects of the future.

Remember too that the Institute is the sum of its members, akin to a collective, rather than an anonymous agency that members pay fees to. It can only be as energetic as the members that engage in it. Landscape architecture will only survive as a profession over the next 100 years if it can retain a significant degree of shared purpose and experience amongst its members.1 NZILA must consider the wider marketing opportunities that will arise from the outcomes of review. The Institute must market itself and its qualifications to explain what the Associateship qualification actually means and why standards need to be set.

1 Simon Swaffield. Social change and the Profession of Landscape Architecture in the Twenty-First Century.

Pub Landscape Journal 2002

4

It should not be apologetic about the commitment that is required. NZILA requirements for corporate membership are in line with other organisations within New Zealand or comparable overseas landscape architectural organisations. The Existing NZILA Associateship Examination The examinations have a well-established process that is undertaken with integrity. The portfolios are individually and collectively discussed, a trained panel of senior landscape architects interviews the candidates and the final decisions are not made lightly. However the system has been added to over time with little revision since the first Application Pack documents were formally assembled in 1999. There is no consistency in the formatting of the assessment documentation or in the quantity of evidence required between different areas of landscape specialisation. There have been changes in requirements, in attitudes and in administration over time, especially as the Chairman and individual panel members move on. The Panel does the best that they can with the system they have inherited. When problems arise, the current system of checks and balances is not well equipped to deal with them. The existing process and application pack can be made more „fit for purpose‟ with minor amendments, but this does not necessarily result in a system that meets current practice, expectations and requirements. It is recommended that a more thorough revision be made that focuses assessment rigour at the workplace rather than in the portfolio. The Institute needs an examination process that is fit for purpose to its unique needs and situation. It must acknowledge changes over the last 30 years in the range of work landscape architects do, office practice, work opportunities and graduate requirements. The recommended process requires charting the process of gaining work experience, and verification of that experience, that is „what has been learnt in the process of doing the work‟. It is the story of the learning that is important, not the story of the project. The revised system must take into the account the needs of a range of graduates including graduates who are already in the process of applying for full membership, those who are self-employed or the sole landscape architect in a multi-disciplinary organisation or a local body, graduates from who have been working overseas and graduates in small rural areas. It should consider the requirements of employers, the Institute and the resourcing required from corporate members who may be asked to be sponsors or mentors. The Institute is aware also that parity and reciprocity with the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects (AILA) is desirable, given the relationship between the two organisations and their members. Although the AILA is a very different scale of organisation to NZILA, the recommendations contained within this report are mindful of AILA policies and processes.

5

Revised Associate Membership Process Flowchart

Year 1 Application

Apply to begin Associate membership process some time post graduation, preferably within 2-3 years of

graduating. Join NZILA

Organise sponsors or sponsor & mentor in conjunction with place of employment and local branch.

Start CPD programme

Join Graduate Peer Group

Start filling in Project Record sheets showing progress through core and specialist areas. On-going process to complete & sign sheets on a 3-6 month basis.

Undertake NZILA Branch Associate Workshop#1

Liaise with Branch group sponsors 1-2 times each year to discuss and workshop Project Record sheets

Year 2 Undertake NZILA Branch Associate Workshop#2

Liaise with Branch group sponsors 1-2 times each year to discuss and workshop Project Record sheets

Year 1- Year 3 Complete 90 weeks project experience

Year 3 Send in Associate membership application.

Send in application form, Project Record sheets and work examples.

Form signed off by 2 corporate members who attest that the applicant is a suitable candidate for Associate membership.

Application scrutinised within 1 month of application to ensure that it contains all the information required.

Interview held within 3 months of application (interviews at 6 monthly intervals)

Panel has overview of work and opportunity for national moderation.

Applicant has opportunity to meet the Institute.

Post Interview Applicants phoned and advised of outcome within 1 week

of interview.

Successful applicants receive a letter which details the Panel‟s decision and provides advice on issues arising from the examination process.

Unsuccessful applicants receive a letter that details the Panel‟s decision, outlines issues arising from the examination process and provides direction on what action(s) they can take to improve competency in specific areas. This may include (but is not restricted to) further work experience or CPD in a specific area.

Resubmission Unsuccessful applicants resubmit with additional work

and/or a second interview, whatever the Panel assesses to be appropriate. This can occur within a timeframe set by the Panel.

6

1B SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation: The existing Associate examination process be revised as outlined above to meet current practice requirements and professional expectations.

Membership: Registration

Recommendation: All existing Associates and Fellows be re-categorised as Registered in 2010. They will be required subsequently to report their CPD annually in order to remain a Registered Landscape Architect.

Recommendation: The membership category ‘Associate’ is dropped and NZILA adopt the term ‘Registered Landscape Architect’ as the one brand of corporate membership. Members will be listed on the Consultant Landscape Architects list as either Registered or Graduate.

Membership: Graduates

Recommendation: Graduates have free NZILA membership for the first year after Graduation.

Recommendation: Branches should provide resources for Graduates to set up peer support groups.

Recommendation: Successful completion of a recognised landscape architectural programme should remain the primary requirement for Graduate membership. People who have come into the profession from other routes and with other qualifications should be encouraged to take more advanced study in a recognised programme in order to complete their landscape architectural qualifications.

Recommendation: Graduate members should be shown on the NZILA website consultant landscape architects list and on any printed directory as ‘Graduate’. The Graduate membership level (G1- G5+) is for internal use only.

Membership: Students

Recommendation: NZILA should investigate establishing a permanent line of communication with landscape architecture students that allows the Institute to explain its objectives and encourages them to engage with the profession.

Recommendation: Completion of an accredited landscape architectural programme should remain the primary requirement for Graduate membership. People who have come into the profession from other routes and with other qualifications should be encouraged to take more advanced study in a recognised programme in order to complete their landscape architectural qualifications.

7

Reciprocity

Recommendation: Landscape architects with recognised overseas qualifications and/or who are 'full professional members' of their overseas institute should be encouraged to apply to be recognised by the New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects.

Recommendation: NZILA should introduce a reciprocity policy that enables a fast-track process for full members of recognised overseas institutes to become corporate members of NZILA. If this is not possible within the existing documentation framework, the NZILA Constitution and Operational Procedures and Protocols should be amended to create a streamlined reciprocity policy. Those seeking corporate membership in the NZILA must:

a) Work in New Zealand for a minimum of 1 year. b) Have the sponsorship of 2 corporate NZILA members c) Satisfy an examining panel of their professional competence and

knowledge of professional practice through undergoing an interview.

New Membership Category

Recommendation: A new membership category ‘Non-Active Member’ is introduced for a corporate member who by reason of a permanent substantial change in career or a temporary ‘stand down’, no longer practises landscape architecture or receives their primary income from landscape architecture.

CPD

Recommendation: CPD points should be raised to a minimum 30 CPD points per year, with a review of CPD requirements after 2 years.

Recommendation: NZILA should give priority to the development of at least one CPD training event each year in order to support members’ CPD and lead by example.

Recommendation: The Institute investigate the cost of creating an on-line system that allows members to record their CPD data directly onto the NZILA website, similar to the system that AILA currently runs.

Recommendation: Members’ CPD records are monitored every year with a random audit on an annual basis.

Recommendation: NZILA Executive and Branches allocate CPD points to NZILA CPD events.

Recommendation: NZILA should actively promote links with allied professional bodies and organisations such as NZPI, NZIA, NZIS, IPENZ, UDF and RMLA to maximise opportunities for CPD.

Recommendation: The current CPD Programme documentation should be revised and circulated to all NZILA members to ensure they have clear direction on CPD requirements and CPD opportunities.

8

PROPOSED NZILA REGISTRATION PROCESS SUMMARY FLOWCHART

(if all recommendations are accepted)

Year 1 Application Graduates join the Institute and apply to

begin the Registration process, preferably within 2-3 years of graduating. Start CPD.

Year 2

On-going recording of Project Record sheets and CPD

Year 1- Year 3 Complete 90 weeks project experience

Year 3 Send in Registration application.

Interview held within 3 months of application

(interviews at 6 monthly intervals)

Resubmission Unsuccessful applicants resubmit

in a process and within a timeframe that the Panel assesses

as appropriate.

Reciprocity: Full members of

recognised overseas institutes

apply for NZILA Registration after 45 weeks work in

New Zealand

9

2 INTRODUCTION Background In recent years a number of issues have arisen from the existing Associateship Application process and Membership categories. The original brief for this review was initially focussed on whether the current Associateship application process was still serving the applicants, the profession, and employers.

„The key issue relating to this review is the Associateship application process. Other issues are related, but are secondary to the Associateship review. The Registration Review is a minor part of the project, and it is envisaged that a review of the „value‟ and number of points and whether some form of certification of events is needed is likely to be all that is required.‟2

This review was undertaken between July 2008 and February 2009, in conjunction with a programme of canvassing members for opinions and feedback through email questionnaires, branch workshops and discussions with stakeholder groups. In all every member would have had at least one email with an overview of the main issues distributed via the local branch, and an email which targeted their specific membership category: Registered, Associates and Fellows; Associate within the last 8 years; Graduate of 1-4 years standing; and Graduate for 5+ years. The issues were discussed through branch workshops. Meetings were held with stakeholder groups such as employers, graduates in the process of applying for Associate membership and peer groups. In all there were responses from 120 individuals (both emails and phone calls), and several people made return calls or emails in order to reinforce a point or add supplementary information. The New Zealand Landscape Profession and Industry Survey 2006 provided some detail on the current profile of the profession. Feedback for this review has provided some background on the attitudes of members to profession. Refer to Appendix A for Communication with NZILA members

Appendix B for Feedback from NZILA members. Appendix I for Member CPD feedback.

Ten allied professional bodies and overseas Landscape Architecture Institutes were contacted, usually through some form of personal contact, and they provided valuable guidance as to how their membership processes are managed. Of particular note is the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects, which revised membership processes three years ago. The Executive Director, Paul Costigan, was able to give detailed information on the changes and feedback on the outcomes. Although the AILA is a very different scale of organisation to NZILA, the close relationship between NZILA and AILA and their members, makes parity and reciprocity with AILA processes advantageous. Refer to Appendix J for the full Review of Allied Organisations In the final analysis, NZILA is unique. There is no other organisation that has the same history, membership profile or resources. There can be no one organisational model to follow. Any „solution‟ must acknowledge the local context including the way the profession operates in New Zealand, the scope of work that landscape architects undertake and the public perception of landscape architecture and landscape architects. NZILA Membership

2 NZILA Associateship Process and Membership Review Registrations of Interest. March 2008

10

Membership at November 2008

Membership Category

Numbers Corporate Members

Graduate Members

Registered Potential New Members 2009

Affiliate 8

Fellow 37 37 19

Honorary Fellow 8

Graduate 1

258

21 70-80

Graduate 2 32 21

Graduate 3 25 32

Graduate 4 18 25

Graduate 5 162 169

Associate 134 134 54 11

Life member 5 5 2

Student 86 ?

Total 526 176 258 75

Educational Providers

3

A breakdown of membership numbers shows that only 176 or one third of the total number of members are corporate members, i.e. Registered or Associates or Fellows. Of these corporate members, only 40%, are Registered. In contrast there are 162 Graduates who have been in practice for 5 or more years, and 258 Graduates in total. Only a quarter of the new graduates each year join the Institute. Allowing for natural attrition, or movement overseas, for every Graduate NZILA member there are another 2 or 3 graduate landscape architects who are not members of the Institute. Most importantly, out of a total membership of 526, only 75 landscape architects have chosen to met the competence standard that shows the public they are able to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that they are able to consistently apply the knowledge, understanding and skills to the standard expected of a reasonable landscape architect. In other words, they are Registered. Why become a member? The information gathered from background research, NZILA member feedback and a review of other professional organisations indicates that changing the Associate application process or changing any one process is not enough. A breakdown of the profile of membership and member categories indicates an underlying malaise and disinterest in the Institute. Being a member and being involved in the Institute should count for something. Membership of the professional Institute should be an indication of one‟s professionalism, rather than a qualification that is „picked‟ up at time of the examination process and maintained by paying an annual subscription. So the most important issue, and perhaps the main impediment to the on-going growth and longevity of the Institute is the relevance of corporate membership, the relevance of the Institute and the profile of the profession.

11

Feedback from members, reinforced by discussion with allied professional bodies, is that changes to membership processes can only be successful if they are undertaken in conjunction with a programme that promotes the Institute to landscape architects and the wider community. The Institute needs to be more meaningful to landscape architects if it is to sustain the profession as a vigorous, influential force over time. It must promote collegiality and build the professional community. When landscape architects work outside the membership, it potentially weakens the Institute. While the Institute should aim to retain existing members, it must consider its relatively small membership and limited resources. Remember too that the Institute is the sum of its members, akin to a collective, rather than an anonymous agency that members pay fees to. It can only be as energetic as the members that engage in it. The way forward Growth and relevance may be best achieved by focussing its engagement with students and young graduates, the landscape architects of the future. The Institute should not be apologetic about the commitment that is required for these graduates to become Registered NZILA landscape architects. Institute requirements for corporate membership are in line with other organisations within New Zealand or comparable overseas landscape architectural organisations. The proposed changes to the corporate membership process will not lessen the commitment but rather shift the responsibility from a small Panel of senior landscape architects back to the wider landscape community (and the graduate). They do not even necessarily reduce a graduate‟s overall workload requirements but rather extend the examination process with a mentoring and „pathway‟ approach that requires on-going engagement with the Institute and the support of the profession. The review has identified no single underlying problem or single solution to the Institute‟s issues; a number of recommendations have been made on membership categories, Registration, Graduate membership, Student membership, reciprocity and CPD. While they do not have to be adopted as a complete package, members should look for an integrated approach and sustainable user-friendly solutions rather than attempting to „pick and mix‟ the recommendations. The recommendations, like the issues, are not exclusive and self-contained. For example the increased workload for corporate members as sponsors provides opportunities to engage with the up and coming generation of landscape architects, to become familiar with Practice support documentation and to gain recognition for professional development (CPD) NZILA also should consider the marketing opportunities that will arise from the outcomes of review. As well as the wider issue of marketing landscape architecture and landscape architects to the public, to allied professionals and to employers, the Institute must market itself and its qualifications to its members to explain what the Institute does, what the Registered qualification actually means, how the standard is set and why, how and where the term should it should be used.

12

3 MEMBERSHIP CATEGORIES The NZILA Articles of Constitution (2.1) has the following membership categories:

a) Honorary Fellows b) Fellows - FNZILA c) Associates – ANZILA d) Graduates – GradNZILA e) Affiliates f) Students g) Registered h) Life members i) Educational Providers

Associate, Registered, Graduate and Student member categories are discussed in the following sections 4-7. Life Member, Honorary Fellows and Fellows member categories, as defined clearly in the constitution are generally self-explanatory. They are effectively awards rather than membership categories that may be used irrespective of whether the member is actively practising or retired. There has been no comment on these designations in member feedback. Educational Providers This category is self-explanatory. There has been no comment on this designation in member feedback. Affiliates An Affiliate is defined in the constitution as: „A person who, in the opinion of the Committee, is interested and/or involved in the principles and practice of landscape architecture to the extent that such membership would be mutually beneficial‟. Other professions and institutes use similar terminology to describe a person who is not a trained member of the profession but has enough of an interest in the profession to pay an annual subscription. Although there has been no feedback on this designation (and there are only 8 members in this category), there has been some debate about a member category for corporate members who are no longer practicing as landscape architects but who are not retired. A new member category, ‘Non-Active’ members, is proposed to cover these professionals. This is discussed in Section 8.

4 ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP Why become an Associate? The review has received honest, in depth feedback from graduates who have applied or are about to apply for Associate status. They note that although there may some financial gain in becoming an Associate, it rarely leads to more employment opportunities or a bigger client base. NZILA provides a level of support and benefit for Associates but this was not the main incentive, nor was peer pressure placed on graduate landscape architects from work places or colleagues. In fact much of the engagement and recognition is self-motivated. The applicant started on the Associate process because

13

he/she wanted acknowledgement that they had reached a certain standard that was recognised in turn by their peers. Responses from a wide range of members to the question “Why become an associate?” are surprisingly similar.

Engage with the profession

Be in the „in‟ group

Next step

A natural progression from graduate status as part of a landscape architect‟s

professional development.

Becoming part of the “family” with the protection and support that the NZILA offers

Recognition from within the profession and other aligned professions.

Responses to the question „What are the core requirements for a “practicing landscape architect?‟ and „What is NZILA assessing with the existing Associateship exam?‟ are also very clear.

Has reached a standard

Show competence at a professional level

Understands professional responsibilities: ethics, legislation, processes

Demonstrate knowledge of the Code of conduct

Demonstrate ethics and be an ethical practitioner

Has amassed a defined level of experience

Know their level of competence and where their limitations lie

In short, it is generally acknowledged that the Associateship „brand‟ is as much about the practitioner, their professional attitude and the learning involved to get to this „standard‟ as the actual work that is produced. This is not necessarily apparent in the Associate Application information or evident in the current examination process. Feedback from employers and analysis of membership records indicates that there is no consistent attitude to Associateship. In general, landscape architectural practices provide financial incentives for graduates to gain corporate membership and they are prepared to pay NZILA fees. All attempt to provide their graduates with a range of work experience, although they are not prepared compromise the quality of work and their obligation to client for the sake of providing work experience. A graduate would need to organise their time to work up the expertise in order to put such a job in their portfolio i.e. they would not let a graduate out first time on an important piece of work just so they can fulfil requirements for Associateship. Multi-disciplinary firms where landscape architecture is not a core practice area also encourage graduates to join the Institute but are frequently unable or unwilling to provide the range of project experience that is required under the current system. Local authorities and government departments vary. A number of local authorities have a performance based employment policy; as a result, there is no incentive for graduates to put the work in to become an Associate or to move within the organisation (or outside the organisation) to get a wider range of project work. This can result in graduates peer reviewing or providing expert witness on the work of Associates and Fellows.

14

What are the requirements of the current Associate application process? Those seeking associate membership in the NZILA must:3

a) meet prerequisite academic and/or membership requirements;

b) have completed an appropriate period of acceptable practical experience;

c) have satisfied an examining panel of their professional capability through the production of documentary evidence of their practical experience;

d) have satisfied an examining panel of their professional competence and

knowledge of professional practice through under going an interview. Feedback on the current Associate Examination process Much of the feedback on Associateship that reaches Executive is focussed on the barriers (and perceived barriers) that the existing process throws up: the difficulty of engaging in work across the range of competencies, the time it takes to put the portfolio together, the amount of paperwork, the cost of the application and the stress and inconsistencies of the interview. There is also an active urban myth out there that the process is difficult, non-transparent and unfair. Feedback from members:

Is more about attitudes to the Institute and/or the Associate qualification than the application process: “What‟s the benefit for me?”, “what do I get for going through this?”, “I‟ve have personally NEVER encountered a client that required a landscape architect to have either associate or registered status”, or “I‟m too busy”. (and even “I just can‟t be bothered.”)

A number of reasonably enthusiastic graduates do not apply because they do not

have the range of work experience that the current system requires.

Many graduates have no idea what the requirements for Associateship are; they haven‟t looked at an Associate Application pack since they first graduated.

A cohort of graduates left New Zealand in the early 1990‟s because there was no work available. They form a reasonable section of the Grad5+‟s. They worked overseas for a number of years and gained much experience. They have returned, thought about applying but have no record of their work overseas and feel resentful at having to „justify themselves‟ all over again. The combination of verifying all of their past work and putting together a portfolio just seems too hard.

The longer graduates put off applying, the harder it gets. This is partly because of

the paperwork and partly because (as they see it) they‟ve got along all right without the qualification, so why start now.

The current Panel Chairman notes that a number of applicants think the

Associateship process is just a formality – they don‟t treat it as an exam. A larger proportion of applicants are not taking the time to prepare their portfolios that previous candidates did. Many think that getting to the interview means that they have virtually passed.

3 NZILA Application Pack for Associate Membership (April 2008)

15

At the same time it is noted that: Successful candidates are overwhelmingly positive about the experience and

believe that the paperwork could be cut down but the rigour should stay.

A number noted that they became an Associate because they wanted to, rather than being coerced by their employer or peers. One recent Associate said ”For me gaining associate membership was about a commitment to the profession and a personal goal rather than a workplace related one.”

Although not commensurate with the number of new graduates each year, more

people are applying for Associateship than were 5 years ago. In 2008, 19 members submitted portfolios.

Refer to Appendix B for Feedback from NZILA members. The reality of the Existing NZILA Associateship Examination An in-depth analysis of the examinations shows a well-established process that is undertaken with integrity. The portfolios are individually and collectively discussed, a trained panel of senior landscape architects interviews the candidates and the final decisions are not made lightly. The NZILA Associateship Examinations demand commitment from the Panel, especially the Chairperson who bears a huge burden of responsibility in the requirement to vet the portfolios to make the initial decision as to whether they are complete / up to standard / fulfil the criteria. Last year the Chairperson spent 102 hours on the process and the other 5 members spent an average of 37 hours each: that represents a total 272 hours of voluntary, unpaid time. However it must be acknowledged that:

The system is „clunky‟ and has been added to over time with little revision since the Evidence and Judgement statements were written in 1999.

There is no consistency in the formatting of the criteria, judgement statements etc across the categories of landscape architectural work.

There is no consistency in terms of the amount of evidence required /work for the portfolio between areas of competency. Refer to Appendix C for Existing Assessment Schedules

There is an inherently strong bias towards landscape design rather than landscape planning or assessment. Refer to Appendix C for Existing Assessment Schedules

There have been changes in requirements over time as individuals on the Panel and the Chairperson change e.g. does applicant need to have both hard and soft cost estimates? How much documentary evidence is required? Can the candidate demonstrate „knowledge of‟ in lieu of „demonstrate experience in‟.

There have been changes in attitude over time. As the system has become more open and transparent, the more exposed is the Panel to appeals and dispute from unsuccessful candidates. For example, the Panel is reluctant to allow marginal portfolios to continue to the interview stage due to the challenges they then receive from unsuccessful candidates.

Subtle changes to the application pack documentation and changes in the institutional memory of the process over a period of time have altered the balance of judgment between the interview and portfolio. One of the aims in the preparation of the original Application Pack was that people with marginal

16

portfolios should be given the opportunity to attend the interview, as the test of capability and competence gained through the interview is often enough to allow them to pass. The interview was seen as being important as a judge of competence and capability, perhaps more so than multiple examples of evidence. The judgement and skill of the practitioner, one of the fundamental attributes that a professional should have, may be evident at the interview even where the documented evidence contained in the portfolio is scant.

There have been changes in administration that are not in line with the NZILA Constitution e.g. the application form should be signed by a proposer and a seconder, both corporate members, or the requirement that a further application for admission by an unsuccessful candidate not be considered with within one year from the date of such notification.

There is an inherent flaw in the process for an unsuccessful applicant to challenge a decision. The institute appoints an independent senior member to review the portfolio. But as the application pack makes clear, success in gaining associate membership is judged on a combination of this material and the applicant‟s responses during the interview. Reviewing the portfolio alone does nothing for the case of a candidate who failed the interview.

Unsuccessful candidates are left with little incentive and limited opportunity to reapply, especially considering the length of time between the Panel‟s convening. In previous times these members felt they were given inadequate feedback and support. Feedback for this review has been that many were left with a deep sense of shame and shock at their failure at the last hurdle.

