Michael Ryan and Paul Costigan have been investigating the wide range of issues that influence the way in which Landscape Architects are perceived by potential employers and clients. The study is based on the databases of AILA and the LPRB plus the results of many surveys and a considerable quantity of anecdotal evidence.

While the study is ongoing, this paper summarises work to date and the resultant strategies. Each major strategy is briefly reviewed. The role of the Institute in developing and/or reshaping the culture of life-long learning among Australian Landscape Architects is covered in greater detail.

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE – EARNING CREDIBILITY?

This paper concerns one of the many issues of importance to the profession of landscape architecture. We are still a relatively young and rapidly growing profession. Most of the growth continues to be by increased diversity with Landscape architects working across an increasing band of activity. This diversity is the dynamic strength of this profession. But without support it could also generate a future weakness.

THE INSTITUTE

Various surveys reveal that most members of the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects perceive its primary role as advocacy – promoting the profession. Many also claim that AILA is failing in this role and is becoming a mere ‘club’. I could describe how much has and is being done to advocate the profession, but that is not today’s topic.

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

The primary self-image of members who responded to recent surveys relates to design. They want AILA to help them improve their design skills and knowledge of design theory. The collective conscience does not perceive many problems in technical, legal or managerial expertise. Follow-up interviews revealed a belief that all necessary support expertise was learned in college or early practice.

Most also believe that the only acceptable test of skills is client satisfaction. They often quoted marketing and management theory to support this attitude. They believed that client satisfaction alone justified further commissions on an exclusive basis and were critical of potential clients who used competitive selection processes. They, in discussions, often refused to consider the fact that such clients are accountable to shareholders or the public.

ADVOCACY

Promotion is an essential role of any professional institute. It generates awareness and employment opportunities. But any promotional activity also generates expectations of delivery of the promised benefits. We are generally perceived by our customers as being able to deliver better design than our competitors. This is a positive outcome of many years of marketing by AILA and individual members. But, do we possess the high standards of technical, administrative and contractual skills necessary to efficiently implement good design? Do we lack credibility? Do we exhibit patent accountability?

The Australian Productivity Commission has, in various reports, summarised the attitude of governments and large clients as requiring competition between credible suppliers. While much work is still needed to refine the nature of competition, this paper focuses on the credibility issue.

CREDIBILITY = SKILLS + ACCOUNTABILITY

ACCOUNTABILITY

Accountability for Australian landscape architects is now in place. Registered landscape architects submit to regular assessment through a scheme considered by most governments and many large clients as a timely response to their needs. The successful establishment of the Landscape Professions Registration Board of Australia as being effectively independent of National Council (though part of the business of AILA) has freed council of the policing role that distracted from its core responsibilities.

Even without imposed client requirements, the responsible professional has always sought external assessment. This is possibly the reason for the higher than anticipated level of registration of landscape architects in this country. But there are many more who could benefit from our own system of accountability.

The registration examination is not an easy path. For credibility reasons it must be rigorous. Those intending to apply should contact the registrar now (02 6230 1441) as the registration board is establishing a system of progressive assessment. This system will reduce the impact of the examination on the candidate’s practice or employer.

SKILL

My recent research has focussed on this area. To date, I would describe it as a ‘pilot’ study but sufficient work has been done to clearly indicate areas of need.

This study is based on data from the following sources.
  Conversations with landscape architects working as expert witnesses;
  Surveys of and conversations with project managers;
  Discussions with landscape architects who perform documentation audits (limited number);
  Many years of practice submissions from post-graduate students that reflect the attitudes and practises of their employers;
  Surveys and discussions with local authority assessors and inspectors; and
  Many surveys run by national office and state groups of AILA including a recent email questionnaire by Paul Costigan.

These sources reveal that landscape architects enjoy a good reputation for design but concern is often expressed about a wide range of technical weaknesses. The most common problems are:-
  Contract documents that are not compatible with the prescribed implementation method;
  ‘Unbusinesslike’ activities in relation to conditions of engagement;
  Procedures/activities during construction that conflict with the contract; and
  Details incompatible with current regulations or codes.

These issues are already undermining our credibility in certain parts of the marketplace. They might also be an indication of a growing professional negligence problem which, if not dealt with quickly, will be eventually reflected in professional indemnity insurance premiums.

On the positive side, a review of the data held by the Landscape Professions Registration Board reveals a high level of commitment to continuing professional development.

Ninety-six percent of registered landscape architects demonstrate CPD performance at least four times the required minimum. But only 10% of them are following carefully planned, focussed and time efficient learning programs. Most appear to be merely (random) sampling seminar opportunities. The surveys revealed that CPD appears to be seen by most as a ‘points’ accumulating obligation. Many criticised this style of CPD. One respondent referred to it as the “foolish practice of keeping a seemingly arbitrary log of conferences and talks”. Other professions in this country and our own profession in other places appear to be much more concerned with genuine lifelong learning.

Conclusion

IN ORDER TO EARN CREDIBILITY WE MUST DEVELOP A CULTURE OF LIFELONG LEARNING AMONG AUSTRALIAN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS.

The Australian Institute of Landscape Architects must:-
Assist members to plan their individual CPD programs;
Advise members of topics/skills of increasing/potential importance;
Provide or advise of appropriate learning experiences at national, state and local levels in the form of workshops, seminars, publications, ‘self-guide’ kits, etc;
Publicly recognise members who demonstrate excellence in CPD;
Provide genuine support for members who are geographically or professionally isolated;
Increase the ‘coverage’ of present CPD activities; Develop stronger links with the CPD activities of other occupational groups; and
Encourage the use of the registration scheme as our preferred form of accountability and as a natural progression for experienced landscape architects at any managerial level.

The change will not occur suddenly.

But, if we try, it will eventually make a difference.