In other words the Panel does the best that they can with the system they have inherited and when problems arise, the current Institute system of checks and balances is not well equipped to deal with them. The existing process and application pack can be made more „fit for purpose‟ with minor amendments:

Clarify the process, and the balance between the portfolio and the interview. The interview is an integral part of the associate examination, not just a formality.

Provide more information on potential interview questions.

Clarify what information is required for each of the work categories: what areas are compulsory and what areas are optional.

Place more emphasis on the information recorded on the project record sheets, and require them to be signed off by an employer (preferably a senior landscape architect) as the project is finished.

Streamline the time and spread responsibility by having the Panel meeting as a group for a day for the initial examination of the portfolios.

Organise and train a second Associateship Panel, perhaps based in Auckland.

Improve candidate feedback. Every candidate should be phoned and advised of the outcome of the interview before a letter is sent.

Provide a more streamlined resubmission system for those who only just „did not pass‟.

However even with these amendments, the Associate system would not necessarily meet current practice requirements and expectations. It is recommended that a more thorough revision be made to create a process that focuses assessment rigour at the source, that is

17

at the workplace and on the graduate, rather than at the end of the application process in a portfolio of work. A revised system must take into the account the needs of all graduates including:

self-employed graduates or those who are the sole landscape architect in a multi-disciplinary organisation or a local body or a government organisation

graduates who are already in the process of applying for full membership

graduates from or who have been working overseas

graduates in small rural areas as well as the needs of

existing corporate members (who may be asked to be sponsors or mentors)4

employers

Institute and branch resources NZILA also should consider the wider marketing opportunities that will arise from the outcomes of review. A review of the membership numbers indicates that there has been a low graduate uptake for Associate membership. The Institute must market itself and its qualifications to explain what the Associateship qualification actually means, why standards need to be set and what are the benefits of being a corporate member. At the same time NZILA should not be apologetic about the necessary commitment to become an Associate. Institute requirements for corporate membership are in line with other organisations within New Zealand and comparable overseas landscape architectural organisations. Despite what a number of graduates think, the NZILA application process is less rigorous, for example, than local architectural, surveying and engineering professional examinations. But to these professions registration signifies a particular status (and to be specific, legal status and responsibility) and graduates willingly spend a number of years accumulating work experience and building competency in order to meet these stringent requirements. On the other hand, it can be noted that the NZILA process is reasonably similar to the New Zealand Planning Institute process for full membership, and they too have similar problems attracting graduates to go that extra step to full membership. Refer to Appendix G for NZPI membership numbers. Comparable systems for overseas landscape architectural institutes require examinations (US and Canadian organisations) or mentored „pathway‟ systems (UK and Australian organisations). It is generally agreed that educational trends are moving away from exam based assessment to competence assessment; it would be organisational suicide to revert to a examination system and would require serious funding to write, assess and moderate exams. Given current NZILA membership numbers, it is likely that a one-on-one mentoring system is unsustainable – in manpower, in the goodwill required and in the resources needed to set up the administrative framework. The Institute needs an examination process that is fit for purpose for its unique situation and needs. In the early 1980‟s it was considered feasible, and indeed practical, to go into

4 The New Zealand Landscape Profession and Industry Survey 2006 provided some detail on the

current profile of the profession. Not unexpectedly, over half of the respondents indicated that they were Landscape Architects, with around a third of the total across all categories noting that they were self employed (although there is no breakdown as to whether they are Associates or Graduates.

18

the workforce, work for 90 weeks, gain Associate status and then go overseas. Today students are focussed on finishing their studies (they frequently spend 4-7 years as students) and on earning money to repay loans and to live. Concern about getting a job has a higher priority than joining the Institute or „doing more exams‟. Many of these new graduates take time coming up to speed, enjoying life and earning money and, as some see it, adjusting to life in the real world. The Institute processes must acknowledge the changes to personal and professional life over the last 30 years, and accommodate graduate requirements, work opportunities and the range of work undertaken in office practice today. Specialisation NZILA Articles of Constitution and Operational Procedures and Protocols are silent on the matter of whether the examination process should require applicants to demonstrate competency across a broad range of work or whether it is acceptable for them to be specialists in one area. The Application Pack for Associate Membership provides more detail. „Once a member has attained the Associate membership status they may specialise in a particular field of landscape practice and may also apply to become Registered Landscape Architects. The associate membership examination, however, aims to ensure that an appropriate level of professional competence is achieved across the spectrum of practical experience.

Applicants are required to demonstrate their professional capability in documented examples of their work. For the purpose of describing the range and type of work considered appropriate for fulfilling the practical experience requirements a spectrum of landscape architectural activities is set out under five broad category headings:

Category A Landscape planning and management. Category B Landscape assessment. Category C Landscape design. Category D Contract documentation and administration. Category E Landscape education and research.

Applicants are required to demonstrate experience and a proven ability in work from at least three categories.‟ Feedback from the Associate Membership Panel notes that:

A limited number of applicants submit examples from across the spectrum.

Candidates used to apply in as many categories as they could qualify for whereas today a higher proportion of candidates are only applying in the minimum 3 categories.

Although some candidates are good across all categories, there is an increasing split between the planning categories versus the design / contract documentation categories as graduates are pigeonholed into particular areas of speciality. As a result a growing number of applicants submit work in either:

- Category A and B with a weaker portfolio of Category C work - Category C and D with a weaker portfolio of Category B work

and more recently

- Category A and B and E (no work submitted in Category C and D)

19

In other words, despite the stated policy, it is possible to pass the examination without submitting work in either the landscape planning categories, or the design categories. Applicants can achieve Associate status without necessarily demonstrating professional competence across the spectrum of practical experience. The degree of specialisation depends on individuals‟ attitudes, where they work and whom they work for, as much as their inherent strengths and skills. Specialisation within Other Professional Organisations Organisation Specialty versus Generalisation

AILA Members must demonstrate knowledge and competency in 1 of the 5 disciplines. They do not have to indicate this with their qualification/membership or when they promotion. If they choose to operate outside their discipline, they are expected to gain competency in that area first or at least exercise some professionalism in terms of getting peer advice.

IPENZ Chartered Professional Engineers are assessed for competence in the practice area they have chosen; practice areas are particular to each CPEng, and may include unique mixes of competencies. The Assessors will be engineers who are specialised in the same sphere of expertise. The Chartered Professional Engineers‟ code of ethical conduct requires that CPEngs work only within their competence – they must refuse to undertake any proposed work that lies outside their area of expertise. There is no requirement to demonstrate current competence at regular intervals to remain a member of a particular class. Each Member is ethically bound to perform engineering activities only in areas within which they are currently competent. As engineers change careers or their knowledge becomes outdated they must cease practice in areas in which they are no longer up to date, but they are entitled to retain their membership as a sign of peer recognition from their profession.

LI The Pathway to Chartership has a common syllabus for the profession regardless of a candidate‟s area of expertise. However, there is an understanding that given the diversity of the profession, some areas will be core to some people‟s work and not to others and all candidates are not expected to achieve high-level knowledge in every area. P2C covers the following areas: A: Professional Conduct; Professional Duties and Liabilities; Professional Appointment; Professional Relationships; and Practice Management B: The Legal System; The Planning System; Environmental Policies; Environmental Control; and Contract Law C: Contracts; Pre-contract and Tendering Procedures; and Contract Administration

20

NZRAB

The architectural design process is relatively standard, no matter how large or how specialized the project is. Specialisation is not relevant so long as in the final registration interview it is clear that the applicant understands his or her area of competence and will seek assistance if operating outside that area of competence.

NZPI

Full members complete the competencies that will be covered in the membership interview. While they do not have to have had experience in all of these areas they do need to have and be able to demonstrate a good understanding of them.

NZIF

An applicant for admission as a Registered Member may request that the applicant is recognized as having: 1. General skills in forestry; 2. General skills in forestry but with specialist skills in a specified

area; or

3. Specialist skills in specified areas (but without general skills in

forestry). The Board may determine that the applicant be recognised as having skills within a specialist area and require that the entry in the register should be so qualified.

NZIS

Registered Professional Surveyors must have passed the Institute‟s Professional Entrance Examinations i.e. be competent in spatial measurement and three other surveying related disciplines (out of 13 specialist areas). There is no requirement for registered surveyors to show their specialisation on their business cards or adverts. The vast majority just promote themselves as Registered Professional Surveyors although a few include additional information about their specialty areas on their business cards. Currently there is no requirement for surveyors to demonstrate CPD if they move into another area of surveying or to sit a Professional Entrance Exam. They tend to settle on a particular specialisation early on in their careers and stick with that so NZIS hasn‟t needed to set up a separate procedure to deal with it.

NZICA Candidates sit a generic Professional Competence Exam. However in completing their specified practical experience, they follow a training log and complete a certain number of competencies from the range on offer. Candidates usually choose competencies that relate to the areas they are working in while completing their practical experience (eg auditing and taxation). After graduation they will be working in one of those areas, but that does not prevent them from working in other areas, although, as per the Institute‟s Code of Ethics “Members must only undertake professional work in which they have the Competence necessary to perform the work to the technical and professional standards expected.”

Many organisations view specialisation as being „self-monitored‟ to some degree; a professional only undertakes work that they have the competence to complete to a professional standard. The professional organisations studied as part of this membership review vary in their approach to member specialisation. Approach: „Demonstrate knowledge of‟ versus „demonstrate competency in‟ Members do not have to have had experience across the spectrum of practical experience but do need to have and be able to demonstrate a good understanding of the range of competencies.

21

Approach: the Weighted Approach Members must achieve a high level of competency in their specialist area of practice and must demonstrate knowledge to a lesser level of competency in the remainder of the professional disciplines. Approach: Specialist Approach Members must achieve a high level of competency in their specialist area. They may then be required to: - register as practicing in the specialist area or - practice only within that specialist area and refuse to undertake any proposed work that

lies outside their area of expertise or - upgrade and gain competency if they choose to operate outside their specialist area Employer Feedback Employers/directors/partners in landscape architectural practices noted that the two basic areas that should be compulsory for all graduates, no matter where their specific competencies or work experience lie, are contract documentation and planning/legislation. They accept that these competencies are usually learnt over time on the job. Outside these core areas, they employ individual graduates for what they can bring to the practice. Most landscape architects graduate with specific competencies, a combination of previous experience and qualifications or specialisation in the last two years of study. They are employed because they have those skills. From the employer‟s point of view, there is little incentive to actively move graduates out of their area of expertise and into new areas of work, especially if the graduate is not motivated to ask. NZILA Member Feedback Feedback is mixed, particularly from corporate members. There is general agreement that there are basic areas of practice that are or should be compulsory for all applicants, no matter where their specific competencies or work experience are focussed: legislation/legal aspects and code of conduct/professionalism. Some feel that contract documentation and administration should be included as part of the core area, others (planners) do not see the necessity for this. A more general office administration core category could cover documentation and procedures for any work area and be included in the common core of competencies. There was no consensus re specialist versus generalist. Some said that they were planners or designers and had no interest in doing other work. Others said that graduates had an obligation to extend their work base and experience a broad range of work before choosing to specialise. When spoken to, most members agreed that: a) few landscape architects work exclusively within one field. Planning and design have

a symbiotic relationship in as much as a landscape planner plans with a final design in mind and liases with the designer. The landscape designer works within a regulatory framework and may have input into AEE‟s for consents for the design.

b) specialisation did not make one less of a landscape architect

c) there was an ethical expectation of an Associate and especially a Registered member that they would not get involved in work they were not experienced enough to deliver a quality product for.

d) graduates should be encouraged not to specialise too early and should try to accumulate experience in a diverse range of projects

22

As an aside, the Institute must also consider prospective opportunities for „mix and match‟ careers. For example the School of Landscape Architecture at Lincoln University has recently proposed the introduction of a number of Minors in Landscape Architecture. Students will be able complete their BLA in the usual way, meeting all of the NZILA accreditation competencies, but will take specific courses that will enable them to credit a minor, rather than just taking 'random' courses for their elective choices. A programme comprising a planning based minor, a postgraduate year, and some of the BLA core will be able to meet the NZPI accreditation requirements. This has the potential to create a gateway for landscape architectural students to attain both NZILA and NZPI membership, although there is no reciprocal path for planning students to attain NZILA membership due to the more onerous design studio requirements. While it is impossible to know the implications of such a programme, it is clear that the Institute will need to accommodate more rather than less specialisation in the future. As the Landscape Institute said so succinctly in their membership review: “..individuals, by virtue of their developing experience, opportunities and interests, will also develop their individual skills profile and will not necessarily develop the same depth of knowledge and understanding in all areas.”5 And, as a number of members have noted, the knowledge and skills and competency demonstrated by a member at the time of the Associateship examination is just one point in their life-long career of on-going learning and development. People move into new areas and the „Spectrum of Landscape Architectural Work‟ in any NZILA document will always lag behind the actual scope of landscape (cutting edge) practice. Recommended Revised Process 1. Philosophy

Feedback indicates that many graduates feel daunted and dispirited by the Associate application requirements, and by the Institute itself. The perception is that there is some form of old boys‟ network or closed shop that actively discourages graduates from swelling their ranks. For this reason it is suggested that the Institute promote the process as an enabling process rather than a barrier. It does not expect to see extra-ordinary work or drawings to competition standard or documentation produced specifically for a portfolio. Instead the individual is to be assessed on their development since the time of graduation, on their capability and competency in project work, on their professionalism and performance in the workplace. Associate membership should be seen as one step in the progression of on-going learning development. This is facilitated by:

Early engagement: initiate the graduate‟s relationship with the Institute and the profession as soon as possible, preferably within 2-3 years of graduation.

Initiate the CPD process at the same time, starting the culture of life-long learning and development.

Provide a system that is resourced to accommodate graduates working in sole practice or as sole landscape architects in multi-disciplinary firms or organisations. These individuals are most „at risk‟ and need the guidance of

5 LI Report of the Membership Review Group, June 2007

23

experienced practitioners; it is the Institute and indeed the profession‟s responsibility to provide mentoring and on-going support.

Create a culture where graduates get going early to spread the workload; filling project work sheets, reflecting on their development and attending associate workshops.

Create a culture of possibility. An unsuccessful candidate has not failed. They just are not yet ready to be considered competent.

2. Overview

The recommended process requires charting the process of gaining work experience, and verification of that experience, that is, what has been learnt in the process of doing the work.

Make more rigour at the source e.g. workplace rather than portfolio. Who is best placed to assess an individual‟s competency – two senior landscape architects who have worked with the graduate over a period of 2 years or a panel of 5 senior landscape architects who have reviewed a sample of the graduate‟s work?

Increased reliance on project record sheets and reduced reliance on the portfolio. It is the story of the learning that is important, not the story of the project.

Emphasis on core competencies, that is the areas that are common to all practices and to the spectrum of landscape architectural work.

The Panel and the interview process should be used at the end of this process to assess the applicant‟s professionalism, and to establish the „benchmark‟ - that is to discriminate and distinguish between those who meet the standard and those who do not. To this extent it also provides external moderation.

The Panel should be given a degree of discretion over the matter of applicants who do not pass the process. They should be allowed to provide innovative and supportive solutions that enable a candidate meet the standard and to successfully pass the examination and become an Associate. This may include detailing the action(s) the applicant can take to improve competency in specific areas and the timeline for resubmission. The Panel may feel that one applicant should amass further work experience and resubmit in a year, or undertake CPD in a specific area and re -interview in 6 months or complete a specific piece of work and submit it to the Panel for consideration.

3. The Beginning

In an ideal world, graduates would join the Institute and start charting their project experience straight from university. It is preferable that the process commences within 2-3 years of graduation. (Landscape architects in the USA become licensed through their local/state chapter and are required to sit a 3-4hour exam. Generally graduates sit it in the first 5 years after graduation, as the exam is frequently very technical and based on information from university. Experience shows that people who do not sit it in these first years never get around to sitting it.) NZILA now has a brochure on Associateship to be sent to all graduates once they have successfully completed their programme of study. It is recommended that Application documentation is included at the same time. This should be followed up at the end of each subsequent year (letter or phone call from the local branch) to graduates not enrolled in the process.

24

4. NZILA membership

Graduates should be members of NZILA for at least the 90 week period of their work experience prior to application for full membership. This allows the Institute to support their sponsor and or mentor relationships. It also provides some indication of their professionalism and their engagement with the profession. Graduates who had been working overseas would require a minimum 45 weeks as an NZILA member and 45 weeks as a member of an IFLA recognised landscape institute of the country where they had been practising. It is anticipated that the practice support documentation currently in production will be made available to Graduate members as a training resource for use under the direction of a corporate member and in conjunction with a sponsor/mentor.

5. CPD

Graduates embarking on the Associate membership process should also participate in the Registration CPD programme, as part of their professionalism and as a commitment to on-going learning.

6. Sponsor and Mentor

Both the AILA and the LI have moved to a Pathway process for full membership, using a one-to-one mentor to graduate system. The underlying philosophy is that graduates can learn and gain experience at their own pace under the guidance of an experienced landscape architect. The graduate applies for full membership when the mentor feels they are ready; it is a natural step that the applicant feels is achievable. Both of the above organisations are well staffed, well financed and have a large corporate membership. Even then, their experience has been that it can be difficult to establish the mentor/graduate relationship, that mentoring is time-consuming and potentially onerous and that a number of complications arise when graduates or their mentors change jobs. Given the size and resources of NZILA, and the limited number of corporate members (176 as at November 2008), it is suggested that a less intense system of sponsors is employed, using Associates or Fellows as the sponsors. A Sponsor is by definition one who assumes responsibility for another person or a group during a period of instruction, apprenticeship, or probation, or one who vouches for the suitability of a candidate for admission. A Mentor has a more personal relationship as a „ wise and trusted counsellor or teacher‟. It is recommended that Graduates working in landscape practices have one sponsor within the practice and one external sponsor. External sponsors would come from the Branch. It is anticipated that a group of corporate members in each branch would opt to hold 1-2 workshops each year (outside the current associate membership workshop) to review project sheets and work examples. Hopefully this would result in a maximum 1:3 or 1:4 sponsor/graduate ratio. Graduates who are self employed or who work as the sole landscape architect within a multi disciplinary organisation or local authority should have one sponsor and one mentor. The mentor would assess and give feedback on graduate's progress ensuring they have the understanding and ability required at various

25

stages in their 'apprenticeship'. This requires a well-defined mentoring system with approved mentors who help guide graduates on an ongoing basis. This proposal would require training and detailed guidelines for both sponsors and mentors, and support and commitment from the profession as whole and individual members in particular. On the other hand, both the British and Australian organisations note the positive benefits for more senior members who become mentors (refresh their own knowledge, more in touch with the younger member of the profession and collegiality), to say nothing of the potential for CPD points.

7. Complete 90 weeks project experience

The existing minimum work requirement is two years or 90 weeks, in line with IFLA Accreditation Guidelines6. In practical terms, the earliest time frame for students to graduate and start work is the November of the final year of study, Year 1. If a graduate lodges an Associate application at the end of June Year 4, they effectively have 125 weeks work experience before the interview in November. Even if the Interview times are altered and extended, it would take an exceptional individual to make an application based on the bare minimum 90 weeks. However the application pack should emphasise that most graduates work for 4-5 years before they feel competent to apply for Associateship.

While it is true that only a small number of graduates feel competent enough or have amassed a reasonable body of work to apply for full membership within this period, it is can be done. For example an architect or engineer with a body of work experience prior to landscape architecture, or a focussed individual may be able to achieve a level of competency within a short period of time. If the final assessment for Associate membership is one of competency, the Institute should not be setting arbitrary barriers on experience. The proposed „sign-off‟ from 2 corporate members provides an additional safeguard. However the NZILA application documentation should emphasise that for a variety of reasons most individuals will work for at least 4-5 years before they feel competent to apply for Associate membership.

8. Core Practice Area Competencies Feedback from practitioners and employers is that there are three areas of practice that are basic to all areas of landscape architecture. All competent landscape architects must be able to demonstrate knowledge of:

Professionalism and Professional Development including evidence of CPD, professional responsibility, leadership and knowledge of the Code of Professional Conduct

The Legislative Context including RMA, Local Government Act, Contract law, Health and Safety etc, etc

Office Administration including professional communication, time management, provision of offers of service, record keeping, per review etc, etc.

These core areas are assessed under the existing examination system at the Interview. Page 12 of the Application Pack notes: „The panel will also question candidates on ethical issues, the Code of Professional Conduct, the Resource Management Act and other relevant statutory

6 IFLA Accreditation Guidelines. Approved June 2008, Revised January 2009

26

documents, their commitment to continuing professional development, as well as administrative and legal matters relating to the profession and to the practice of landscape architecture in general - aspects which may not necessarily be directly related to the work submitted in their portfolios‟. It is not within the scope of this Membership Review to write the assessment criteria for these core areas. However the AILA have examples of how these core competencies can be described and assessed. These have been included in the appendices in order that members might have a greater understanding how the revised system would look and work.

Refer to Appendix D for examples of Assessment Schedules for Core Areas. Refer Appendix E for a list of examples of evidence of professional competence.

9. Categories of Landscape Architectural Work

Existing requirements are for applicants to achieve competency across at least 3 categories of landscape architectural work of a possible 5 areas: Category A - Landscape Planning & Management Category B - Landscape Assessment Category C - Landscape Design Category D - Contract Documentation & Administration Category E - Landscape Education And Research As previously discussed, the spectrum of work that landscape architects currently practise in, and that constitutes landscape architecture is growing. There will be opportunities for applicants to demonstrate competency in new areas (perhaps they should be known as practice areas rather than specialist areas) such as: urban design; sustainable design; participatory landscape architecture; landscape management; landscape science, community advocacy or cultural heritage landscapes. Feedback from members will probably add new areas to this list. But assessment schedules and criteria for each of these areas would need to be written for them to be included in the Associate examination process. It is suggested that the emphasis be moved away from demonstrating competence across a broad range of areas to being competent in core practice areas (those areas common to every landscape architectural practice) and demonstrating competence in one‟s specific areas of practice. However there is a general reluctance by members to allow graduates to specialise too early. It is recommended that applicants complete project experience in at least 2 of the 5 categories of work. This is considered achievable for all graduates; it allows for a spread of work within a practice area, without requiring an individual to move employment or take up specialist work just to apply for Associateship. For example an applicant might submit work in Categories:

academic + design* design + contract documentation# design + assessment academic + planning* planning + assessment

27

* The assumption is that an academic is teaching in a landscape related subject, either design or planning, and can demonstrate/show knowledge of competency and fill out project sheets in aspects one of these areas.

# A number of other Landscape institutes regard these as a single practice area. AILA for example see design through to contract documentation as a single discipline group.

It is noted that the existing 5 NZILA categories were effectively sub-divided from the larger practice areas of landscape planning and landscape design in early associate application documents.

10. Project Record sheets Under the existing system each applicant is required to submit a folder of project record sheets recording the relevant work they have done during their practical experience period, that is 90 weeks of project work (as opposed to 90 weeks of employment). The purpose of these is to enable candidates to record in a methodical way a summary of the practical experience they have gained. Feedback from the Panel is that by far the majority of applicants view this as a piece of paper pushing, an administrative requirement designed to frustrate them from their true purpose of assembling a portfolio. Most project sheets as filled in prior to lodging the application, with one sheet signed by the employer and the applicant that is then photocopied for ease of filling out. In reality the project record sheet should be a mix of documentation of the job and documentation of the learning process. The potential benefits are greatest when the project sheets are completed once the project is finished. This creates opportunities for documenting the learning while it is fresh with the Graduate describing their responsibilities, what experience was gained and what could have been done better. Project record sheets therefore should be undertaken at the time or within 3 months of finishing a job. It is suggested that they be expanded to include a reflective statement from the graduate, and should be signed off by the graduate‟s sponsor or mentor who can affirm exactly what their scope of work was. has been done. Most of the evidence of work and the judgement criteria currently used for assessment require a portfolio. These revised Project Record sheets provide opportunities for the sponsor to „sign-off‟ on an individual‟s „professional capability through the production of documentary evidence of practical experience‟. Furthermore, the sheets may also include information on „professional competence and knowledge of professional practice‟ that is the core practice area competencies currently assessed in the interview. This is not to say that the Project record Sheets should replace the interview but rather that they could complement the interview and allow the graduate chart their progress in these areas as they gained project experience. Refer Appendix F for a sample Revised Project Record Sheet

11. NZILA Associate Workshops

Branches currently hold Associate workshops, although graduates most frequently attend these in the year that they submit their application. (As an aside it is noted that a number of graduates do not even join the Institute until a few months before

28

they submit their application.) They provide great value for applicants who are guided through the process and can talk to new Associate members and view their portfolios. Some branches or individuals within branches go further; Alan Titchener in Hawkes Bay/Manawatu Branch holds mock interviews that have benefited a number of local graduates. Graduates who have embarked on the proposed Associate process must attend at least two Branch Associate workshops, one each year for the period of project experience i.e. they engage with the process early in the 90 weeks rather than at the end of the 90 weeks. They also must attend at least one (self-employed at least two) group sponsor /mentor workshops each year in conjunction with „Young Graduates‟ peer groups. The suggestion is that a small number of corporate members within the branch become joint sponsors of the graduates (effectively the second sponsor) and workshop project sheets and work examples with the group of graduates. The corporate members gain CPD points, a relationship with the graduates and the opportunity to view new skills and practices. The graduates get advice and suggestions from „impartial‟ senior landscape architects, and have the opportunity to share information and workshop project sheets. This system places an obligation on the profession (and the branch) to organise the group sponsors but it is seen as more sustainable than finding a dedicated mentor for each graduate, especially as graduate numbers continue to grow. It also requires the graduates to organise themselves and mutually support each other.

12 Work Examples

It is recommended that the Portfolio as the single means of communicating competency to the Panel be replaced by work examples. Given that the scope of landscape architectural work has extended well beyond „plans and drawings‟ it might be argued that even the title gave the Portfolio a status way beyond its value. Under the proposed process, the bulk of the assessment schedules and project documentation is „signed-off‟ over the 90week period prior to application. A number of work examples (no more than 5) submitted to the Panel give an overview of work experience and provide a means of conveying information about process for the discussions between candidate and the Panel in the interview. Work could be initially submitted to the Panel as a Powerpoint display, on a cd, in a workbook or in a reduced portfolio depending on the nature and scope of the work.

13 Associate Application Rather than the NZILA Proposer and Seconder required under the Constitution (2.4), it is recommended that the terms Sponsor and Mentor be used. The graduate‟s work based sponsor (or mentor for the sole landscape architect) and one of the group sponsors would sign the application form. Signing the application form is not to be taken lightly. As stated in the Constitution, „A corporate member signing an application must certify personal knowledge of the candidate and full conviction of the candidate‟s suitability for admission or transfer to the category specified on the application.‟ The sponsors become responsible for the verification of the applicant‟s ability and readiness to become an Associate.

29

An NZILA sponsor statement might look like this: ‘I endorse and sponsor the candidate for Associate membership and certify that I have personal knowledge of the professional ability and character, methods of practice, and experience of the applicant. To the best of my knowledge the candidate has satisfied the requirements for Associate membership, and observes and upholds the NZILA Code of Professional Conduct. I understand that the Chair of the NZILA Associateship Membership Panel may contact me to discuss the application. Refer to Appendix G for NZILA Constitution 2.4 and for examples of other Sponsor Statements.

14. Interview

As discussed earlier in this report, the interview process requires a considerable commitment and places a considerable responsibility on a few people. The proposed use of sponsors, and having elements of core practice areas signed off prior to the interview reduces the workload of the Panel. However there are opportunities to spread the load even further and at the same time make the process less expensive and cumbersome for the candidates by increasing the number of Panels (more Panels with different personnel). It is suggested that Interviews are held twice every year, at 6 month intervals, provisionally alternating between Auckland and Wellington with one Panel in the South Island every second year. Panels could be intermixed, or Panel chairs rotated to ensure continuity and national consistency. There are also opportunities to balance the interview Panel with members who specialise in the same area as the candidates. As an example, Chartered Professional Engineers are assessed for competence in the practice area they have chosen; practice areas are particular to each CPEng, and may include unique mixes of competencies. The Assessors will be engineers who are specialised in the same sphere of expertise. It is suggested that these Interview Panels are also used for individuals claiming reciprocity, although this would require a different range of questions.

15. Post Interview

The existing process of informing candidates of the outcome of the examination is linked in with the timing of Executive meetings; it may take up to 5 or 6 weeks before candidates receive a letter from NZILA telling them the outcome of the process. This in not acceptable and it is recommended that all candidates be phoned and advised of the outcome of their interview within 1 week of the Panel completing deliberations. In theory, the revised process with sign off by two corporate members prior to the interview should not result in any „not yet competent‟ candidates. In practice life is different and the examination process is not an exact science. The candidate may not interview well or the sponsors may not get it right. So the process requires a follow-up, with an unsuccessful candidate getting clear guidelines where they went wrong and what areas need strengthening and how this might be achieved. The Panel will have the expertise to ascertain the most appropriate solution for the candidate. Resubmission may require a little more work or specific CPD.

30

Candidates may be referred back to their sponsor or mentor who is independently contacted by the Panel with a list of recommendations to be followed through. The Panel may feel that the candidate does not need another interview, and resubmission may be able to be achieved within 1 month of the first interview. On the other hand if the Panel feels that more experience is needed, they may request the candidate to reapply in a year. In short, the process should be flexible enough for the Panel to be allowed to provide innovative and supportive solutions that enable a candidate meet the standard and to successfully pass the examination and become an Associate.

16. Annual Associateship Report NZILA Executive sends out an annual report on the Associate examinations, detailing numbers of successful applicants and providing an overview of the range of work seen. The report may be phased to coincide with the AGM and conference, or mid-point between Panels. This provides general feedback to candidates, to members engaged in sponsoring or mentoring and to the wider membership.

17. Resourcing the Proposed Restructured Process

Feedback from a number of the professional organisations that were contacted is that restructuring must be well resourced to be successful. There is simply no point instituting new procedures and processes if they are not adequately serviced eg if training is not made available, if the website is not up to scratch, if there is no money available to prepare the documentation or not enough members to provide the required manpower. The Landscape Institute for example noted that their Pathway process required mentors and graduates using the existing website and interactive computer system for data entry and it was not been a success. There were constant technical issues and the mentors (many of whom were unfamiliar with such processes) were expected to fill in quite complicated online evaluations and found it tedious and unresponsive. They regretted not commissioning a bespoke system that could handle the volume of traffic Refer to Appendix H for an Indicative summary of the resources that may be required to implement the revised process.

Recommendation: The existing Associate examination process be revised as outlined above to meet current practice requirements and professional expectations.

31

Summary of Revised Associate Membership Process Requirements

Time Minimum 90 weeks project experience Most graduates takes 3-5 years to amass enough work experience to feel comfortable and competent applying for Associate membership

Sponsor/Mentor Once embarked on the Associate application process, a graduate must have either: 1 sponsor (corporate member at place of employment) and 1 external sponsor (organised through branch, may sponsor a group of graduates) or 1 mentor (if self-employed or sole landscape architect at place of employment – organised by institute if required) and 1 external sponsor (organised through branch, may sponsor a group of graduates)

Graduate works with sponsor/mentor over Associate process. Sponsor signs off on each Project Record sheet.

NZILA membership

Graduate joins NZILA prior to beginning Associate membership process.

Graduate starts CPD programme at same time Overseas graduates or NZ graduates returning from

overseas have 45 weeks NZILA membership and a minimum 45 weeks membership with overseas institute/organisation.

Compulsory Core Areas

Graduate work experience (Project Record Sheets) is described in terms of 3 basic areas of practice including: Professionalism and Professional Development Legislative Context Office Administration

Specialist areas Graduate work experience covers at least 2 out of the existing 5 categories of work.

Project Record sheets

Project Record sheets covering 90 weeks project experience. Each sheet:

Is signed by sponsor on completion of the project. Has a brief reflective statement that outlines the graduate‟s

experience, what was learnt and how it influenced their professional practice in the 3 core areas and 2 specialist areas.

NZILA Branch Associate Workshops Graduate Peer Group

Applicant to attend a minimum two workshops (1 per year)

Self-organised „Young Landscape Architects‟ peer groups

within each local branch, liaise with Branch group sponsors 1-2 times each year

Application requirements

90 weeks minimum project experience 2 corporate members to sign Application Form (should be

the sponsor/mentors) and attest applicant‟s suitability for Associate Membership.

90 weeks Project Record sheets, detailing progress through core and specialist areas, signed by sponsor.

Work examples. Could be submitted as a CD or a workbook or a portfolio depending on the type of work. Used by Panel to familiarise themselves with the applicants work.

Interview Associate Interviews held 2 x year at 6 month intervals.

32

Revised Associate Membership Process Timeline

Year 1 Apply to begin Associate membership process.

Some time post graduation, preferably within 2-3 years of graduating.

Join NZILA Organise sponsors or sponsor & mentor in conjunction place

of employment and local branch. Start CPD programme Join Graduate Peer Group Start filling in Project Record sheets showing progress through

core and specialist areas. On-going process to complete & sign sheets on a 3-6 month basis.

Branch workshop Undertake NZILA Branch Associate Workshop#1

Group Mentor workshop

Liaise with Branch group mentors 1-2 times each year to discuss and workshop Project Record sheets

Year 2

Branch workshop Undertake NZILA Branch Associate Workshop#2

Branch workshop Liaise with Branch group mentors 1-2 times each year to discuss and workshop Project Record sheets

Year 2- Year 3 90 weeks Project experience completed

Year 3 Send in Associate membership application.

Send in application form, Project sheets and work examples. Form signed off by 2 corporate members who attest that the

applicant is a suitable candidate for Associate membership.

Within 1 month of application

Application scrutinised to ensure that it contains all the information required.

Applicants informed to proceed.

Within 3 months of application Interview

Interview: interviews held 2xyear at 6 monthly intervals. Panel has overview of work and opportunity for national

moderation. Applicant has opportunity to meet the Institute.

Post Interview Applicants phoned and advised of outcome within 1 week of interview.

Successful applicants receive a letter within 3 weeks of interview which details the Panel‟s decision: (a) To admit the applicant immediately, or (b) To admit the applicant, subject to suggestions or advice re particular aspects of the applicants work experience or understanding of landscape architecture.

Unsuccessful applicants receive a letter within 3 weeks of interview that details the Panel‟s decision: (a) To delay admission (for a specified period) with a recommendation for additional experience, or (b) To refuse to admit the applicant. The letter outlines issues arising from the examination process and provides direction on what action(s) they can take to improve competency in specific areas. This may include (but is not restricted to) further work experience or CPD in a specific area. Applicants may be referred back to their sponsor or mentor who is independently contacted by the Panel with a list of recommendations to be followed through.

Re-interview or Reapplication

Unsuccessful applicants have second application within 1 year of first interview. There are a number of options available, at the discretion of the Panel:

an interview in 6 months or 1 Year to a different Panel an interview in 1 year to the same Panel an interview to the same Panel if it can be reconvened at an

earlier date (i.e. all Panel members work in the same city) submit work examples to the same Panel with no requirement

for an interview.

33

Revised Associate Membership Process Flowchart

Year 1 Application Apply to begin Associate membership process some time post graduation, preferably within 2-3 years of

graduating. Join NZILA

Organise sponsors or sponsor & mentor in conjunction with place of employment and local branch.

Start CPD programme

Join Graduate Peer Group

Start filling in Project Record sheets showing progress through core and specialist areas. On-going process to complete & sign sheets on a 3-6 month basis.

Undertake NZILA Branch Associate Workshop#1

Liaise with Branch group sponsors 1-2 times each year to discuss and workshop Project Record sheets

Year 2 Undertake NZILA Branch Associate Workshop#2

Liaise with Branch group sponsors 1-2 times each year to discuss and workshop Project Record sheets

Year 1- Year 3 Complete 90 weeks project experience

Year 3 Send in Associate membership application.

Send in application form, Project Record sheets and work examples.

Form signed off by 2 corporate members who attest that the applicant is a suitable candidate for Associate membership.

Application scrutinised within 1 month of application to ensure that it contains all the information required.

Interview held within 3 months of application (interviews at 6 monthly intervals)

Panel has overview of work and opportunity for national moderation.

Applicant has opportunity to meet the Institute.

Post Interview Applicants phoned and advised of outcome within 1 week

of interview.

Successful applicants receive a letter which details the Panel‟s decision and provides advice on issues arising from the examination process.

Unsuccessful applicants receive a letter that details the Panel‟s decision, outlines issues arising from the examination process and provides direction on what action(s) they can take to improve competency in specific areas. This may include (but is not restricted to) further work experience or CPD in a specific area.

Resubmission Unsuccessful applicants resubmit with additional work

and/or a second interview, whatever the Panel assesses to be appropriate. This can occur within a timeframe set by the Panel.

34

5 REGISTRATION WHAT IS THE NZILA BRAND? NZILA has two major brands of corporate membership. Members who are Associates (Membership Category C) or Registered (Membership Category G) are deemed to be corporate members. Although these two categories are clearly defined in the constitution, there is uncertainty as to their relationship and general standing within the profession. Even their „ranking‟ within the membership categories in the constitution is misleading. Current requirements for Registration are annual CPD and an increased subscription fee to cover the administrative costs of managing and auditing the CPD scheme. In other words, the only difference between being an Associate and being registered is a minimum 15 hours of CPD and $70.73. Given the lack of recognition of landscape architectural qualifications and affiliations in general, there is no financial incentive (and many would say no professional incentive) for landscape architects to become registered. The fact that there are two categories that describe (almost) the same standard of membership has lead to:

Confusion for the public. What do these terms mean? Confusion for other professions. The term Associate in particular is used by

institutions variously to describe a graduate or an affiliate / „Friend of‟ member. Confusion for membership. It clear that a number of landscape architects still do

not know the difference between these categories and their rights and responsibilities.

It is clear that the term Associate in relation to professional institutes is almost meaningless. In contrast „Registered‟ is an internationally accepted term for a corporate member of a professional body. It implies that there is a Register of practitioners and that they have a „seal of approval‟ from their Institute. The term „Registered‟ as in Registered Landscape Architect‟ now is almost a requirement in situations such as the Environment Court where expert witnesses outline their professional credentials. Note that the titles „Fellow‟, „Honorary Fellow” and „Life‟ are effectively awards rather than membership categories. They may be used irrespective of whether a member is actively practising or retired; they should not be confused with the practice categories „Registered‟ and „Graduate‟. What to do with Associates and the term Associate? If Registration becomes the single corporate membership category for NZILA, what of the remaining 86 Associates who are not Registered and who do not appear to want to be registered? Many have stated bluntly that there is no advantage or incentive for them to become registered or that it is simply a matter of inertia. For some it is a matter of principle as they felt there was an element of compulsion in the way Registration was introduced and promoted. There have been a number of options discussed with respect to these members:

a) Retain the status quo but vigorously promote the „Registered‟ brand, particularly with regard to employment and salary standards or for giving evidence as an Expert Witness.

b) Establish a cut-off date for Associates eg by 2010 all Associates must complete

Registration requirements or be removed from the NZILA list of corporate

35

members.

c) Re-categorise all Associates, Fellows and Life Members as Registered Landscape Architects but require them to fulfil the CPD requirements. Those who have not completed the minimum CPD hours by 2011 will thereafter be removed from the NZILA list of corporate members.

d) Re-categorise all Associates, Fellows and Life Members as Registered Landscape

Architects. Those who fulfil the CPD requirements will be issued Annual Practicing Certificates.

Each of these options has inherent problems. If it accepted that Registration is to be the flagship NZILA brand, it must include a component of on-going professional development. There will be a more detailed discussion of CPD in another section of this report, but almost without exception, all institutes recognise that professional development is essential to professional practice and is a fundamental component of any recognised quality management programme. NZILA does not want to further alienate and lose experienced practitioners if it can be avoided. If members have still not fulfilled CPD requirements after a year as a Registered Landscape Architect, what happens to them? Do they keep working as landscape architects outside NZILA? Does NZILA retain the term Associate to mean a lesser level member? The registration model used by New Zealand engineers and architects provides an alternative solution. The Institute of Professional Engineers of New Zealand reviewed its registration process in 2003 and the first group of Chartered Professional Engineers were re-registered after 5 years in December 2008. Due to Chartered Engineers unique legal responsibilities and requirement to keep up with changing legislation, IPENZ re-registration (known as Current Competence Assessment) is competency based. Engineers are required to submit a complete work document demonstrating their professional experience and competence over the previous 5 years, and may be interviewed. The New Zealand Registered Architects Board introduced a revised registration system in 2006 when 1500 architects were re-registered for a 5-year period. Although the NZRAB process is not yet finalised, it is most likely that registration will roll over for architects who have acquired 1000 CPD points over 5 years. Those who have not achieved the required level of CPD will be assessed for re-registration (or Continuing Registration as it is known), probably using a Competence Review process similar to that used for the initial Registration. Given NZILA membership numbers and resources, it might seem that the 5-year registration process would be a useful model for the Institute to follow. It allows a generous period of time for the more obdurate members to get used to the concept of CPD and has mechanisms for an alternative mechanism to assess the competence of members who have not fulfilled their CPD requirements. On the other hand it merely defers the hard issue of what to do with Associates who choose not to report or to undertake CPD for another five years.

Option Pro Con

a) Retain the status quo but vigorously promote the „Registered‟ brand,

Does not disadvantage existing Associates who have „passed the standard‟ and gained

Has been tried before and does not work as there is incentive for members to upgrade.

36

corporate status.

Diminishes the Registration brand.

Antithesis of concept of professionalism

Antithesis of the concept of „maintaining‟ competency & currency.

b) Establish a cut-off date for Associates to apply for Registration or be removed from the NZILA list of corporate members.

Provides some incentive for Associates to become Registered.

Heavy handed approach –big stick rather than carrot.

Requires a pro-active approach for existing Associates

NZILA may lose a number of experienced members

c) Re-categorise all corporate members as Registered then require them to maintain CPD.

Encourages Associates to maintain CPD

Acknowledges that most of them undertake CPD but don‟t report it.

Associates gain Registration without having to have undertaken any CPD over the last 10 years of Registration

NZILA may lose a number of experienced members after the first year of the scheme.

Members who have been registered for the last 10 years put on equal footing with those who have remained Associates.

d) Re-categorise all corporate members as Registered. Those who fulfil CPD requirements will be issued Annual Practicing Certificates.

Does not disadvantage existing Associates

Even more confusion between Registered members and Registered members with annual practicing certificates.

Diminishes the brand „Registered‟ as Associates gain status without CPD

e) Re-categorise corporate members as Registered. Allow 5 years to establish a CPD programme or undergo a competence review

Allows time for Associates to engage in CPD programme.

Provides alternative for CPD in form of competency assessment.

Defers the issue of non-complying Associates.

Members required to review and report 5 years of CPD

Registrar required to review 5 years CPD

Panel to assess those who opt not to report CPD

It is recommended that the Institute proceed with the option that provides the most incentive for Associates to engage with the CPD programme but that creates a single, recognisable and internationally understood Registered brand for corporate membership, Option C.

Recommendation: All existing Associates and Fellows be re-categorised as Registered in 2010. They will be required subsequently to report their CPD annually in order to remain a Registered Landscape Architect.

37

Recommendation: The membership category ‘Associate’ is dropped and NZILA adopt the term ‘Registered Landscape Architect’ as the one brand of corporate membership. Members will be listed on the Consultant Landscape Architects list as either Registered or Graduate.

There remains only the question of Registered members who resign in good faith and who at some later point in time request to become Registered again. This could be for a variety of reasons: parental leave, moving overseas, poor health etc. In these circumstances, it needs to be asked how long it takes to lose currency, and how can competency be re-assessed. It is noted that both the architectural registration board and the professional engineers use a system where registration is gained by demonstrating competence, which is re-assessed for currency at intervals not exceeding five years. Members could become Registered again by a range of mechanisms including:

a) Demonstrating that CPD requirements have been fulfilled over this period of time b) Demonstrating competency through an interview and examples of current work. c) Having competency signed-off by NZILA Registered endorsers d) A mix of a), b) and c).

Rather than make a recommendation, it is suggested that the issue of re-registration, its period of currency and the mechanisms of demonstrating competence are discussed in the branch workshops that are to be held in the Proposed Consultation Process for Phase 2 of Membership Review.

6 GRADUATES Graduates are the future of NZILA; the 258 Graduate members are the largest member group in the Institute, the life force of many branches and they are all potential corporate members. The three educational providers in New Zealand currently produce 70-80 new graduates every year, and approximately 25% of these join the institute. The on-going growth and health of the Institute was not directly identified as a concern in the brief for this Membership Review. But it is implicit in all the issues that were identified: the growing number of Graduate 5 (G5+) members who are not applying for Associateship; reciprocity; Registration and CPD; and how well the current Associateship process serves the applicants, the profession, and employers. If the Institute wants to „build the professional community‟7 it must be seen to be meaningful to the profession. The most obvious starting point is early engagement with graduates in order to nurture, encourage and support them through their first professional years. When new graduates apply for membership, they receive a welcome letter, the Volume I Documentation folder and a new graduate booklet. The documentation folder has hardcopy of the information on the members only area of the website. The Institute should take a more proactive stance by approaching every new graduate, congratulating them on joining the profession and inviting them to join NZILA. They should receive documents on the Associate (or Registered) membership process including information on Project Record sheets and how to acquire a sponsor or a mentor. In short, they should be made aware of the requirements for the Associate process before they go overseas or set out in

7 Phrase lifted from the LI Review.

38

sole practice so that they can start charting and reflecting on their ongoing practice experience.

Recommendation: NZILA send a welcome pack to all graduating landscape architects that explains NZILA’s objectives, encourages them to join the Institute and provides information on Application documents and copies of Project Record sheets for corporate membership.

Recommendation: Graduates have free NZILA membership for the first year after Graduation.

There is also potential to provide more support these graduates as a group. For example IPENZ has a graduate group, „engenerate‟. This is “a new initiative that assists young engineers in its Membership. Its goals are to simplify the path to competence tested membership and/or registration, provide a facility for starting and/or continuing with structured professional development and create opportunities for networking. engenerate participants can get together within their local regions for events and activities. These can range from a casual beer and pizza evening to training in contract law! The website contains information structured to support young engineers with competence assessments and career development.”8 While NZILA does not have the resources to set up an organisational structure on this scale, there are opportunities at branch level to facilitate graduate peer support groups. This would be a particular benefit for graduates working by themselves. or in practices/organisations where they are the sole landscape architect. This may only mean sharing phone/email lists and providing portfolio workshops but could extend to more formalised events such as group mentoring, workshopping project record sheets, graduate focussed CPD and graduate „show and tell‟ (2x2) events.

Recommendation: Branches should provide resources for Graduates to set up peer support groups.

Terminology There has been some negative feedback on the term Graduate, especially from those 152 members who graduated 5 or more years previously and are designated Graduate5. It is generally based around two issues. Landscape architects who are registered/chartered/ full members of their professional organisations from overseas resent being labelled Graduates. Likewise landscape architects in the Graduate 5 category, the oldest of whom graduated in 1977, feel that the title Graduate is derogatory and does not indicate their range of experience and knowledge. The proposed reciprocity process will appease members in the first category; they will only be required to have worked in New Zealand for one year before being able to apply for corporate membership. If they need to outline their professional qualifications over this one-year period, they can choose GradNZILA or can use the designatory letters of their country of origin qualifications. Graduate5 members Without detailed analysis it is not possible to give a breakdown of the profile for the Graduate5 members. Some have delayed applying for Associateship until they feel they

8 From IPENZ engenerate website

39

have enough work experience to fulfil requirements. Some have applied for Associateship but have not passed the examination. Others are just not interested in the benefits of corporate membership. The LI used to use the term „Associate‟ for graduates who were in the process of applying for Chartership but now uses the term Licentiate, believing that it more accurately describes one who is on the pathway to Chartership. However most institutes and organisations use the term „Graduate‟ as it gives a clear and universally understood description of that category of member i.e. a person who has graduated but has not yet attained corporate membership. Whether or not NZILA chooses to approve the recommendation to drop the category „Associate‟, the word has a history in the life of the Institute and it is considered confusing to employ the term in any other capacity. In summary, there is no advantage to the Institute to create another membership category for experienced graduates that can only add to public confusion. There is also no advantage to allow a graduate landscape architect with 5 or more years of experience who has the opportunity to apply for corporate membership and chooses not to, to have a special label Graduate5 or Graduate5+. It is understood that the terms Graduate 1,2,3,4,5 were always intended for internal use. Graduate 5 was specifically introduced in order to eliminate subscription differences between associates and graduates who had been in the graduate membership category for five years, in order to discourage graduates from sitting semi–permanently in the graduate category.

Recommendation: Graduate members should be shown on the NZILA website consultant landscape architects list and on any printed directory as ‘Graduate’. The Graduate membership level (G1- G5+) is for internal use only.

40

7 STUDENTS There has been no feedback on student membership. However it is very likely that the Institute is not very meaningful for students at this stage of their life, and many of them will move into other occupations than landscape architecture. In line with the notes on Graduate Membership, the earlier the Institute engages with student landscape architects, the better. There are opportunities for reinforcing the existing relationships Auckland, Wellington and Canterbury branches have established with educational providers with communication from the Executive in the form of emails or newsletters, regardless of membership or not. It is anticipated that the practice support documentation currently in production will be made available to student members as a training resource for use under the direction of a suitably qualified member

Recommendation: NZILA should investigate establishing a permanent line of communication with landscape architecture students that allows the Institute to explain its objectives and encourages them to engage with the profession.

8 NEW MEMBERSHIP CATEGORY ‘NON-ACTIVE’ A small number of landscape architects have commented on the lack of category for someone who is an Associate, has not retired but has subsequently moved into a new area of employment such as planning, ecology, recreation and participatory landscape architecture (landscape architecture in the community). They no longer work as a landscape architect or at least no longer define their primary profession as landscape architecture. This occurs most frequently for people working government departments and territorial and regional authorities. They may have re-trained or moved sideways into a parallel occupation that has closer links to another profession. While landscape architecture is not their primary source of income, they have the opportunity to make a difference and even have a profound impact on landscape issues. Some of these people are members of a number of institutes and, while money isn't the issue, they wish to retain links with NZILA but would prefer to pay a lower level of subscription fees. Neither the Affiliate or nor the Retired Member categories give an accurate description of these members. The New Zealand Planning Institute has a „Non-Active Member‟ category that means any member who is not currently a practicing professional planner. IPENZ has an Affiliate category for existing members „ who by reason of a permanent substantial change in career are no longer associated with engineering or technology may apply to transfer to the Affiliate class of Membership.‟ If NZILA wants a strong membership base with active, engaged members, it should consider creating a new Membership category, Non-Active Member, which acknowledges rather than penalises such career changes. Non-Active Members would not appear on the Consultants Register. Note that the Non-Active Member category would not cover Associate members who choose not to retain professional currency and competence and who do not retain Registration. But it may include people who opt to ‘stand down’ for a few years and not

41

complete the annual CPD requirements. For example, AILA have an ‘On Leave’ status where a member may be granted leave from full membership for home duties, maternity duties or similar circumstances. Other special cases may be granted from time to time such as special study leave for full time study or during periods of no paid employment either through landscape architecture or allied professional activities. The On Leave Status means that the member retains all entitlements but at a reduced rate of membership.

Recommendation: A new membership category ‘Non-Active Member’ is introduced for a corporate member who by reason of a permanent substantial change in career or a temporary ‘stand down’, no longer practises landscape architecture or receives their primary income from landscape architecture.

The fee reduction is an issue. But numbers are not great and it is preferable to retain the goodwill and self-perceived collegiality of these experienced landscape architects than to have them resign altogether. Assessment would have to done on a case-by-case basis, based mainly on their integrity and professionalism. For example they would need to affirm that their primary income is not derived from landscape architecture. It may be that they forgo the LNZ magazine and have a reduced fee based on receiving Insite. It is difficult to predict the future but it is likely that there will be more mix and match qualifications and career changes. Perhaps even, in a changing economy, people will switch back and forth between professions (eg planning and landscape architecture) depending on where jobs and money lie. The starting point should always be that the Institute wants to strengthen its membership and forge alliances with other professions, rather than exclude people who do not fit neatly into existing membership categories.

9 RECIPROCITY

NZILA has limited reciprocity with the Australian and Hong Kong Institutes. Otherwise, it is standard practice to require corporate members of other recognised landscape architectural institutes and organisations to work in New Zealand for a minimum of one year and complete the full Associateship membership process. i.e. they are treated as „Graduate‟ landscape architects. A review of allied professional bodies and overseas landscape architecture institutes indicates a range of responses to reciprocity, although a number of these organisations note that they are reviewing their policy, due in the main to the trend of the international labour market and the global movement of young professionals. ILFLA has an on-going project concerning the „Feasibility of International Guidelines for Equivalency and Reciprocity of Qualifications for LIS Professionals‟ and a report was to be published at the end of 2008. The European Union is leading the way, as EU directives mean that an EU national who is fully qualified in one EU member state, has reciprocity in any other EU member state. This has provided a catalyst for the Landscape Institute to review its own reciprocity policies. Subsequent to its 2006 membership review, the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects amended its reciprocity policy to create a fast-track process to Registration for full members of overseas institutes. The revised reciprocity process requires an AILA Registered landscape architect to sponsor and support the applicant, but allows the

42

sponsor to recommend wavering the full 12 months local work experience if deemed unnecessary. LI is liasing with AILA to monitor the outcomes of these changes. Within New Zealand, only the IPENZ CMEng qualification (engineers) requires the same competency based assessment for every applicant, no matter what background, training or experience they have. Most other organisations have a streamlined membership process for corporate members of recognised overseas institutes. Major requirements for assessment usually include are at least one years work experience in that country, knowledge of the local cultural, legal (and natural history) context and some form of competency sign-off from local sponsor /mentor /referees.

Reciprocity Requirements for Other Professional Organisations AILA

NZILA has direct reciprocity AILA. Requires a full member to sponsor i.e. assess the applicant‟s eligibility and be prepared to provide support to the applicant during the evaluation procedure. Generally landscape architecture qualifications obtained overseas should be from courses recognised by the relevant institute or association of landscape architects, being a member of IFLA. However, this in itself is not sufficient for entry to the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects. A final recommendation for equivalence can only be given after a completed application form has been received and assessed by the AILA. The Applicant is required to have been working in Australia as a landscape architect for 12 months minimum prior to being assessed for AILA full professional membership though this requirement may be varied depending on the seniority of the applicant. All AILA applications are subject to any residency requirements and usually require a brief interview or assessment process as each application is assessed on a case by case basis once the completed application has been received. They note on their website: Please note that in providing recognition for overseas qualifications and for members of other institutes, there are many variations of circumstances - we have provided forms for the most frequent cases. If in doubt, make contact with the national office. The AILA encourages landscape architects with overseas qualifications and/or who are 'full professional members' of their overseas institute to apply to be professionally recognised by the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects. The term 'full professional member' is used here as each country uses different terms to describe their fully recognised professional members; e.g. chartered, registered etc.

IPENZ Chartered Engineers from recognised overseas institutions may be granted reciprocity in the form of Professional membership. However, no matter what their training, background or qualifications, individuals must undergo the same process to apply for CPEng status.

43

Landscape Institute

The LI is reviewing their reciprocity policy. Currently LI do not offer reciprocity at the fully qualified level, unless applicant is an EU national and fully qualified in another EU member state, in which case they will be covered by EU directives. LI automatically admit to Licentiate membership anyone who has a qualification recognised by the IFLA Central Region, New Zealand, Australia, Canada or the USA. These landscape architects will still need to take the Pathway to Chartership. However, the Pathway takes into account prior learning and so those who are fully qualified in other countries will normally be able to progress to UK chartership in a relatively brief period of time. The main areas they will need to cover over and above the knowledge they bring with them will be UK law and contexts.

NZICA

There are full reciprocal arrangements, for members of the CA College, with the following bodies:

Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales (ICAEW)

Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS)

Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ireland (ICAI)

Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants

Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia (ICAA)

South African Institute of Chartered Accountants (SAICA)

Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants (HKICPA)

Currently full members of the above bodies need to complete degree level papers in New Zealand law and New Zealand taxation in order to become full members of this Institute.

NZPI Overseas planners need three Full NZPI members to sign form and must have a minimum of three years planning experience of which at least one year must be in New Zealand.

Full member of the NZPI is automatically entitled to the equivalent status with the Planning Institute of Australia.

NZPI Full members can apply for corporate membership with the Royal Town Planning Institute and are only required to complete their distance-learning test of UK Planning Law and Practice and be sponsored by appropriately qualified planners.

NZIA

Where an applicant has been a registered architect in Canada, South Africa, the UK and the USA there is a more streamlined registration path, different from registrations from other countries. These architects must: - spend a minimum 45 weeks under the direction of a Registered

Architect in New Zealand or Australia. - pass a Practical Experience Assessment, Interview to ensure that

the applicant is capable of practicing architecture, including as a sole practitioner, with skill and care, in conformity with the standard of the practice of architecture in New Zealand.

44

NZILA Feedback from a number of landscape architects, some corporate members of the LI or the Canadian institute and some NZ trained graduates working in the UK for Chartership, is that lack of reciprocity is an issue. It appears not to be a problem as far as employment goes, but experienced landscape architects resent the “indignity of having to re-sit the Associateship exam as if they were a graduate.”9 A number of former Presidents and Chairs of the Associate Membership Panels have been contacted during the Membership review process. Two former Presidents were under the impression that there was some form of streamlined reciprocity for corporate members of overseas institutes. At least one NZILA member, a Chartered Landscape Architect from the United Kingdom, gained Associate membership in a streamlined process that involved an interview with the Associate Membership Panel but no portfolio. A FNZILA landscape architect sponsored the applicant. A review of NZILA documentation on Reciprocity does not provide clarity.

NZILA Articles of Constitution 2.3 Qualification for election The qualifications for election to the various categories of membership shall be as

follows: (c) Associate A person who:

(1) has at least two but preferably three years practical experience in landscape architecture of a nature acceptable to the Committee of which at least one year must have been completed in New Zealand; and

(2) has either - (i) passed the examination of the Institute or a recognised

examination, or (ii) been admitted to a grade of membership acceptable to the

Committee of an association, institute or body concerned with landscape architecture which the Committee may from time-to-time recognise.

(3) has passed an examination in professional practice after completing the period of practical experience required in (1) above.

NZILA Operational Procedures and Protocols 1.6.1 Associate Membership Procedures

Application procedures and requirements are clearly set out in the relevant official documents supplied to all student members upon graduation, and to any other applicant. During the years of practice leading up to associateship, on-going mentoring is offered to any graduate member who desires it (see 1.12). In exceptional circumstances (e.g. highly qualified and recognised overseas), the Executive Committee may accept an associate membership application, without taking NZILA‟s examination process. (2004)

9 Quote from member feedback

45

Application Pack for Associate Membership 7(c) Acceptable grades of membership

Corporate members of recognised institutes and bodies may be accepted as associate members of the NZILA once they have applied for membership, completed the appropriate New Zealand practical experience requirements, and satisfied the Associate Membership Panel of their adequate knowledge of New Zealand law and practice relating to landscape architecture.

One interpretation of these requirements is that corporate members of recognised institutes need only have worked in New Zealand for at least 1 year, before they are able to sit the professional practice interview. It is also noted that under section 2.4 of the Constitution, every application for a change in membership status or admission to the Institute requires the signature of two corporate members. „An application for admission or transfer shall be signed by a proposer and a seconder who shall both be corporate members. A corporate member signing an application must certify personal knowledge of the candidate and full conviction of the candidate‟s suitability for admission or transfer to the category specified on the application.‟ Although it is important to maintain the rigour of the existing Associate membership process, the professional competency of these practitioners has been assessed in their country of origin. Their body of work and practical experience is not in question. The requirement is to satisfy the examination panel of their knowledge of local context. This can be achieved through the interview and the sponsorship of two NZILA corporate members. At the same time it is to the Institute‟s advantage to engage with these practitioners and have them as full members within the organisation rather than remain outside it. On face value, existing documentation makes provision for full members of overseas recognised institutes to become corporate members of NZILA without having to submit a portfolio of project work examples or have their work experience assessed.

Recommendation: Landscape architects with overseas qualifications and/or who are 'full professional members' of their overseas institute should be encouraged to apply to be recognised by the New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects.

Recommendation: NZILA should introduce a reciprocity policy that enables a fast-track process for full members of overseas recognised institutes to become corporate members of NZILA. If this is not possible within the existing documentation framework, the NZILA Constitution and Operational Procedures and Protocols should be amended to create a streamlined reciprocity policy. Those seeking corporate membership in the NZILA must:

a) Work in New Zealand for a minimum of 1 year. b) Have the sponsorship of 2 corporate NZILA members c) Satisfy an examining panel of their professional competence and

knowledge of professional practice through undergoing an interview.

It would be possible to assess an applicant‟s knowledge of local context in natural history, legislation and cultural practices via an examination. Alternatively there is potential for Lincoln, Unitec or Victoria to run an extramural paper that would assess this. The first option requires resourcing to write the exam and to mark it. The second option would need funding and a commitment from NZILA for a tertiary training organisation to even consider initiating a new course.

46

10 CROSS-CREDITED QUALIFICATIONS The Institute regularly fields enquiries from people who wish to join the institute as graduate or corporate members but who do not have landscape architectural degrees. The issue of membership for practitioners who have not come into the profession via a recognised landscape architectural training provider has always been difficult in New Zealand. The original postgraduate landscape architectural diploma was founded at Lincoln at the same time as a number of other related landscape design qualifications were underway. The Institute ran a grandfather programme for a while where they provided opportunities for a range of people to become corporate members, either through examination or competency- based assessment. However the common denominator was that all applicants had come through some form of design training.

„At the 1998 AGM, a remit was passed to delete the „grandfather clause‟ or 12-year clause from the Constitution. However, with appropriate qualifications and experience and the completion of a one-year Masters course could then allow graduate membership of NZILA.‟10 Core curriculum The NZILA accreditation requirement was that a landscape architectural programme must have a core curriculum consisting of an academic knowledge base and a professional skills base. NZILA will support programmes that foster links with fields of study allied to landscape architecture, so long as the core of landscape architecture knowledge and skills is maintained in a coherent fashion. Diversity in landscape architecture programmes is encouraged so that specialist disciplinary knowledge becomes available to the profession.11 Students may choose to specialise in their final years of study but not at the expense of the core studies. Studio space and time in the studio were seen as essential elements of a landscape architectural programme when early discussions on NZILA accreditation policy took place in the 1990‟s. Landscape management and planning are also core components of the curriculum but the heart of the landscape architectural qualification has always been the overarching design component, and more specifically the design studio. This is what differentiates a landscape architect from a planner or, to a lesser extent, an urban designer – the underlying mix of the educational curriculum. This is fundamental to proposed changes to Associate/Corporate membership requirements and the specialist versus generalist debate. The argument is that all graduates have a similar background with core training in both design and landscape planning. The Institute does not need to assess their competency in design or in landscape planning because it has already been assessed and approved at tertiary level. They should be able to choose to specialise, when they enter the profession, because they have that underlying training. Mix and Match Qualifications As noted in the Associate or Corporate Membership section of the report, the Institute must consider prospective opportunities for „mix and match‟ qualifications. The School of

10

NZILA Operational Procedures and Policies 11

NZILA Draft Accreditation Policy 2001

47

Landscape Architecture at Lincoln University has recently proposed the introduction of a number of Minors in Landscape Architecture. Students will be able complete their BLA in the usual way, meeting all of the NZILA accreditation competencies, but will take specific courses that will enable them to credit a minor, rather than just taking 'random' courses for their elective choices. A programme comprising a planning based minor, a postgraduate year, and some of the BLA core would be able to meet the NZPI accreditation requirements. This has the potential to create a gateway for landscape architectural students to attain both NZILA and NZPI membership, although there is no reciprocal path for planning students to attain NZILA membership due to the more onerous design studio requirements. However there is nothing to stop a planning graduate completing a Masters course in Landscape Architecture, and a number of people do so. The point is that the decision re who can sit what paper is made at the tertiary provider level, where there are excellent systems in place to determine equivalence and areas of competency. There is also a school of thought, expressed in a number of emails, that many landscape graduates moved house and family, gave up well paid jobs and made sacrifices to train/retrain themselves in Lincoln, Unitec or Victoria landscape architectural programmes. They are not in favour of opening the membership to a wider range of qualifications – they feel that there are existing opportunities for people to gain/earn/undertake the requirements for corporate membership and that fast-tracking demeans the qualification. This is very different from reciprocity, which is about landscape architects who have already been recognised as competent and qualified corporate members by a recognised landscape architectural organisation. What do other organisations do? In each of these 3 examples there is an „exceptional‟ rule, usually for people who have arrived from overseas or for long standing practitioners with no formal qualification. AILA Membership AILA have a Senior Entry rule for individuals having the equivalent qualifications or experience, who does not possess the qualification from an AILA accredited tertiary course, may have their mix of qualifications and experience assessed as to whether it is equivalent to having an AILA recognised qualification. As a general rule the expectation would be that the applicant would have close to or more than ten years experience as a landscape architect and would be able to produce documentation and other evidence of their level of expertise and experience. Exceptions may include a mixture of several relevant university qualifications and at least 7 or more years of total landscape architecture experience together with letters of support from senior/registered landscape architects. If equivalence is granted, the full application for registered membership may be considered. Landscape Institute Completion of an accredited or otherwise recognised course should continue to be the primary route to the Licentiate grade. However individuals who hold alternative qualifications and/or experience should continue to be able to apply for consideration for Licentiate membership via the Membership Panel. Other applicants for Licentiate membership will be assessed by the Membership Panel on the basis of their qualification and experience (similar to existing arrangements for the current Associate grade).

48

Note that the system allows these individuals to enrol (as graduates or licentiates) in the Pathway 2 Chartership programme, where they can be individually mentored for a number of years prior to undergoing the final interview. The background to this is that there are a number of (unqualified) people who have been practicing as landscape architects for many years and they have been given the opportunity to be assessed on their merits, rather than dismissed due to lack of formal qualifications. IPENZ Engineers from overseas (who do not have Chartered status or equivalent) usually apply for IPENZ membership when they arrive. This way they acquire on-line access to tools for developing competency, and usually develop a rapport with a Professional Member who can act as a referee. They have then developed their skills in mentored employment for 4 to 5 years after which they will undergo an IPENZ competence assessment to reach the class of Professional Member (MIPENZ). Note that the system allows these individuals graduate status. They must be individually mentored for 4-5 prior to undergoing the final assessment. This system has been provided to accommodate a number of overseas engineers who arrive with qualifications that are difficult to assess. Should NZILA provide a mechanism for ‘Exceptional’ Membership? There are a number of landscape related courses in New Zealand. Lincoln has a one year postgraduate Diploma in Landscape Studies. Victoria is looking at introducing a 5 year Masters Landscape qualification that allows enrolled students to exit at Year 3 with a degree, provisionally called Bachelor of Landscape Studies. This raises a number of questions; what happens to graduates from such a course? Should they be able to apply for graduate membership, or work for a number of years and apply for corporate membership under a competency-based assessment? The situation becomes more complex once people who have trained overseas apply for membership. It becomes extremely difficult to decide who is eligible. Verification may require as little as looking up an IFLA database or as much as requiring a complete course by course breakdown of an applicant‟s degree qualifications plus a statement from their professional institute. In addition, the qualifications would need to be supplemented with a competency-based assessment, that is an examination of the work and competence of the applicant by an NZILA panel. Unless they could show qualifications in these areas, applicants would have to be assessed across the range of both design and planning, and would be required to demonstrate competence at a high level. They would require some form of verification from several senior practitioners. The NZILA grandfather clause has been and gone. There are opportunities for long-standing local practitioners (there is at least 1) and people from overseas to retrain in by enrolment in a Masters course that may be achieved over a number of years with at least some study taken off campus. The benefits of providing a mechanism for „exceptional‟ membership are not strong or tangible enough to outweigh the real disadvantages of aggravating existing corporate members and the costs of creating more detailed assessment criteria.

49

Recommendation: Completion of an accredited landscape architectural programme should remain the primary requirement for Graduate membership. People who have come into the profession from other routes and with other qualifications should be encouraged to take more advanced study in a recognised programme in order to complete their landscape architectural qualifications.

There are a number of potential alternatives.

a) Given the existing „post graduate‟ status of urban design, and the range of professions who work in urban design, it is likely that urban designers will form their own professional institute. It is unlikely that they will see NZILA as their parent group. They already have a parent group they gain support from - see reference to the Urban Design Forum below.

b) Create a new membership category such as Affiliated Professionals or Allied

Professionals for the Institute. The existing Affiliate category has been used as a catchall for non landscape architects, a „Friends of‟ group if you like. However the question must be asked whether this actually benefits the Institute or the person applying for membership or the profession.

c) Encourage potential applicants for membership to stay within their professional

organization but promote cross-institutional relationships and the creation of umbrella organisations. For example there are at least 2 such organisations operating in different areas in New Zealand.

Urban Design Forum. The Urban Design Forum was established in 2002 to

foster and promote urban design in New Zealand. It is modelled after a similar group in Australia; UDF membership is open to all professionals, academics, and individuals interested in creating better cities and towns. The New Zealand urban design Forum is jointly sponsored and supported by: - The New Zealand Institute of Architects (NZIA) - The New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects (NZILA) - The New Zealand Institute of Surveyors (NZIS) - The New Zealand Planning Institute (NZPI) - The Institute of Professional Engineers of New Zealand (IPENZ)

Resource Management Law Association of New Zealand. Established in October 1992, the RMLA was formed to provide a forum for all professionals and others with an interest in resource management and the environment. The object of the Association shall be to promote within New Zealand.

Cultural Heritage Landscape Group. The Heritage Landscape Group has been established under the umbrella of the NZILA, and, while its membership includes Landscape Architects, it welcomes the involvement of others in associated disciplines

d) There is potential for a group with a more holistic „sustainable design‟ overview that

brings together the professions that are found in a number of landscape practices: landscape architects, planners, ecologists and urban designers. Such an umbrella organisation could be used to promote these collective professions, none of which have a high profile in public consciousness.

50

11 CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Professional development has two components: individual experience gained in the course of a career according to employment circumstances and the body of work undertaken; and continuing education or CPD which is study undertaken by individuals to extend or update their knowledge or to prepare them to meet changes in the profession. There is general acceptance that the CPD component is an integral part of any professional organisation‟s recognised quality management programme and that CPD is an integral component of every professional‟s career. In other words, professionals are expected to keep up-to-date with all aspects of their practicing areas of expertise. NZILA Current Practice NZILA operate a CPD Programme For Registration. Members must fulfil the annual completion of CPD activities that equate to a minimum of 15 weighted points to gain Registered status. This is the equivalent of about 20 hours CPD per year. As the programme documentation notes: „The scheme is voluntary and self-monitoring and will rely on the honesty and integrity of all member participants.‟ Members‟ Personal CPD Plan and Record Sheets are submitted at the time of payment of annual fees. The Registrar reviews each member‟s CPD record and successful members are issued an annual registration certificate, and placed on the Registered NZILA Landscape Architects List. This list is one of three Practitioners‟ Lists (Registered NZILA Landscape Architects; Consultants and Public Sector Landscape Architects) supplied on the website, for inclusion in Landscape New Zealand magazine and on request to bona fide inquirers. As at November 2008, there were 75 Registered members out of a total of 176 corporate members (members with the opportunity to apply for Registration). This represents less than 15% of the 526 NZILA members. CPD and Other Professional Organisations A number of allied professional bodies and overseas landscape architecture institutes were studied as part of this membership review. Two non-allied organisations were included in the study (NZICA and PBNZ) to broaden the reference base for registration and CPD requirements in particular. All of these groups note that where the professional development is an integral part of a practitioner's work, the activity cannot be counted as CPD i.e. it excludes time spent in routine procedural, or production activities. A number of the Institutes and professional bodies reviewed also differentiate between structured CPD including formal study, training, workshops and seminars, and unstructured CPD that includes informal study, research and writing, professional practice, Institute participation and service, and personal development. Other Professional Organisations: CPD Requirements

Professional Institute

CPD requirements (minimum)

Checks/audits Comment

Landscape Architects

NZILA 15 weighted CPD points (about 20 hours)

Reviewed annually

51

Professional Institute

CPD requirements (minimum)

Checks/audits Comment

AILA (Australia) 30 hours per year

Annual random audit

Considered too easy to achieve

ASLA Requirements vary between states

CSLA Requirements vary between provinces

LI (UK) 20 hours per year % of members are surveyed each year.

CPD policy to be reviewed

Other NZ professional bodies

NZPI Planners

25 hours of CPD per year

Annual audit

IPENZ Engineers

50 hours per year good quality CPD (structured)

CPD record scrutinised every 5 years for current registration

Not mandatory but provides verification for re-registration

NZIA Architects

200 points/pa or 10 points /hour = 20 hours per year

CPD record scrutinised every 5 years

Not mandatory but provides verification for re-registration

NZIF Foresters

Annual Practicing Certificate based on statement of CPD activities undertaken in the preceding 12 months

Must have undertaken CPD for a minimum period of 3 years preceding Registration

NZIS Surveyors

Registered Members require 25 hours pa

CPD is audited Must have undertaken CPD to for a minimum period of 2 years preceding Registration

NZICA Accountants

20 hours structured plus 20 hours unstructured CPD each year.

Proposal to change to 60 hours structured CPD over a rolling three year period.

PBNZ Physiotherapists

100 formal hours over 3 years:

CPD record scrutinised every 3 years for current registration

Also require over 3 years: - 50 practice-

based hours - 1 Peer Review

Member Feedback Most practitioners do CPD in some form or another; they just don‟t call it that. Feedback is that most members agree with the principle of CPD. To quote directly from member emails: “It is important to remember why we do CPD. As a profession we are comparatively less valued, lower paid and have less influence compared to some other professions. CPD is a way of improving our position and contribution.”

52

“Any Continued Professional Development is of benefit to members and to the profession. It would be a sad day if we didn't feel as if we needed to learn more!” While the reasons given for not applying to be Registered vary, resistance is focussed around the paperwork required, fees, lack of rigour, lack of perceived benefit and historic issues pertaining to the introduction of registration than the principle of CPD. Coupled with this is ignorance on the part of many Associate members to what the CPD requirements are. It seems that members who are not registered have no idea how the CPD points weighting system works, how many points are required and how much time is required to fill in the record sheet. Both registered and non-registered Associates agree that NZILA CPD requirements are light. This is a valid observation given that a member can accumulate ten points in any one year by reading (five points), and by being on a Branch committee (five points). Certainly the number of points required or the time equivalent is low compared to other organisations.

Recommendation: CPD points should be raised to a minimum 30 CPD points per year, with a review of CPD requirements after 2 years.

There is also some criticism at the lack of rigour in the CPD system. It has been noted that Registration can be achieved with little conscious effort simply by waiting for the next CPD event to come along. While there has to be room for self directed CPD, practitioners should identify what development they need and actively seek out the knowledge required to become better informed in their area of practice, especially if it involves specialisation. For example, members working in landscape planning should be required to be up to date with case law.

NZILA philosophy The Registration „quality mark‟ or „brand‟ implies an NZILA responsibility for guaranteeing professional competence and ensuring that standards are upheld. It creates an expectation for clients, other professions and the wider public that practitioners have maintained competence and currency in all parts of their practice area. If then CPD is accepted as an essential part of professional life, it must be seamlessly integrated into the training and work and seen as a wider commitment to lifelong learning. Continuing Professional Development:

should start as soon as formal training is complete i.e. after finishing university is a component of graduate learning and shows a graduate‟s commitment to

professionalism should be directly related to the member‟s practice area should be thoughtful and meaningful rather than being retrospective provides opportunities landscape architects to educate other professions provides opportunities for learning from other professions provides opportunities for collegial support provides opportunities to pass learning down through the profession in the form of

mentoring or sponsorship includes self-learning

There has been feedback that the Institute should make a more structured programme of activities available to members. This may not be possible given its income base but NZILA Executive should at least lead the way by being a CPD provider in more specialised practice areas. If the Institute does not make itself responsible for the provision of professional landscape architectural development, who will? Note that this does not mean

53

giving branches additional responsibilities. One substantial workshop such as the landscape planning initiative set up by the NZILA Education Foundation Trust in 2008 would be a useful model to follow. In theory ongoing support by NZILA for Associates is provided in the form of updates to documentation. It is anticipated that the addition of further practice notes to the practice support documentation (currently in production) or the updating of existing reference material could be tied in with specific CPD events and/or specialist short-courses.

Recommendation: NZILA should give priority to the development of training in specialist practice areas to support members’ CPD.

While it is difficult to know how much structured CPD Graduate members participate in, most are enthusiastic supporters of Branch activities, and in fact is the mainstay of many Branches. Graduates should be encouraged to formally join the Institute CPD programme, perhaps with a lower point requirement. This should be acknowledged in the corporate membership requirements, by allowing CPD participation to be one indicator of their professionalism and their commitment to the profession. At the same time it introduces the custom or habit of CPD at an early time in their career, with the expectation that it becomes part of the pattern of their professional life rather than a burden or onerous duty.

Recommendation: Graduate NZILA members are required to participate in a CPD programme for a minimum period of 2 years preceding Registration/ corporate membership as an indication of their commitment to the profession and their professionalism.

NZILA resourcing The existing scheme is voluntary and self-monitoring and relies on the integrity of all member participants. This is not unique to NZILA. A number of the CPD schemes reviewed rely on member honesty or are randomly audited. Members complain that Registration has a higher level of fees than Associateship but at the same time want to see more rigour in the system. NZILA is a relatively small organisation. Any CPD programme has to be sustainable in relation to the Institute‟s limited size and resources. Currently the fees cover the higher administrative costs associated with the administration of the system. The Registrar, whose services are voluntary, spends about 20 hours per year reviewing CPD plans; this equates to 15 minutes per member. Introducing more rigour into the CPD system such as an additional audit that checks the credentials of a members CPD activity inevitably requires more resources in the form of time or money. This needs to be balanced against an increasing membership and, if the proposed corporate membership changes are approved, increased numbers of Registered landscape architects. The Registrar has suggested that an on-line system that allowed members to log on and complete CPD record sheets on an on-going basis would be easier to monitor and review.

Recommendation: The Institute investigate the cost of creating an on-line system that allows members to record their CPD data directly onto the NZILA website, similar to the system that AILA currently runs.

54

As the number of Registered members increases, the Institute will need to consider whether it raises fees to cover Registrar payment for individual CPD reviews, or whether it moves to a system of random audits. It is suggested that the latter is more sustainable, especially in the climate of changing membership requirements and economic recession.

Recommendation: Members’ CPD records are monitored by means of a random audit on an annual basis.

CPD Events Members have also requested more clarity for CPD points for events, especially where there is opportunity for confusion between the activity levels and weightings. While this is not feasible for every possible lecture or committee, NZILA organised/based events such as conferences, seminars and workshops should indicate value eg „attendance will give you 4 CPD points‟. This allows every member CPD points on an equal basis.

Recommendation: NZILA Executive and Branches allocate CPD points to NZILA CPD events.

Many practitioners in small towns and rural areas have to liaise with other organisations for CPD and collegial support. However links with other professions and cross-disciplinary learning also provides opportunities to enhance multi-disciplinary skills and build community connectivity and even educate them about landscape architecture and landscape architects.

Recommendation: NZILA should actively promote links with allied professional bodies and organisations to maximise opportunities for CPD

Finally, given the almost woeful lack of member (the wider NZILA membership that is) knowledge of the details of the CPD programme, it would seem timely to couple major changes to the membership process with a campaign to clarify what is required for CPD, how the system works and the range of opportunities for CPD activities. This should not necessarily be seen as promotion of the virtues of CPD but rather a set of clear guidelines and suggestions that less self-directed members can use to make good CPD choices. The Registrar will be able to provide examples of organisations and activities that can be used for CPD. It is beyond the scope of this report to detail such a campaign but it is recommended that written material be supplemented with one-on-one discussion (branch meeting, phone call) with members so that CPD is seen as an opportunity for developing one‟s professional practice rather than a deterrent.

Recommendation: The current CPD Programme documentation be revised and circulated to all NZILA members to ensure they have clear direction on CPD requirements and CPD opportunities.

Refer to Appendix I for Member Feedback on CPD

55

APPENDIX A: COMMUNICATION WITH NZILA MEMBERS Email questionnaires were sent to targeted member groups, with a small number of short, sharp questions. Each member was assured of confidentiality and a small number of members (6) used this process.

„Please note that your response will be confidential and no name will be accredited to your response. I do not have direct access to NZILA records and this email has been generated by Melanie Whittaker, the Executive Officer for NZILA. If you prefer to remain anonymous you can send your email to Melanie at info@nzila.co.nz. She can remove all personal signatures before forwarding it on to me.‟

1 Letter to Graduates

In recent years a number of issues have arisen from the existing Associateship Application process and Membership categories. NZILA believe that a review of the Associateship Application process, Membership categories, and Registration process is required to ensure that it is able to service its membership at an appropriate professional level, and to have certainty that the status conferred by membership levels is appropriate. I have been contracted by NZILA to undertake an Associateship and Membership review of the Institute. One issue of concern is that a large and growing number of graduate members are not applying for Associate status. The Institute is keen to know why. You are a G5 member, which means that you graduated from a programme of landscape architecture at least five years ago.

Have you given any thought to applying for Associate membership? Why not? What would give you the incentive to become an Associate?

2 Letter to Recent Graduates

In recent years a number of issues have arisen from the existing Associateship Application process and Membership categories. NZILA believe that a review of the Associateship Application process, Membership categories, and Registration process is required to ensure that it is able to service its membership at an appropriate professional level, and to have certainty that the status conferred by membership levels is appropriate. I have been contracted by NZILA to undertake an Associateship and Membership review of the Institute. One issue of concern is that a large and growing number of graduate members are not applying for Associate status. The Institute is keen to know why. You are a Graduate member who graduated from a programme of landscape architecture no more than 4 years ago. Have you given any thought to applying for Associate membership and Registration? Have you started putting together a portfolio or even looked through the Associate

application pack? Why not? What would give you the incentive to become an Associate?

56

3 Letter to Associates and Fellows In recent years a number of issues have arisen from the existing Associateship Application process and Membership categories. NZILA believe that a review of the Associateship Application process, Membership categories, and Registration process is required to ensure that it is able to service its membership at an appropriate professional level, and to have certainty that the status conferred by membership levels is appropriate. I have been contracted by NZILA to undertake an Associateship and Membership review of the Institute. One issue of concern is that a number of Associates or Fellows such as you have opted not to become Registered.

Have you given any thought to applying for Registration? Why not? What would give you the incentive to participate in a Continuing Professional

Development programme and become a Registered NZILA Landscape Architect?

4 Letter to those made Associates within the last 8 years In recent years a number of issues have arisen from the existing Associateship Application process and Membership categories. NZILA believe that a review of the Associateship Application process, Membership categories, and Registration process is required to ensure that it is able to service its membership at an appropriate professional level, and to have certainty that the status conferred by membership levels is appropriate. I have been contracted by NZILA to undertake an Associateship and Membership review of the Institute. One issue of concern is that a large number of graduate members are not applying for Associate status. The Institute is keen to know why. As an Associate, you have undertaken and passed the Institute‟s professional practice examination. Reflecting on the experience, do you have any comment on the various aspects of the process including:

practical experience requirements the portfolio project record sheets the interview process the post interview process

5 Letter to Registered Members

In recent years a number of issues have arisen from the existing Associateship Application process and Membership categories. NZILA believe that a review of the Associateship Application process, Membership categories, and Registration process is required to ensure that it is able to service its membership at an appropriate professional level, and to have certainty that the status conferred by membership levels is appropriate. I have been contracted by NZILA to undertake an Associateship and Membership review of the Institute. In line with recommendations made at the inception of the Registration system a points review (quantum) is now required. The current 15-point „self monitoring‟ system is considered to be very easy to achieve.

We are interested in your experience of the Registration process.

Do you have problems accumulating „points‟ for Registration? Should the number of CPD points required to achieve Annual Registration be

increased? Do you believe that the range of activities that qualify as CPD are too restrictive? Should consideration be given to the number of points attributed to different CPD

activities and as to whether activities should require points allocated by the NZILA for an activity to qualify as official CPD?

57

6 Letter to Branch Chairs

NZILA MEMBERSHIP In recent years a number of issues have arisen from the existing Associateship Application process and Membership categories. NZILA believe that a review of the Associateship Application process, Membership categories, and Registration process is required to ensure that the it is able to service its membership at an appropriate professional level, and to have certainty that the status conferred by membership levels is appropriate. I have been contracted by NZILA to undertake an Associateship and Membership review of the Institute. In the near future I will be:

contacting a number of groups within the Institute eg Graduates, Graduate 5+‟s (graduated at least five years ago), Associates, Fellows, Life Members and Registered members with targeted questions on membership

encouraging members (and non-members) to email or ring me to talk about their specific experiences / requirements / problems.

travelling to a number of branches throughout New Zealand to discuss these issues with members and get their feedback.

I enclose an overview of the major issues together with a series of questions for discussion. I can be contacted directly by email, letter or phone and would encourage all members to provide feedback to inform the Institute „where to from here‟.

7 Overview Of Major Issues

Associate Membership NZILA corporate membership is not growing at a rate commensurate with the number of landscape architectural graduates coming into the profession. A large and growing number of Graduate 5 (G5) members are not applying for Associateship.

Feedback from a number of graduate members is that they are not applying to become

Associates because they cannot demonstrate professional capability and competence

across the following range of work categories: Landscape planning and management Landscape assessment Landscape design Contract documentation and administration Landscape education and research

Questions:

What is the step from graduation to Associateship about? Do graduates understand the professional benefit / added value in becoming a

corporate member of the Institute? Is the current Associateship application process is still serving the applicants, the

profession, and employers? What is the range and manner of current practice within the profession? Is there room in the Institute for people to specialise ie demonstrate exceptional

competence in either planning or design? How do we test this competence and what are some of the difficulties? Do we test knowledge or the ability to translate knowledge into competent work? If there are failures what is this attributed to? Would a mentoring and „pathway‟ approach to preparing for professional

examinations during the early career years provide more certainty and value for applicants?

58

Should there be a streamlined Professional Examinations process for Landscape Architects who are members of equivalent overseas Institutes (e.g., AILA, USLA, LI (UK), etc)?

Registration There is confusion between the role of Registration and Associateship and which membership category is to become the professional membership standard for NZILA. The institute has a significant number of Associate members who have opted not to become registered. Questions:

How does the rest of the world perceive us? Are the names and labels given to the Membership categories of the NZILA confusing to both members and allied professions?

How does Registration fit with Associateship? Why have a number of Associate members decided not become Registered

Landscape Architects? Do they not perceive added value in the „Registered‟ title? Is Registration required? Do the 'levels' of credibility and the range of competencies for the Registration CPD

process make sense?

In line with recommendations made at the inception of the Registration system a points review (quantum) is now required. The current 15-point „self monitoring‟ system is considered to be very easy to achieve.

Questions:

Should the number of CPD points required to achieve Annual Registration be increased?

Should consideration be given to the number of points attributed to different CPD activities and as to whether activities should require points allocated by he NZILA for an activity to qualify as official CPD?

Given the constraints of time, discussions at Branch Meetings will focus on the following question: Should NZILA broaden its membership by changing the Associateship criteria and making it possible for specialist landscape architects to become corporate members? Is it possible to do this and still maintain the Objects of the Constitution of the Institute? Objects of specific note are:

(a) To raise the character and status and to safeguard and advance the interests of the profession of landscape architecture.

(f) To increase the confidence of the community in the employment of professional landscape architects.

(g) To improve the general and technical knowledge of persons engaged in the profession of landscape architecture.

59

APPENDIX B: FEEDBACK FROM NZILA MEMBERS Membership Status

No of replies

Comments Suggestions

Graduates Grad5+ Why are you not Associates?

51

-ve

Cannot get range of experience

No benefit; no client has ever asked and public cannot tell

Membership doesn‟t give you much

Too busy/too tired/no time to complete Assoc process

Too expensive Why interview if portfolio is

assessed as „insufficient‟

Look at having depth of experience within a narrower range of competency.

Rewriting Associate membership documentation would make the process more easily understood.

Would like protection for title similar to the protection Architects enjoy.

Institute needs to be marketing itself and landscape architecture

Dislike „Graduate‟ term for those who have been in practice for over 5 years

Mentor system is not working Should incorporate a wider range

of competencies into Associate requirements.

+ve

Associate status sends a clear message to clients that the landscape architect values professionalism, quality, experience, and continuing development. That can be the only incentive to becoming an associate.

There were a number of positive comments about the rigour of the process.

„Don‟t drop NZILA standards‟

Need to promote fact that all members of Associate Panel are volunteers who do it for nothing.

Graduates with full membership of overseas institutes Why are you not Associates?

8 does not want to go through full Associate Process

Anger that qualifications are not recognised

Feels that NZ work requirements are too onerous.

Supply more detailed information re reciprocity arrangements on website

Affiliate 1

Wants the grandfather clause returned

Registered Comments

12 All who participate agree it is worthwhile.

Useful to reflect on previous years CPD

Registered means fully professionally qualified, as that includes showing you keep up, via CPD. Associateship should be used to demonstrate that one is no longer fully professionally qualified.

Feel that there could be more rigour i.e. more points required.

60

Membership Status

No of replies

Comments Suggestions

Associates Not registered Comments

32

Responses show a fine balance between „too busy‟ and „there is no advantage to me‟

A number of registered and unregistered members feel that living outside a major centre made it more difficult to attend CPD.

Suggestions that the process is not rigorous enough and does not demonstrate competence.

One member was under the impression that a range of work had to be re-submitted each year. And did members still get a journal?

Suggest that NZILA widen the range of CPD events to include further training in urban design, planning etc.

Suggestions that NZILA allocate points to some CPD events.

Increased CPD points for community initiatives such as working on resident associations.

Could carry CPD points over 1 or 2 years

Recent Associates (within 5 years) comments

8 All thought the whole process was quite straightforward and perfectly reasonable.

All wanted the process to retain rigour

All felt the range of competency required was reasonable.

General agreement that many young graduates do specialise but that they need broad experience for Associateship.

“I do feel the current process requires a high level of time commitment and professional experience, I also feel this is necessary to ensure high standards are maintained and would like to see the application process kept at this level”

4-5 years work experience more realistic than the current 90 weeks

Interview process very cold and formal

Need to inform candidates of actual time & commitment required.

that NZILA work something out with NZPI so that potentially a landscape planner applicant can become an associate of both.

February 2009

107 replies

61

APPENDIX C: EXISTING ASSESSMENT SCHEDULES The existing Application pack details the current landscape architectural work categories.

CATEGORY A - LANDSCAPE PLANNING & MANAGEMENT i) Broad-scale Land-use Planning ii) Landscape Management Studies iii) Reserve Management Plans iv) Land Acquisition or Protection Policies CATEGORY B - LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT i) Landscape Requirements for Regional or District Plans ii) Part 1: Landscape Assessment & Part 2: Landscape Evidence CATEGORY C - LANDSCAPE DESIGN i) Part 1 Site Planning & Concept Design, Part 2 Developed Design &

Part 3 Preliminary Cost Estimates CATEGORY D – CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION & ADMINISTRATION i) Part 1 Contract Documentation & Part 2 Contract Administration CATEGORY E - LANDSCAPE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH i) Research ii) Part 1 Teaching & Part 2 Educational Writings Design Versus Planning and Education The history of the Institute and the underlying design background of landscape architecture is writ large in the way the Associate Examination process is assessed. A brief analysis shows that a greater amount of evidence and degree of detail is required for Design than for other categories such as Planning or Education. Compare Category C with Category B or Part ii of Category E. Category C Drawings illustrating site analysis, consideration of alternatives and preliminary concept design. Theoretical and competition designs are acceptable and Drawings illustrating progression from concept through to developed design for a single project and Documented cost estimates providing indicative costs to verify the viability of the project Category B Documented assessment of the effects of a specific development (an AEE) Category E Teaching an accredited teaching programme - A sample of student work (with agreement)

62

Language Of Assessment The language used is very variable in terms of how topics are described and how the judgement statements are qualified. It is difficult to ascertain what is being assessed: a product or a skill or a process. For example, refer to the Description of the specific topics or work areas within the category of work Category A Lists specific topics within category of work. eg Broad-scale landuse planning cf Category B Lists actions within category of work eg Develop landscape policy Description of Judgement Statements It seems that some categories require that the work is completed (tick the boxes), others require that the panel make a qualitative assessment (the design is appropriate, creative etc) Category A: Broad-scale land use planning Judgement statement:

Provides an analysis of the landscape Illustrates a vision for development and management

cf Category C: Site Planning & Concept Design

Displays a creative response to the opportunities and constraints of the site, physical and cultural context and the requirements of the brief

Shows conceptual development and resolution at increasing levels of detail

cf Category D: Contract Documentation

Fully scaled and detailed Consistency with the legislation and the NZ standards

Cf Category E: Teach landscape architecture and design

Delivering an accredited teaching programme to the requirements of the accreditation criteria

63

APPENDIX D: ASSESSMENT SCHEDULES FOR CORE COMPETENCIES

The 3 Core Competencies in this Appendix are shown with the permission of AILA, and taken directly from AILA Registration Guide. They provide examples of assessments schedules and how the criteria could be applied.

SKILL/KNOWLEDGE

1 PROFESSIONALISM

Definition – the application of skills and knowledge guided by a balanced application of ethical responsibilities to clients, profession, community and environment. and guided by the AILA Code of Professional Conduct.

Testing – applicants will be expected to demonstrate orally a highly developed understanding of professionalism and the way in which ethics impacts on the practice of landscape architecture. This includes a clear understanding of the full range of responsibilities to profession, institute, community, environment, etc

ASSESSMENT SCHEDULES ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FOR PROFESSIONALISM. Documentation evidence required:

A clear and confident understanding of professional roles and relationships.

Ability to critically analyse responsibilities to clients, self, profession, community and environment to achieve balanced strategies for dealing with complex situations, while possessing a realistic comprehension of limits of skills and knowledge and the ability and willingness to seek advice at appropriate times.

Active involvement (and possibly some leadership) in professional and community organisations.

Evidence through Oral Presentation:

Clearly, correctly and confidently answered set questions.

Understanding of debate on current issues and awareness of emerging social, environmental and professional issues.

Some innovative ability shown in response to supplementary questions.

Mentor‟s comments

Assessment: Competent or Not yet competent

64

SKILL/KNOWLEDGE 2 LEGAL ASPECTS

Definition – the basic legal principles that impact on professional landscape project and practice management.

Fundamentals of legal system, separation of powers

• Common law – professional duty of care, court system • Equity – common law and statutory obligations, application to workplace and to design, • Contract law – the concept of private law, validity of contracts, types of contracts, contract

documents, standard forms, basic differences between employment, consultancy and construction contracts.

• Statute law – the role of acts, regulations, codes and conventions and their impact on practice.

• Occupational rules – content and relevance of AILA policies. • Advocacy issues – applications, approvals and negotiations, agency laws.

ASSESSMENT SCHEDULES LEGAL ASPECTS: Theoretical base

A sound understanding of the breadth & depth of the legal context of the practice of landscape architecture in Australia.

Commitment to an effective method of maintaining awareness of changes in law.

LEGAL ASPECTS: Application Techniques

The ability to clearly and confidently identify and apply relevant legal requirements in a range of practice situations. NOTE: the application of legal requirements may vary depending on the employment situation; however a member in a firm where such matters are handled by specialists is still required to demonstrate at least a working knowledge of the requirements and how they are applied in their workplace.

A clear understanding of the workings of local/regional government.

LEGAL ASPECTS: Terminology & Documentation Techniques

Documents and oral responses are:

. • Are complete, but sequencing and layout needs critical editing.

. • Unconventional terminology is defined.

. • Are clearly and correctly referenced to source.

. • Are clear and complete.

. • Use widely recognized terms.

. • Free from repetition and ambiguity.

LEGAL ASPECTS: Consultancy Role

Demonstrates a clear and confident understanding of the role of the professional consultant as an advisor to the Client.

Maintains comprehensive records of advice given and approvals received.

Provides high quality advice to the Client and acts in accordance with the Client‟s responses.

Mentor‟s comments Assessment: Competent or Not yet competent

65

SKILL/KNOWLEDGE 3 ADMINISTRATIVE ASPECTS

Definition – The administrative, management and marketing aspects of professional practice.

Scope

. • Risk management

. • Project programming.

. • Professional proposals consistent with best marketing practice.

. • Determining appropriate fees.

. • Fee calculation methods.

. • Supervising other staff, delegation, responsibility + authority.

. • Professional communications – reports, memos, instructions, meetings, interviews, etc.

. • Consultant selection and appointment.

. • Client agreement and negotiations.

. • Recommendations to and approvals from client.

. • Consultancy roles – professional advisor or independent expert.

. • Consultancy types – head consultant/sub consultant.

. • Practice types.

. • Team structures – contractual and communication networks.

. • Business management.

. • Quality assurance.

. • Record keeping.

Testing – Applicants will be expected to demonstrate, through examples or certified descriptions of their own work, their breadth of experience in, and depth of understanding of administrative skills. Applicants must be prepared to clearly demonstrate and to certify the extent of their role in the work submitted - e.g. where work is collaborative, please indicate the applicant‟s roles and levels of responsibilities within the project.

Pass standard – competence in the majority of criteria.

ASSESSMENT SCHEDULES ADMINISTRATIVE ASPECTS -Theoretical Base

Ability to select and adapt a range of techniques to respond to administration needs.

Lateral thinking or innovative exploration of alternative techniques.

Conventional understanding and some application of: Information management/control. Records management. QA systems. Performance analysis and reporting. Business planning. Residual risk assessment and reporting.

Sighted documents clearly demonstrate the specific management intent and process and: are clearly written clearly define and the document the required information are well laid out and crossed referenced have logical hierarchies of information are complete use conventional terminology are free from conflicting information demonstrate appropriate use of word processing applications including tables,

spreadsheets, style formatting

Mentor‟s comments Assessment: Competent or Not yet competent

66

APPENDIX E: EVIDENCE OF PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE The following is a list of evidence for professionalism or professional competence, responsibility and leadership within the Associateship/Registration process. Some of these could be regarded as evidence of CPD prior to Registration.

Advocacy of the profession and the Institute

Term holding a role as Branch officer or Executive member of the Institute

Provision/mentoring of ‘Design office’ experience for Tertiary institution

graduate/student (e.g. approved by Lincoln)

Submitting to local annual plan or strategic planning processes (local authority district/regional plans) either on behalf of a Branch or as an individual or with peers from allied professions

Hold ‘graduate’ meetings about NZILA membership on behalf of Branch or

teaching institution

Taking a lead role in organising an NZILA Conference or workshop

Taking a lead role in organising local Branch CPD

Article (about practice or project) submitted or featured in national journal or Landscape New Zealand magazine

Senior Landscape Architectural responsibilities

Attending the Environment Court

Leading in-house landscape architectural team

Promotion to position of responsibility in-house Advocacy for the Landscape

Submission to Plan Variations or Resource Consent Applications

Submission to National Policy Statement process Education/Mentoring (received or delivered)

a) Received

Mentoring received for a significant period as a student or as a graduate

Post-graduate study completed

Attending NZILA CPD and Conferences

b) Delivered

Tutoring design studio work and MD work at Lincoln, Victoria or Unitec courses

Mentoring/providing umbrella organization for masters programme students completing research paper (summer school) or dissertation

Mentoring local graduates

Lead in-house training or presentation of work to colleagues

Undertake research under supervision of tertiary institution

Taking a lead role in organising local Branch CPD

Provide training to allied professionals (e.g. local District Council planners)

on ’landscape’ matters

67

68

Awards

Recipient of NZILA Graduate award for design or planning

Recipient of IFLA Graduate award for design or planning

Invitation to be on the adjudication panel for the awards programme for the local/national branch of an allied professional body (e.g. NZIA Institute of Architects)

Private Professional Consultancy Management (this is a section for those who work privately in their own practice)

Set up and market own consultancy

Establish the LA profession in small provincial location

Manage all professional interface with the public, Councils and allied professionals

Advocate for professional and ethical standards

Manage all work out-puts and monitor the standard of work completed

Manage all fee proposals, fee budgets, preliminary cost estimates and works budgets

Engage and supervise staff as required

Manage GST and Provisional tax payments and all business matters

69

APPENDIX F: SAMPLE REVISED PROJECT RECORD SHEET NAME OF APPLICANT: PROJECT TITLE:

CATEGORY OF WORK A Landscape planning & management

B Landscape assessment

C Landscape design

D Contract documentation & administration

E Landscape education & research

PROJECT EMPLOYMENT PERIOD:

From:

To:

Total time in weeks:

DESCRIPTION OF WORK:

EMPLOYER‟S SIGNATURE:

EMPLOYER‟S NAME:

DATE:

SPONSOR‟S SIGNATURE:

SPONSOR‟S NAME:

DATE:

70

Reflective Statement Briefly discuss this project in terms of: 1. Outline the project 2. What was my responsibility and what did I do? 3. Who did I work with? 4. What was the responsibility of other associate professionals or collaborators? 5. What did I learn from this project? This can be described in terms of the judgement statements for this Category of work. Eg:

Explicit landscape and visual methodology meets the requirements of the brief (including statutory context)

Explicit landscape and visual methodology meets the objectives of the RMA and NZILA statement of philosophy

6. What was my experience on this project?

For example: Was the outcome what you expected? If you did this project again, what would you do differently?

7. How did it affirm or influence my professional practice in the core areas?

Professionalism

Legislative context

Office Practice

71

APPENDIX G: NZILA CONSTITUTION & SPONSOR STATEMENTS.

NZILA Articles of Constitution

2.4 Applications for admission and transfer An application for admission or transfer from one grade to another shall be in accordance with a prescribed form in which, over the candidate’s signature, the name and experience of the candidate, postal address and qualifications shall be distinctly stated and which shall contain an undertaking by the candidate if and when elected or transferred to abide by the Rules of the Institute. An application for admission or transfer shall be signed by a proposer and a seconder who shall both be corporate members. A corporate member signing an application must certify personal knowledge of the candidate and full conviction of the candidate’s suitability for admission or transfer to the category specified on the application.

New Zealand Planning Institute Fuller Membership Application Example of Sponsor and Supporter Statement Statement:

„By signing this application form, I the Sponsor, acknowledge that this person and their work is personally known to me. I attest that they are a suitable candidate for Full Membership provided that the applicant satisfies the conditions necessary for elections, as outlined in Section 5.2 of the Constitution. As the Sponsor, I believe that the nature and extent of the applicant‟s training and experience is sufficient to show that the applicant has a thorough and mature knowledge and understanding of planning and has held a position of responsibility in planning work. I, as Sponsor understand that the NZPI® Membership Convenor may phone me personally to discuss the application. By signing this I have indicated a willingness to be referee and that I understand that in certain circumstances, I may be asked by the Membership Convenor and/or the Membership Interview Panel to act as a mentor to the applicant. By signing this application form, I, the Supporter, acknowledge that this person and their work are personally known to me. I attest that they are a suitable candidate for Full Membership provided that the applicant satisfies the conditions necessary for election, as outlined in Section 5.2 of the Constitution. As the Supporter, I believe that the nature and extent of the applicant‟s training and experience is sufficient to show that the applicant has thorough and mature knowledge and understanding of planning and has held a position of responsibility in planning work. I understand that the NZPI® Membership Convenor may phone me personally to discuss the application.‟

Saskatchewan Association Of Landscape Architects Endorser’s Form Example of Endorser Statement

‘I endorse and sponsor the candidate for membership in the category requested and certify that I have personal knowledge of the professional ability and character, methods of practice, and experience of the applicant. The candidate has satisfied the requirements for membership in the category requested, and to the best of my knowledge, the applicant observes and upholds the CODE OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS stated in Part VII of the Application Form.’

72

APPENDIX H: INDICATIVE RESOURCING REQUIREMENTS FOR REVISED ASSOCIATE PROCESS

What is needed to implement the revised process? The table below provides an outline of the range of resources required to implement the proposed Associate process.

Elements Resourcing required for proposed process Application pack Application pack clarified with more detail on

process.

Applications/examples of work

Existing criteria for work categories revised Criteria for new work categories written Criteria for compulsory core practice areas

written Indicative list of questions included

Project Record sheets Revised Project Record sheet

The beginning NZILA contact every new graduate and send

out new Associate brochure and Application Pack.

Sponsor/Mentor Organise training or guidelines for sponsors &

mentors Find mentor for those who require it. Write new sponsor/mentor statement sheets

NZILA Branch Associate Workshops Graduate Peer Group

Branches to organise annual compulsory Associate Workshop

Branches to organise 2 group sponsor sessions each year.

Branches to facilitate Graduate Peer groups

Interview Convene interview panels – 2 each year Train interview panel and Chairmen

Associate report Executive send out an annual report

73

APPENDIX I: CPD FEEDBACK 32 members responded on CPD / registration issues

Issue Number commenting

Agree with principle of CPD (and undertake CPD although not Registered)

9

Have not got around to it 2

To busy to fill in paperwork 5

No perceived benefit – do not need Registration for existing work 6

Associate membership fees are high enough (does not meet cost benefit analysis)

6

Unsure of what is required to be Registered (explicitly or inferred from response)

4

Think existing system is abut right re number of points 2

Think number of points should be raised 8

Works in government department or local authority and does not feel registration is required

4

Need more rigour in terms of CPD review and analysis, or more rigorous weight of points.

7

Lives outside a main area and finds it difficult to acquire CPD or cost of attending CPD in major centres prohibitive.

5

Would like more NZILA organised/based events to indicate value eg „this will give you 4 CPD points‟

3

Would like to see a wider range of activities qualifying as CPD 4

Would like to see breakdown of CPD data 2

Registrar feedback The current minimum of 15 points CPD requirement is light. Many members easily

achieve 30-60 hours CPD per year with some people acquiring up to 300 hours.

There is opportunity for confusion between the activity levels and weightings eg attending a seminar earns 1CPD point per hour and attending a public lecture earns 0.5 CPD point per hour. Members may use the higher activity weighting to push up their CPD points. It would eliminate discrepancies if Executive or Branches allocated CPD points to NZILA CPD events.

While the time spent reviewing CPD is not significant, it will not be sustainable on

a voluntary basis as the number of members applying for Registration increase. An on-line system that allowed members to log on and complete CPD record sheets on an on-going basis would be easier to monitor and review.

Registered practitioners living in more isolated areas have no problem fulfilling CPD requirements, and appear to make the most of opportunities to forge links with local allied professional groups and become involved in community issues.

The Programme could provide more explicit direction on the CPD activities considered acceptable for Registration.

74

APPENDIX J: REVIEW OF ALLIED ORGANISATIONS

Organisations Communication

AILA Australian Institute of Landscape Architects Personal contact: phone

ASLA American Society of Landscape Architects Personal contact: email

CSLA Canadian Society of Landscape Architects Personal contact: email

IPENZ Institute of Professional Engineers of New Zealand

Personal contact: phone

LI Landscape Institute Personal contact

NZICA New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants Email

NZIF New Zealand Institute of Foresters Personal contact: phone

NZIS New Zealand Institute of Surveyors Email

NZPI New Zealand Planning Institute Personal contact: phone

NZRAB New Zealand Registered Architects Board Email & Phone

PBNZ The Physiotherapy Board of New Zealand Website review

A number of allied professional bodies and overseas landscape architectural institutes were researched. All organisations bar PBNZ were emailed as below, with an attached table of issues and were most generous with their time. They supplied additional detail, and a number of organisations also rang. PBNZ is included in the summary for CPD comparison and general member interest; it is an example of an organisation where members are required to do relatively large amounts of CPD. Email to organisations’ “In recent years a number of issues have arisen from the existing Associateship Application process and Membership categories for the New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects. NZILA believe that a review of the Associateship Application process, Membership categories, and Registration process is required to ensure that it is able to service its membership at an appropriate professional level, and to have certainty that the status conferred by membership levels is appropriate. I have been contracted by NZILA to undertake an Associateship and Membership review of the Institute. I apologise at this point for the questions I ask and the effort I know I am putting you to but any detail you can provide would be most useful for NZILA. I have put together a table of your policy as I 'read' it (attached) on your website and questions on the policy. My research to date with a range of professional bodies informs me that it is easy to misinterpret policy intentions and generic website information. We are interested in your Institute‟s reciprocity policy with regard to landscape architects who are members of equivalent overseas Institutes and more specifically with regard to landscape architects who are corporate members of NZILA. We would

75

appreciate a copy of your Reciprocity Policy and any additional information you can provide including contact details for the person most involved in making the decisions. I‟ve summarised your scheme as I interpret it so please correct me if I have it wrong. Our policy appears to be that apart from AILA and the Hong Kong Institute, full members of other recognized Institutes must sit the Associate Examination Process in the same way any NZ graduate would ie work for 90 weeks minimum, submit a portfolio of work and undergo an interview with a Associate Panel. It would be most useful if you could answer questions and flesh out the table. Thank you in anticipation”

76

AILA or Australian Institute of Landscape Architects National Office Australian Institute of Landscape Architects GPO BOX 1646, Canberra ACT 2601 Phone (02) 6248 9970, Fax (02) 6249 7337 email: exec@aila.org.au Ground Floor, North Wing, Open Systems House 218 Northbourne Ave Braddon ACT 2612 The Executive Director: Paul Costigan In 2006 AILA replaced their registration system with a 2-stage pathway system based on a simplified version of the British P2C. Candidates are required to have 2 years minimum work as a landscape architect. Based on 1 of the 5 disciplines (specialisations) outlined in their Registration Guide, they follow a pathway of Mentoring and assessment for a minimum of 6 months, although 12 months preferred and complete a set of assessments. Once the Mentor feels the candidate has fulfilled the requirements for this stage of the pathway, the Candidate attend a mandatory training workshop and progresses to an oral interview with a local state group interview panel of senior AILA Registered Landscape Architects. Paul Costigan, Executive director of AILA provided excellent feedback on the process to date. He notes that the AILA system is in its second year. They have had one cohort of members through the system and the information and forms currently on the website have been revised/updated as a result. As a result of feedback from the interview panels, AILA is looking at extending the minimum period of work mentoring. There is some evidence that graduates need more time in employment before they become registered. This is due in part to the fact that landscape programmes are increasingly squeezed time wise by funding and curriculum requirements, and that graduates take time to get established in work after leaving university. Feedback on the revised Registration process has been very positive, with the additional benefit that the mentor, often the employer, has become engaged with the programme and involved in the Institute. There is a feeling that there are mutual benefits for mentors and applicants. There have been no problems to date in matching applicants with mentors. Reciprocity Paul Costigan believes that the Landscape Institute is looking at instigating a similar system of reciprocity.

77

Australian Institute of Landscape Architects

Issues AILA Policy

Membership Categories

(a) Registered Landscape Architects (including Fellows) (b) Honorary Fellows (c) Graduates (d) Students (e) Affiliates

Requirements for corporate membership: Registered Member

Overall 2 years minimum work as a landscape architect. Stage 1: Mentoring and assessment For a minimum of 6 months, 12 months preferred. Complete a set of assessments. Stage 2: Mandatory training workshop. Oral interview with local state group interview panel of senior AILA Registered Landscape Architects. Interview panels in all states once per year and at unspecified intervals. AILA about to conduct first interview via Skype/video link.

Specialist versus generalist

Have 5 specialisations, each has common core areas of Professionalism, Legal Aspects and Administrative Aspects. Member must demonstrate knowledge and competency in 1 of the 5 disciplines. They do not have to indicate this with their qualification/membership. If they choose to operate outside their discipline, they are expected to gain competency in that area first or at least exercise some professionalism re getting peer advice.

Reciprocity

Applicant is required to have been working in Australia as a landscape architect for 12 months minimum. Requires a full member to sponsor i.e. assess the applicant‟s eligibility and be prepared to provide support to the applicant during the evaluation procedure. Usually requires a brief interview as each application is assessed on a case by case basis. The system is about to change. The minimum work experience in Australia will be left in the policy but the application of it will be flexible with each application assessed on a case-by-case basis once the completed application has been received. To date no-one has ever been „failed‟ on their work, as opposed to not passing the interview. At the heart of the system is „sponsorship‟, where a full member effectively mentors and supports the landscape architect and assesses their eligibility. There is some onus on the full member to evaluate the candidate‟s knowledge of the local context and competence practicing within the local environment.

Registration & CPD (continuing professional development)

System requires 30 CPD points with each point working out to about an hour. AILA have a system of on-line self-reporting: they try to keep system as user-friendly as possible. The AILA conducts an annual random audit of CPD. The CPD programme requirements are similar to the NZILA scheme. Two levels of activity (educational/training involvement) are recognized and there is a wider range of topics of study. There is a feeling that the current point requirements are easy to achieve.

78

ASLA: American Society of Landscape Architects In United States, each state has an ASLA chapter. The ASLA itself does not equate membership levels with competence or licensure, in part because licensure is a state issue and a few remaining state don't have it, and because they have had a policy of supporting members without limiting it to those who have pursued a more traditional practice track that may require rather than encourage or not require licensure. Landscape architects become licensed through their local/state chapter. Generally graduates sit it in the first 5 years after graduation as the exam is frequently very technical and based on information from university. Experience shows that people who do not sit it in these first years ever get around to sitting it. Local chapters hold workshop evenings for graduates. National conferences usually have workshops put on to prepare graduates for exam. The Landscape Architect Registration Examination (L.A.R.E.) An arrangement has been set up between the USA and Canada (two provinces), based on a standardised examination process. Successful completion of the Landscape Architect Registration Examination (L.A.R.E.) is required for licensure as a landscape architect in the 49 U.S. States, one U.S. Territory and the two Canadian Provinces which license landscape architects. Passing the exam allows LA's to practice in different regions within Canada and the US without having to re-apply for membership. The L.A.R.E. is exactly the same in every jurisdiction. The same exam (3-4 hours long) is administered on the same days and under the same conditions in every jurisdiction, and all exams are uniformly graded by CLARB. The L.A.R.E. consists of five sections: two graphic and three multiple-choice. Each section receives a pass or fail score independently from the other sections. All five sections must be passed prior to licensure. Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards: CLARB CLARB provides a public protection service through the preparation, administration and scoring of the Landscape Architect Registration Examination (L.A.R.E.). This examination determines whether applicants for landscape architectural licensure are able to provide landscape architectural services without endangering the health, safety and welfare of the public. CLARB Council Record/Certification CLARB also manages a professional certification program, through which landscape architects can document and verify their education, experience, examination and licensure history, thereby streamlining the licensure and reciprocal registration processes. It eliminates having to maintain a personal CPD file and allows members to secure verifications for a registration application if, for example, a previous employer goes out of business. The Council Record is used to permanently record members‟ professional development as a landscape architect. A member file can be transmitted to any of CLARB‟s member boards in support of an application for licensure. The CLARB Council Record is a verified history of an individual‟s professional development. It contains documentation of an individual's education, experience, examination and licensure history. The Council Record is also the application for CLARB Certification. CLARB Certification is formal recognition that an individual has met or exceeded the national standards as a landscape architect and has CLARB's recommendation to all registration boards that the individual be granted reciprocal registration without further examination.

79

American Society of Landscape Architects

Issues ASLA

Membership Categories

Professional Membership A full member, entitled to use the ASLA designation after their name is: a graduate from an accredited landscape architecture program or a program recognized by the Society and/or is state licensed to practice landscape architecture AND has three or more years of professional experience. An associate member is a graduate from an accredited landscape architecture program or a program recognized by the Society AND has less than three years professional experience. After the third year of membership, associate members are automatically upgraded full membership. Associate members may use Associate ASLA after their name. Affiliate members are individuals who do not have a degree in landscape architecture and is not state licensed to practice landscape architecture but is employed in a related field or discipline such as planning, architecture, civil engineering OR a supplier or manufacturer of products or services to the landscape architecture profession. Student members are enrolled in an accredited landscape architecture program or a program recognized by the Society, leading to an undergraduate or graduate degree or certificate in landscape architecture. Student Affiliate members are enrolled in an unaccredited landscape architecture program or a program that is not recognized by the Society, enrolled in a related course of study, or students who may be considering a career in landscape architecture. Corporate members are organisations that support landscape architecture and not individuals and has little to do with the practice of landscape architecture. Firms that practice landscape architecture or related disciplines are not corporate members. However, their employees, principals or stakeholders can be individual members as International Members are landscape architects residing outside the limits of the Society

Membership Process

No examination. Mentor/sponsorship not required. Professional & Student Membership Full Members Full Members shall:

Hold academic qualifications

have at least 3 years of full-time or the equivalent experience in the professional practice

CPD Each state sets its own practice requirements.

Reciprocity International members are allowed in the ASLA as individual members but have no supporting chapter.

Sponsors Sponsors are no longer required. The process used to require that local chapters endorse a membership request. However, it put chapter executive committee members in the position of voting on applicants that they weren't in the position to 'check out.' Recently applications are made directly to the national organization and national verifies the information.

Specialist versus Generalist

There is no such designation in state enabling legislation. However, many ASLA members choose to participate in certification programs that establish credentials or credibility in particular areas of work, none of which are limited to landscape architects.

80

CSLA: Canadian Society of Landscape Architects Issues CSLA

Membership Process To become a member of the CSLA you have to first become a member of a component organization - which typically is a provincial or regional organization. And it is the component that tests potential members. There are definitely a wide range of ways to determine who can call themselves a landscape architect, but it's typically Canadian; every region and every province wants to do it their own way, and everyone tend to be very tolerant of others.

Requirements for corporate membership

The testing procedure is not consistent across the country, with Ontario and BC using the LARE while others like Saskatchewan using a portfolio and interview. It gets even more complicated as Ontario and BC have different categories of membership depending on how many of the LARE exams you have passed (you can become a member without a stamp, for example). Re use of a sponsor or referee: there is a real range by province. Typically someone needs several years of experience working with a stamp-holding member, and then two or three sponsors who are asked to complete a questionnaire about the candidates competency. Refer to an example of this in the SALA (Saskatchewan Association of Landscape Architects)

Specialist versus generalist

Varies by province. Typically everyone is expected to be a generalist first, and then can specialize on top of that if they choose.

Reciprocity

In general if someone comes to Canada they have to apply at the provincial level for membership, and the rules vary greatly.

81

IPENZ: Institute of Professional Engineers of New Zealand National Office: 158 The Terrace,

PO Box 12241 Wellington

Contact: Michelle Boniface Membership Administrator Email: membership@ipnez.org.nz Phone: 04 4748948

IPENZ have a large membership, 10,757 members as at December 2008. Of these, 9,000 are paying members and 5,500 are competence graded. There are large numbers of engineering students in New Zealand. IPENZ know they will lose many graduates overseas each year so they work hard to engage with these students. They encourage students to join IPENZ, they provide training, mentors and support for graduates.

Annual Membership Fee

MIPENZ $393.75

ANNUAL professional Standards Fee $56.25

Annual fees for Registration for CPEng $103.50

$553.50

Registration Fee

Assessment Fee for Graduate with an exemplar qualification on competence development Programme

For NZ graduate on a standard professional progression

$1,161.57

Assessment Fee for Applicant without an exemplar qualification requiring a knowledge assessment

For overseas graduate on requiring a „bespoke‟ assessment.

$2,387.82

Re-Registration Fee

Current Competence assessment Fee $118.38

82

Institute of Professional Engineers of New Zealand

Issues IPENZ

Membership Categories

Professional Member

Fellow and Honorary Fellow

Technical Member

Associate Member

Graduate Members

Companions

Affiliate and Student Members There are 3 difference membership registers: Professional, Technical and Associate. Each membership class is competence graded with its own range of competencies i.e. one is not „better‟ than another -they have different requirements.

Requirements for corporate membership: Professional Member

Professional Member An applicant must provide

Evidence of academic and other relevant qualifications, current registration on other professional engineering registers, results from other relevant competency assessments and professional development activities undertaken;

A chronological summary of the applicant‟s work history (including a description of previous employment positions and professional engineering activities); and

Any other information that the applicant wishes to be considered (which may include a statement of self review reflecting on development as a professional engineer and work samples from recent professional engineering activities);

Annotations explaining how the information demonstrates that the applicant meets the minimum standard for registration.

Must be supported by two other Professional Members or Fellows as referees subject to the provision that where an applicant has difficulty in naming supporters, the Board may permit the substitution of the names of equivalent members of such other institutions or societies as the Board may recognise for this purpose from time to time.

A Professional Member is a person assessed as competent to practice professional engineering as an independent professional capable of designing innovative solutions to complex engineering problems. Professional Members have typically done a four-year engineering degree which provides the graduate with a broad base of engineering principles and practices. They have then developed their skills in mentored employment for 4 to 5 years after which they will have undergone an IPENZ competence assessment to reach the class of Professional Member (MIPENZ). Engineers from overseas (who do not have Chartered status or equivalent) usually apply for IPENZ membership when they arrive. This way they acquire on-line access to tools for developing competency, and usually develop a rapport with a Professional Member who can act as a referee. Referees are required to submit detailed statements of support. Once acquired, the Professional Member status is held for life.

83

Registration requirements: Chartered Professional Engineer

Chartered Professional Engineer (CPEng) CPEng register is a government register of engineers who are legally allowed to provide, for example, producer statements. Engineers can apply for MIPENZ and CPEng at the same time. CPEng acquire an annual practising certificate on payment of fees each year. Registration is gained by demonstrating competence, which is re-assessed for currency at intervals not exceeding five years. There is a registration board and IPENZ employ a range of assessors, but they all fall within the scope of the Institute i.e. there is no separate registration organisation. Re-assessment is competency based. Due to their unique legal responsibilities, engineers are obliged to keep up with changing legislation. Engineers are required to submit a complete work document, demonstrating that they have been practising complex engineering over the previous 5 years. This goes to 2 assessors and then is passed on to the Board, although not every engineer will be interviewed; it depends on their work history and the standard of documentation. The registration process was reviewed in 2003 and the first group of CPEng Engineers were re-registered in December 2008.

Specialist versus generalist

Chartered Professional Engineers are assessed for competence in the practice area they have chosen; practice areas are particular to each CPEng, and may include unique mixes of competencies. The Assessors will be engineers who are specialised in the same sphere of expertise. The Chartered Professional Engineers‟ code of ethical conduct requires that CPEngs work only within their competence – they must refuse to undertake any proposed work that lies outside their area of expertise. There is no requirement to demonstrate current competence at regular intervals to remain a member of a particular class. Each Member is ethically bound to perform engineering activities only in areas within which they are currently competent. As engineers change careers or their knowledge becomes outdated they must cease practice in areas in which they are no longer up to date, but they are entitled to retain their membership as a sign of peer recognition from their profession.

Reciprocity Chartered Engineers from recognised overseas institutions may be granted reciprocity in the form of Professional membership. However every individual, no matter what their training, background or qualifications, must undergo the same process to apply for CPEng status.

CPD

Achievement is assessed on the learning and its application, NOT the total hours spent. Engineers are required to list the professional development activities undertaken in the last five years (or since their last assessment if undertaking a continued registration assessment) to enhance or maintain their current knowledge or skills. However unless at least 50 hours per year of good quality CPD is undertaken it may be difficult to meet the standard.

84

Engineers have a more complex task. Due to Chartered Engineers unique legal responsibilities and requirement to keep up with changing legislation, IPENZ re-registration (known as Current Competence Assessment) is competency based. Engineers are required to submit a complete work document, demonstrating that they have been practising complex engineering over the previous 5 years. This goes to 2 assessors and then is passed on to the Board. Not every engineer will be interviewed; it depends on their work history and the standard of documentation. Although CPD is not mandatory, IPENZ acknowledge that unless at least 50 hours per year of good quality CPD is undertaken it may be difficult to meet the standard. Although this was a major exercise (and will be repeated this year) IPENZ are well resourced and have a number of well trained assessors and evaluation panels, and the process was relatively smooth. PENZ sent every 2003 Registered engineer a letter of reminder in 2007, prior to the re-registration year and then an email in 2008 several months before documentation had to be submitted. Assessment was carried out late in the year and interviews held in November/December for those engineers whose documentation the assessors deemed to be inadequate.

IPENZ offers a range of technical and essential skills courses specifically designed to develop and maintain the competencies of engineers, scientists, technologists and people in engineering-related occupations. It offers many public short courses as in-house courses for organisations. IPENZ is working in partnership with several universities both in New Zealand and overseas to make available to IPENZ members a range of postgraduate modules by distance learning.

85

LI: Landscape Institute In 2006 the Landscape Institute, the Royal Chartered body landscape architects in the United Kingdom undertook a review of membership, due mainly to the long-term problem of low level of entry into the landscape architecture profession. The outcome was:

Revised membership categories Revised corporate membership process, known as the Pathway to

Chartership or P2C with a more flexible pathway to membership to reflect contemporary social and economic conditions and trends.

A commitment to life-long learning A commitment to build the professional community of landscape architects.

This involved getting members involved with institutes governance and activities. It recognized that members of profession are dependent on each other and

A commitment to supporting practitioners throughout their careers

They replaced the old style Professional Practice Examination with the Pathway to Chartership or P2C system. Information from the website and P2C Handbook notes that the Pathway is based on a system of online submissions and feedback using Study Guidance Notes, available on the LI website and accessible through the Pathway system. The online system enables Candidates to record their experience, make quarterly Submissions, receive feedback and update their personal details online. With the help of a Mentor, candidates plan, review and reflect on their learning and receive regular feedback from an LI appointed Supervisor, via the Pathway online system. Landscape Institute

Issues Landscape Institute - LI

Membership Categories

Professional Members or Chartered Landscape Architects

Fellows and Honorary Fellows

Members and

Licentiates (Graduate members)

Subscribers

Graduates

Students

Retired Members

Affiliates

Requirements for corporate membership: Chartered Member

Applicants need to have the following:

Academic qualifications

Have been an Licentiate for a minimum 2 years

Have been proposed as a suitable candidate for the Professional Practice Examination by three Corporate Members of whom one provides a confidential written statement as to the Corporate Member‟s knowledge of the professional experience and personal integrity of the candidate

Have passed the required Professional Practice Examination ie have completed P2C and passed the Oral Exam

Have accepted an obligation to undertake Continuing Professional Development

86

Pathway to Chartership (P2C) is based on a system of continual assessment including online submissions and feedback. It also takes into account previous learning and development. Licentiates are mentored by a fully qualified professional member of the LI (Mentor) and also receive regular feedback from the Pathway supervisor at the LI (Supervisor). Once they have demonstrated that they are ready to move forward, they progress to the second and final stage, the oral examination. Licentiates progress at their own pace. Licentiates Candidates need to have completed at least two years of work before they proceed to the Oral Examination and will also need to demonstrate readiness in accordance with the Guidebook. Study Guidance Notes – the Guidebook The areas and scope of knowledge and understanding required by Candidates on the Pathway in order to meet these criteria are given in the Study Guidance Notes, available on the LI website and accessible through the Pathway system. Mentor: The Mentor supports the Candidate as they progress through the Pathway. A Mentor should ordinarily be someone who has held chartered status as a Member of the Landscape Institute (MLI) for a minimum of two years. They must commit to supporting the Candidate in their development and provide constructive and honest feedback. The mentor has to commit to a minimum 6 hours every 3 months or quarter. Online Development Pack As part of the Pathway, Candidates are required to document their experience and their personal development using the online Development Pack. The Development Pack consists of three sections: the Activity Log, the Quarterly Record and the Quarterly Statement.

The Activity Log is an ongoing record of the Candidate‟s experience;

The Quarterly Record provides a summary of this experience over the course of a quarter, giving a simple overview for Candidate and Mentor to enable them to see the „bigger picture‟;

The Quarterly Statement asks Candidates to reflect on the experience they have gained over the last three months, what has been learned, and priorities for the coming quarter.

For the purposes of the Development Packs and making submissions within the Pathway, the year is divided into four quarters. At the end of each quarter, Candidates are required to make a formal online submission of the Development Pack. Meetings will take two forms • Quarterly Review: the formal meeting which takes place at the end of each quarter to review the Candidate‟s progress in more detail. • Informal: regular, more informal meetings during the quarter, to discuss the Candidate‟s ongoing development and points which may have arisen.

87

Supervisor The Supervisor‟s direct relationship will normally be with the Mentor. The role of the Supervisor is to provide support and feedback to the Candidate and Mentor as the Candidate progresses on the Pathway. Oral Examination The Oral Examination, usually around 45 minutes long, is conducted by two professional members of the Institute. Prior to the examination, Examiners will have access to the Development Packs submitted by the Candidate during the course of the Pathway, as well as the Mentor Reviews and any feedback given by the Supervisor. There will normally be two opportunities to sit the Oral Examination each year.

Specialist versus generalist

The Pathway to Chartership has a common syllabus for the profession regardless of a candidate‟s area of expertise. However, there is an understanding that given the diversity of the profession, some areas will be core to some people‟s work and not to others and all candidates are not expected to achieve high-level knowledge in every area.

Reciprocity

LI do not offer reciprocity at the fully qualified level, unless applicant is an EU national and fully qualified in another EU member state, in which case they will be covered by EU directives. LI automatically admit to Licentiate membership anyone who has a qualification recognised by the IFLA Central Region (formerly the European Federation of Landscape Architects (EFLA), the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) , the Canadian Society of Landscape Architects (CSLA), the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects (AILA) and the New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects (NZILA). Landscape architects fully qualified in New Zealand, Australia, Canada or the USA, will still need to take the Pathway to Chartership. However, the Pathway takes into account prior learning and so those who are fully qualified in other countries will normally be able to progress to UK chartership in a relatively brief period of time. The main areas they will need to cover over and above the knowledge they bring with them will be UK law and contexts.

CPD

Members have an obligation to maintain their professional competence. They must undertake a minimum of 20 hours CPD a year and complete a CPD record. A percentage of members are surveyed each year. Those who cannot demonstrate that they are maintaining their professional knowledge are struck off. LI is currently reviewing systems for CPD, badging learning and raising the profile of skills and personal development. They expect to introduce a new system of CPD monitoring, building on the principles and approaches established in the pathway to chartership, launched 2 years ago; the 20 hour requirement is expected to be redefined.

88

Feedback after 2 years of P2C

The first year review indicated that P2C can only really work if both trainee and mentor work in the same organisation and have an understanding of each job that is being implemented. It is clear that no mentors can successfully manage more than 2 candidates. Participants note that the mentor is expected to fill in online evaluations that are quite complicated and there are constant technical issues. (LI notes that the existing website and interactive computer system was used for the Activity Log data entry and it has not been a success. They regret not commissioning a bespoke system). Although the process is rewarding for both mentor and mentoree, it does require a greater commitment than many sponsors were prepared for. Problems can arise when candidates move jobs, especially if they move to the „opposition‟. Informal feedback is that progress through the Pathway is not clear or straightforward, although this may be due to the unfamiliarity of the system for both the mentor and candidate.

Resources The Pathway is resource Supervisors On-line entry system The Landscape Institute produced the following The Pathway to Chartership Guidebook, a 68 page guidebook for candidates. Study Guidance Notes For The Pathway To Chartership (P2c), a 15 page outline of study notes

1. Membership categories In the past the LI had a divisional structure - design science and management. Initial qualifications on entering the profession largely determined the division the individual was allocated to for life, and membership was described in terms of grade and division. Following the membership review, the divisions have now been abolished. It was felt that the divisional structure frustrated the increasingly diverse and specialist nature of the work of landscape architects. Pathways into the profession eg for those studying landscape design, management or other areas are now viewed as initial specialisms rather than descriptions of an individual‟s full career path or expertise; new specialisms may be created in the future; the Pathway syllabus will accordingly need to be reviewed to ensure that chartership remains accessible to all who join the LI. 2. Revised membership process, known as the Pathway to Chartership or

P2C. The revised programme focuses mostly on professional practise, documentation and legislation; there is no design-based requirement. Within the Pathway and the Oral Examination, Supervisors and Examiners are looking to satisfy themselves that an individual has the skills, technical and professional knowledge and understanding and integrity to practice as a chartered landscape architect in the UK.

89

Overall criteria Candidates should;

understand the legal and professional obligations of a professional member of the Landscape Institute in relationship to clients, the profession, fellow professionals and society in general;

understand the organisation, administration and management of landscape practice including client relationships and professional charges;

are aware of the extent and application of law and legislation relating to land and the landscape;

have a sound knowledge of all the legal and contractual aspects of designing, managing and implementing landscape work.

Learning is described as occurring in 3 Stages Stage 1: the Candidate is aware of particular concepts, and is able to demonstrate a general understanding of the principles behind them Stage 2: the Candidate is able to demonstrate that they can apply their knowledge and understanding of these concepts in day-to-day professional situations Stage 3: the Candidate is able to give well-reasoned advice to clients or consultants, based on an in depth appreciation of the relevant issues raised, the opportunities and potential liabilities. During the course of the Pathway, the Candidate‟s achievements should move from mostly Stage 1 to Stage 2 across most of the Study Guidance Notes and Stage 3 in some areas where the Candidate has gained particular experience and expertise during the course of their work. The Guidebook notes “There will be some areas where a Candidate will have a great deal of knowledge because of the specialization of their work, and other areas to which they have had less direct exposure. Candidates are not expected to have an in depth knowledge of all areas, but they will be expected to be aware of concepts across the Study Guidance Notes, and be able to demonstrate an understanding of the underlying principles.”12 The Pathway and the Oral Examination are not memory tests. The relevant laws, regulations, contract documents and their contents are described and covered in the Study Guidance Notes. Instead examiners are looking for evidence of professionalism: technical competence plus integrity and the ability to make sound professional judgements. Successful Candidates have a rounded understanding of different areas of professional knowledge, are able to successfully interpret this knowledge and have the professional maturity to know when and how to apply it, and know when to seek further advice. Supervisor, Mentor and Candidate relationships. Formal meetings between Mentor and Candidate are held four times a year to review the Candidate‟s progress in detail. However the Candidate and Mentor are expected to meet at least monthly for more informal discussion. The Mentor completes a Review based on discussion at this meeting and submits it to the Supervisor.

12

P2C Guidebook page..xx

90

The Supervisor provides feedback to the Mentor at the end of each quarter on how the Candidate is progressing, highlight areas that require particular attention or identify emerging concerns. The Supervisor‟s direct relationship will normally be with the Mentor; the Supervisor will be on hand to discuss any questions the Mentor may have about the Pathway, the examination, and how best to support the Candidate and help them in developing and reflecting on their knowledge. Mentors should therefore make time to discuss the Supervisor‟s feedback with the Candidate at the regular and Quarterly meetings In reviewing a Candidate‟s readiness to go forward to the examination the Supervisor looks at a range of factors, including:

the quality, content and timeliness of the documentation the Candidate and Mentor have submitted during the course of the Pathway

the emerging profile of the Candidate‟s development and understanding; the context of the Candidate‟s experience; the time the Candidate has completed as an Associate member;

While the system may seem time intensive and laborious, there should be „no surprises‟ at any point in the Pathway in terms of the Candidate‟s ability to pass the checkpoints up to and including the Oral Examination. Ie the Candidate is not progressed through the system and presented as competent until both Mentor and Supervisor feel they are ready and fully prepared. 3. CPD and life-long learning The LI notes “CPD and making a commitment to lifelong learning is about more than simply just waiting for the next CPD event to come along. It‟s about identifying what development is needed, planning how this is going to be achieved, setting goals and reviewing progress.”13 P2C was seen to lay the foundations for CPD by helping graduates develop skills that will be used throughout their career: planning, review and reflection, and taking ownership of their learning. In short, the LI saw P2C as part of a seamless transition of a lifetime of learning from university to graduate to corporate membership and a professional career. Candidates are expected to be responsible for their own learning and open, honest and realistic about their progress. It is their responsibility to organise meetings with their Mentor. It is expected that they will manage their own learning: arranging study groups with peers; visiting other practices and projects; attending study courses; setting up a routine of planned study/ reading; visiting other; talking to other professionals etc etc. Mentors learn too as part of their own CPD. While there are benefits for themselves, their organisation, the profession (and the Candidate), there are responsibilities. Mentors must ensure that they allocate time for managing the candidate, for meetings, and for documenting progress, and be prepared to seek help and support from the Supervisor, the LI, the branch or other Mentors if required. And they must commit to being up-to-date in their own practice process and professional knowledge.

13

P2C Guidebook page ..

91

4. A commitment to build the professional community of landscape architects.

The LI Membership Review emphasises some key messages from the group‟s recommendations:

that progression from student through the grades to Fellow is currently impeded and needs to be facilitated;

that greater articulation of the profession‟s core values and competencies is needed to encourage wider member involvement and pride;

that focus on the needs of current members must be maintained and developed.

Online Development Pack As part of the Pathway, Candidates are required to document their experience and their personal development using the online Development Pack. The Development Pack consists of three sections: the Activity Log, the Quarterly Record and the Quarterly Statement.

The Activity Log is an ongoing record of the Candidate‟s experience; The Quarterly Record provides a summary of this experience over the course

of a quarter, giving a simple overview for Candidate and Mentor to enable them to see the „bigger picture‟;

The Quarterly Statement asks Candidates to reflect on the experience they have gained over the last three months, what has been learned, and priorities for the coming quarter.

For the purposes of the Development Packs and making submissions within the Pathway, the year is divided into four quarters. At the end of each quarter, Candidates are required to make a formal online submission of the Development Pack. The Oral Examination The Oral Examination will usually be around 45 minutes in duration and will be conducted by two professional members of the Institute. Prior to the examination, Examiners will have access to the Development Packs submitted by the Candidate during the course of the Pathway, as well as the Mentor Reviews and any feedback given by the Supervisor. Chartered Landscape Architect Generally the P2C seems to be an improvement for the candidates and good revision for the mentors. It can only really work if both trainee and mentor work in the same organisation and have an understanding of each job that is being implemented. The mentor has to commit to 6hrs every quarter and this is difficult for many landscape architects. He notes that it‟s hard to give additional time over and above your workday, especially if you are trying to mentor a person that doesn‟t work with you or is in competition with your organisation.

92

NZICA: New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants National Office: Level 2, Cigna House,

40 Mercer Street, PO Box 11 342, Wellington 6034

Phone: +64 4 474 7840 www.nzica.com Contact: Audrey Rendle

Assessment Manager - Membership Direct Dial: 64 4 4747870

New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants

Issues NZICA

Membership Process Examination systems Applicants need to complete three basic elements set by the Institute. These are:

Academic study

Practical experience

Professional competence programme Academic requirements: Training Institutes CA College: 4 year degree level academic programme ACA College: 3 year degree level academic programme AT College: NZ Diploma in Business or 2 years degree level study Practical experience: General Practical Experience (all 3 Colleges)

One year of relevant accounting experience

May be completed before, during or after the completion of the academic requirements.

Specified Practical Experience This varies, depending on the Training Institute, from 1-2 years specified practical experience in an Institute-Approved Training Organisation, working with an Institute-approved mentor Professional Competence Programme Professional Competence Exam 1 (all 3 Colleges)

Self study (for 4 weeks before exam)

Four hour ethics workshop

Two hour written exam And (only CA College) Professional Accounting School/ Professional Competence Exam 2

Self study (between March and November)

Six 10-hour workshops (between April and September)

One case study-based exam (November)

93

Requirements for corporate membership: Chartered Accountant Specialist versus generalist

In completing their specified practical experience, the candidate follows a training log (either AT, ACA or CA). The training log is produced by the Institute and contains a range of accounting competencies. From the range of competencies offered, the candidate must complete a certain number, at a certain level; depending on which College they are intending to join. The competencies that they choose usually relate to the areas they are working in while completing their practical experience (eg auditing and taxation). When they graduate with a designation (CA, ACA or AT) they have completed the requirements and competencies as mentioned above. They will therefore be working in one of those areas, but that does not prevent them from working in other areas, although, as per the Institute‟s Code of Ethics “Members must only undertake professional work in which they have the Competence necessary to perform the work to the technical and professional standards expected.” However, in order to offer accounting services to the public, a Chartered Accountant must apply for a Certificate of Public Practice (CPP). It is expected that CAs applying for a CPP will have at least 2 years’ experience as a full CA.

Reciprocity

There are full reciprocal arrangements, for members of the CA College, with the following bodies:

Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales (ICAEW)

Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS)

Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ireland (ICAI)

Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants

Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia (ICAA)

South African Institute of Chartered Accountants (SAICA)

Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants (HKICPA)

Currently full members of the above bodies need to complete degree level papers in New Zealand law and New Zealand taxation in order to become full members of this Institute.

CPD (continuing professional development)

CA members are required to undertake a minimum of 20 hours structured and 20 hours unstructured CPD each year. ACAs require 15 hours structured and 15 hours unstructured and ATs require 10 hours structured and 10 hours unstructured. The CPD policy is currently under review. One of the proposals is that instead of the requirement as above, it will change to 60 hours structured (for CAs) over a rolling three year period. That way, if a candidate completes 24 hours structured CPD in one year, he/she does not need to apply to carry 4 hours forward but can complete less the following year. In any 3 year period the expectation, for CAs, would be that they complete 60 hours, for ACAs 45 hours, and for ATs 30 hours.

94

NZIF: New Zealand Institute of Foresters The NZIF Secretariat: PO Box 19-840

Christchurch NEW ZEALAND

Phone +64 3 318 1056 e-mail: nzif@paradise.net.nz Contact: Andrew McEwen

am.mcewen@xtra.co.nz New Zealand Institute of Foresters:

Issues NZIF

Membership Categories

Registered Member

Full Member

Associate Member (someone with an interest in forestry who can contribute to the advancement of forestry and the objects of the Institute.

Graduate member

Retired member Full Member Applicants need to complete three basic elements set by the Institute.

These are:

Academic qualifications

Has been a graduate member for at least 2 years

5 years completed in the practice, administration or teaching of,

or research in some branch of forestry;

Sponsor Must be proposed and seconded by two Registered Members or Full Members.

Requirements for corporate membership: Registered Member

Examination systems Can go straight from Graduate member to Registered member Applicants need to complete three basic elements set by the Institute. These are:

Academic qualifications

Practical experience

Professional competence which is demonstrated by interview, examination of written examples of the applicant‟s work, knowledge of the particular course of study undertaken by the applicant, or by other appropriate and reasonable means.

95

Registered Member (continued)

Academic requirements Must have passed a formal course of a standing recognised by the Board in some branch of forestry or an allied discipline (the Board may waive this requirement in special circumstances); Practical Experience Must have completed at least five years‟ experience in forestry since graduation or certification, of which at least two must have been in New Zealand, and have reached a level of expertise recognised by the Board; Professional competence Must display an understanding of the basic principles underlying the forestry process involved in the member‟s particular area of qualification and expertise. The Board may establish satisfaction of this criterion by interview, examination of written examples of the applicant‟s work, knowledge of the particular course of study undertaken by the applicant, or by other appropriate and reasonable means; CPD Must have undertaken ongoing continuing professional development (CPD) for a minimum period of three years preceding application; Must reaffirm in writing his/her intention to abide by the New Zealand Institute of Forestry‟s Code of Ethics.

Specialist versus generalist

An applicant for admission as a Registered Member may request that the applicant is recognized as having: 1. general skills in forestry; 2. general skills in forestry but with specialist skills in a specified area; or 3. specialist skills in specified areas (but without general skills in forestry). The Board may determine that the applicant be recognised as having skills within one of the categories listed in Article 124 and require that the entry in the register should be so qualified.

Reciprocity -

Registration & CPD

Registered Member must have undertaken ongoing continuing professional development (CPD) to the satisfaction of the Board for a minimum period of three years preceding application. Registration requires an Annual Practicing Certificate. The application must include:

A statement of CPD activities undertaken in the preceding 12 months;

Reaffirmation of compliance with the NZIF‟s Code of Ethics;

The annual fee.

96

NZIS: New Zealand Institute of Surveyors National Office: 5th Floor, St John House

114 The Terrace, Wellington.

www.surveyors.org.nz Contact: Barry Davidson.

Phone 04 471 1774, fax 04 471 1907 Email: nzis@surveyors.org.nz

New Zealand Institute of Surveyors

Issues NZIS

Membership Categories

Registered

Member

Fellow

Associate (may be further classified as Professional Associate and Technical Associate)

Graduate

Graduates Graduating students who wish to join the Institute as a „Professional Associate‟ must be nominated by not less than 2 Members or Fellows, have approval by the local Branch and be elected by a majority decision of the Council. Graduates have Free membership for the first year after Graduation

Membership Process To be a Member a Professional Associate must have: Less than 5 years but more than 2 years post graduation experience: Must pass the Professional Entrance Examination in at least 3 disciplines. Minimum practical experience requirements apply to some of the disciplines. More than 5 years but less than 10 years post graduation experience: Supply to the Admissions Panel detailed examples of the work personally carried out since graduation in at least 3 disciplines. Admissions Panel shall either agree that the examples put forward are sufficient to show competence in that discipline or, if not, require the candidate to pass the Professional Entrance Examination in the candidate‟s chosen disciplines. More than 10 years post graduate experience: Supply to the Admissions Panel detailed examples of the work personally carried out over the past 5 years in at least 2 disciplines. Admissions Panel must be satisfied that the candidate has an advanced knowledge and competence in those disciplines.

Membership Process (continued)

Professional Entrance Examination – A face-to-face Oral Examination held each year, usually in May. The oral examination will be for at least 35 minutes in each discipline elected in front of a member of the Admissions Panel. Candidates will need to produce examples of their work to the examiner. Membership is usually completed 2-3 years after completion of a B. Surveying.

97

Requirements for corporate membership: Registration

Registered Professional Surveyors must:

hold a 4-year Bachelor of Surveying degree or equivalent

have at least three years practical experience

have passed the Institute‟s Professional Entrance Examinations ie is competent in spatial measurement and three other surveying related disciplines.

Have advanced competence in at least two specialist areas and can demonstrate a high level of professionalism

Specialist Areas

Cadastral surveying

Mining surveying

Hydrographic surveying

Geodetic surveying

Urban and rural planning

Subdivision engineering

Resource management

Photogrammetry

Remote sensing

Engineering surveying

Project management

Geographic (spatial) information systems

Other relevant expertise Registration is usually completed 5-6 years after completion of a B. Surveying and must be renewed annually.

Registration applications Applications need to be accompanied by the following documents:

A written statement of the competence achieved in the required disciplines. Full details of professional experience and responsibility must be provided as competence will be assessed on depth of experience and levels of responsibility.

A written synopsis of the three years experience in the selected disciplines. Detailed descriptions of the complexities of relevant projects must be provided in order to show applicants have a thorough understanding of their disciplines.

Evidence of CPD undertaken over the preceding two years.

Names of two appropriate referees. Each year, Registered Professional Surveyors are required to apply to have the status renewed. If they do not meet the Institute‟s stringent requirements for renewal they may not be able to continue to use the title or may be suspended from being able to use it.

98

Specialist versus generalist

There is no requirement for registered surveyors to show their specialisation on their business cards or adverts. The vast majority just promote themselves as Registered Professional Surveyors although a few include additional information about their specialty areas on their business cards. Currently there is no requirement for surveyors to demonstrate CPD if they move into another area of surveying or to sit a Professional Entrance Exam. They tend to settle on a particular specialisation early on in their careers and stick with that so NZIS hasn‟t needed to set up a separate procedure to deal with it.

CPD

Some specialist areas (Cadastral surveying, Hydrographic surveying) have on-going competence requirements for licensing or certification over and above that required for Registered Surveyors. NZIS has a commitment to provide a suitable programme to assist these members. NZIS has a commitment to provide CPD or rather it ensures that its Continuing Education Committee has a commitment to co-ordinate and monitor professional education programmes that are relevant, practical and accessible. NZIS recognise as professional development the following: formal study, informal study, research and writing, professional practice, Institute participation and service, and personal development i.e. seek out the knowledge required to become better informed -not just undertake the work in the normal manner.

CPD General guide: Members require 20 hours pa Registered Members require 25 hours pa CPD is audited The National Manager will issue an annual CPD Compliance Certificate for the preceding 24-month period in the case of Registered Professional Surveyors, and 12 months for other members.

Information NZIS provide an excellent „roadmap‟ demonstrating the career path for

surveyors

99

NZPI: New Zealand Planning Institute National Office: Level 6, 393 Khyber Pass Road

Newmarket PO Box 8658 Symonds Street AUCKLAND 1150

Contact: Keith Hall Phone: 09 520 6277 Email: admin@planning.org.nz

NZPI or New Zealand Planning Institute NZPI follow a simplified pathway approach to full membership although there is debate within members if the process should be reviewed and opened to a wider range of applicants. Candidates require a minimum of three full years work experience (36 months) and three NZPI members to sponsor their application. They must complete a statement of experience corroborated by the employer (work history) and provide three work examples. Once approved, candidates have a membership interview supplemented, where necessary, by any other form of assessment. The Interview Panel may request the production of additional evidence from or about the applicant. the membership approach is relatively simple, although there can be problems finding sponsors. Difficulties for the institute arise over issues of planning qualifications and definitions of what constitutes „planning experience‟. There is much debate within the organisation over the question of specialisation. Some members believe that planning is a holistic, overarching profession and graduates should demonstrate competency across the range of specialities. Others believe that many planners are becoming more specialised and that specialisations should be accommodated in the Membership Process. New Zealand Planning Institute

Issues NZPI Membership

Membership Categories

Full Members ( Members + Fellows + Life Fellows) = 712

Graduate Members=492

Associate Members= 250 Technicians

Students = 179

Honorary Fellows= 6

Non-Active Member=42

Retired = 60 Numbers 2009= 1,869

Graduates Graduate Members have access to a Young Planners Group, established to provide services and support for student and recently graduated members of NZPI.

Graduate workshops are run in conjunction with major conferences to mentor and encourage graduates to become full members.

After 3 years as a Graduate, members pay the same fees as Full Members e.g. there is no financial incentive to remain a Graduate.

Average 54 applications for full membership each year.

100

Requirements for corporate membership: Full Members

Applicants for Full Membership need to complete the following basic elements set by the Institute. These are:

Appropriate academic qualifications

A minimum of three full years (36 months) work experience, with at least 1year experience in NZ.

3 NZPI members to sign application (1 sponsor and 2 supporters). Sponsor must be someone who can attest to member‟s work and experience or be able to act as a mentor if need be. All members should be comfortable to be contacted by either the Membership Convenor or the Chair of the Interview panel.

A complete statement of experience corroborated by the employer (work history)

Three work examples.

A membership interview of 1-2 hours supplemented, where necessary, by any other form of assessment. The Interview Panel ( 3 members) may request the production of additional evidence from or about the applicant.

Interview panels are convened as required. Experienced members are used but have no formal training for interviewing etc. The Panel has some discretion dealing with candidates; It may turn them down, highlight deficient areas and advice them to come back in a year, highlight very specific deficiencies and advise them to come back in a year to the same panel, request additional information in the form of an essay –particularly for candidates who do not interview well or pass them with minor reservations and set them up with an approved mentor.

The Website notes: “If you have worked in one area of planning, or haven‟t had a great breadth of work experience, don‟t let that deter you from considering making an application. While wide experience may help, the panel is more interested in your views, opinions, approaches to problems, and analytical processes. The panel will want to see that you have a big picture view of planning. They will try to ask a range of questions, drawing on your own experience. Very few questions will have a black and white answer. If you want to think about a question, don‟t rush the answer out. If you don‟t understand the question, ask for further clarification. If you get hit with a hard question, attempt to answer it, even if it is by “thinking out aloud”. A thoughtful reply is better than no answer. Interviewers like a good discussion, and a good topic will often generate debate and comments from everyone.”

Specialist versus generalist

Full members complete the competencies that will be covered in the membership interview. While they do not have to have had experience in all of these areas they do need to have and be able to demonstrate a good understanding of them. Practical Experience shall be in any of the groups: (a) Research (b) Plan Preparation (c) Administration (d) Planning Teaching

101

Registration & CPD

25 hours of CPD per year, randomly audited. Continuing Professional Development is compulsory for Full Members

Reciprocity Need three Full NZPI members to sign form and must have a minimum of three years planning experience of which at least one year must be in New Zealand. Undergo a similar interview to applicants for full membership.

Full member of the NZPI is automatically entitled to the equivalent status with the Planning Institute of Australia

NZPI Full members can apply for corporate membership with the Royal Town Planning Institute and are only required to complete their distance-learning test of UK Planning Law and Practice and be sponsored by appropriately qualified planners

Information The NZPI Application information notes: ”You should be asked about your expectations of joining the Institute – why are you applying for membership? Remember, membership of the Institute is a two-way relationship. While the NZPI® should provide its members with certain services, as a voluntary run professional body, it relies on all its members to work together to achieve common goals, at national or branch level or on a personal basis. While Full Membership may be useful in getting that job in the UK, joining the NZPI® should mean more than just that……”

102

Architects Two organizations service architects in New Zealand: the New Zealand Institute of Architects and the New Zealand Registered Architects Board. New Zealand Institute of Architects: NZIA The New Zealand Institute of Architects Incorporated National Office: Suite 1.5. 72 Dominion Road

Mt Eden Auckland 1024 PO Box 2516 Shortland Street Auckland 1140

Phone +64 9 623 6080 Chief Executive: Beverley McRae NZIA Individual Membership benefits

Use of an NZIA designation for Architect, Academic and Graduate members (See NZIA Rules for guidance as to what is permitted)

Curriculum consultation and degree accreditation Graduate Development Programme (GDP) Pre-registration training Continuing Professional Development (CPD) programme Practice Support Groups (PSG) In-Office Training Groups (IOT) A range of local events / collegial activities Conferences Members‟ chat list for exchange of views with other NZIA members Active websites : www.nzia.co.nz and www.architecturenz.net A monthly newsletter (Cross Section) and bi-monthly journal (architecturenz) NZIA publications, technical documents and guide-books free of charge or at

member rates Reference copies of NZIA construction contracts and services agreements at

member rates Annual remuneration survey Submissions, comments and representations to government in relation to

legislation and regulation Representation on the Construction Industry Council and other industry

bodies Affiliation with overseas institutes Marketing and public relations activities Listing in the annual Directory of NZIA Practices Listing in architecturenz magazine (March/April edition) Publication of work on www.architecturenz.net website Local and New Zealand Awards programmes Marketing of NZIA Practices (brand awareness) Promotional and practice assistance material for use by NZIA Practices free

of charge Quality Assurance programme

103

NZRAB: New Zealand Registered Architects Board National Office: Level 3, The Dominion Building,

78 Victoria Street, PO Box 11106 Wellington

Contact: Paul Jackman

Chief executive, NZRAB Phone +64 4 471 1336 - 021 280 0197

The New Zealand Registered Architects Board (NZRAB): registers architects who have been assessed by their peers as competent to

practice independently maintains an online architects register, so the public can confirm that an

architect is registered investigates complaints and, if need be, disciplines Registered Architects.

NZRAB or New Zealand Registered Architects Board It is difficult to compare NZILA to NZILA / NZRAB given the unique „protected‟ position of architects and the separation of function of the dual organisations that members belong to. NZRAB require an applicant to have a recognized qualification in architecture and relevant work experience of not less than 140 weeks. The applicant presents a „portfolio‟ of 1-3 projects/ case studies and undergoes an interview. Each case study takes into account the following stages of architectural design: Project initiation and pre-design; Design stages; Project review and communication; Detailed design; Contract documentation and procurement; Contract administration and observation; Statutory requirements; and Practice conduct and office management. Re specialization, the design process is reasonably standard, no matter how large or how specialized the project is. Paul Jackman, Chief Executive of NZRAB notes that architects can be specialized, so long as in the interview it is clear that the applicant understands his or her area of competence and will seek assistance if operating outside that area of competence.

104

New Zealand Registered Architects Board

Issues NZRAB Process

Requirements for Registration

Examination systems Applicants need to complete three basic elements set by the Board. These are:

Recognized qualification in architecture

Relevant work experience of not less than 140 weeks.

Professional competence review. Applicants submit a body of work documenting the design process, known as their case study for assessment and undergo an interactive interview.

Case Study In the discussion, the applicant leads the Assessors through his or her case study, explaining the projects, the applicant‟s role within them, and how this indicates that the applicant meets the minimum standards for registration. The body of the case study must consist of sections leading chronologically through the project, each section having a written commentary and examples of typical documents relevant to each stage. In each case this must include an explanation of how the applicant has met the relevant Minimum Standard for Registration as a Registered Architect and the applicant‟s own analysis of that stage of the work. The case study will take into account: A. Project initiation and pre-design B. Design stages C. Project review and communication

D. Detailed design E. Contract documentation and procurement F. Contract administration and observation G. Statutory requirements H. Practice conduct and office management. The applicant should also be able to discuss professional conduct and have a good understanding of the Code of Minimum Standards of Ethical Conduct for Registered Architects. Interview is no longer than 3 hours.

Specialist versus generalist

The design process is standard, no matter how large or how specialized the project is. Specialisation is not relevant so long as in the interactive assessment it is clear that the applicant understands his or her area of competence and will seek assistance if operating outside that area of competence.

Reciprocity

Where an applicant has been a registered architect in Canada, South Africa, the UK and the USA there is a more streamlined registration path, different from registrations from other countries. - Minimum 45 weeks must be spent under the direction of a Registered Architect in New Zealand or Australia. - Practical Experience Assessment/Interview to ensure that the applicant is capable of practicing architecture, including as a sole practitioner, with skill and care, in conformity with the standard of the practice of architecture in New Zealand. For overseas experience, other than in Australia, to be included, applicants‟ overseas employers must provide references stating the period of employment.

105

Registration & CPD

CPD require 1000 points over 5 years which equates roughly to 200 points/pa or 10points /hour. This is the equivalent of 20 hours pa. CPD need not be targeted at specific specialisations.

CPD is not mandatory. Every five years Architects must be checked to make sure they still meet the standard. Full CPD participation makes this automatic, but if an architect has no CPD then he or she will be assessed, if needs be face to face, and a decision made in terms of whether the architect meets the standard. It is likely that those that don't achieve 1000 points will have to provide evidence of other activities or of their work over the previous 5 years.

Architects will not be penalized if they haven‟t done CPD – what matters is whether the standard is met.

Information NZRAB have an excellent „roadmap‟ on their website “Pathways to becoming a Registered Architect” that describes the process by which architects from a range of backgrounds can gain Registration.

The reality for NZRAB is that under a revised registration system introduced in 2006, 1500 architects were re-registered on the same date. It is most likely that architects who have acquired the 1000 CPD points will be re-registered, starting in 2011. Those who have not achieved the required level of CPD will be assessed for re-registration (or Continuing Registration as it is known), probably using a Competence Review process similar to that used for the initial Registration. NZRAB has assembled a panel to determine the criteria for assessment and the method that evaluations panels will use for continuing registration Competence Reviews. Given the numbers of practitioners to be reviewed, it is looking at streamlining the re-registration process to allow members who already have 100CPD points to re-register early, starting 2010 or even 2009.

NZRAB is now facing a logistical problem. 1500 members were registered in 2006 and will all need to apply for re-registration on the same date in 2011. It is most likely that registration will roll over for those architects who have acquired 1000 CPD points. Those who have not achieved the required level of CPD will be assessed for re-registration (or Continuing Registration as it is known), probably using a Competence Review process similar to that used for the initial Registration. NZRAB has assembled a panel to determine the criteria for assessment and the method that evaluations panels will use for continuing registration Competence Reviews. Given the logistical numbers of practitioners to be reviewed, it is looking at streamlining the re-registration process to allow members who already have 100CPD points to re-register early, starting 2010 or even 2009.

106

The Physiotherapy Board of New Zealand The Physiotherapy Board of New Zealand PO Box 3287 Wellington New Zealand The Physiotherapy Board of New Zealand:

Requirements for corporate membership: Registered Member

Eligibility Requirements For Registration Registered Physiotherapists must:

Successfully complete an approved course of study in physiotherapy (equivalent to four years of tertiary study).

Complete at least 1000 supervised clinical hours of physiotherapy practice.

Establish that they are fit to practice

Meet stringent competency requirements

Hold a current Annual Practising certificate

CPD requirements Physiotherapists require

100 formally recorded CPD hours over the next three years

50 practical hours or practice-based hours must be verified over the three years

Evidence of one Professional Peer Review over the 3 year period.

Log Book Over the three years 100 formally recorded CPD hours are required. The Board recommends that an electronic log book is used to record completed CPD activities, classified into the four learning categories:

Work based

Professional

Formal education

Self-directed Only formally recorded CPD hours that are supported with acceptable personalised evidence will be counted. Acceptable evidence is, for example, a course certificate, personalised notes from the course or a reflective statement describing the new learning and the impact this has had on the member‟s practice. The log must include a brief description of work history. This information is required so the evaluator can assess the relevancy of the CPD, practical hours and Professional Peer Review. The Five Pieces of Evidence Pieces of evidence must be personalised. In some cases it is difficult for the Evaluator to ascertain the practitioner's involvement in a project or a conference. While an element of trust operates in regard to practitioner activities the best verification is that which is personalised. Writing a reflective statement is another way of retaining evidence and demonstrating how an activity has contributed to personal learning.

107

CPD requirements (continued)

Three Reflective Statements It is crucial that the member reflects on their own area of practice and how a particular CPD activity impacts directly on the practice. It is strongly recommended that the member reflect on a CPD activity listed in their logbook and /or an ethical or cultural issue. One Professional Peer Review Practitioners will be asked to provide evidence that a Peer Review has occurred once during the three-year period. 50 Practical Hours Over three years 50 practical hours are required. All practical hours (the entire 50 hours) may be submitted in one year or a proportion of hours over the three year period.