2023-2025 Accreditation Procedure Review
Overview
The Architecture Program Accreditation Procedure in Australia and New Zealand sets out the peer review process through which all architecture programs in Australia are assessed against the accreditation standard over five years or ten semester equivalence of learning cycle. The eight state and territory architect registration boards have statutory responsibility for the accreditation of architectural programs of study within their jurisdictions. Programs accredited in one jurisdiction are recognised in any other jurisdiction in Australia and New Zealand.
To be eligible for accreditation, schools of architecture must provide evidence that the relevant Performance Criteria of the National Standard of Competency for Architects are integrated within the curriculum and appropriately assessed in student work.
The current Procedure was first published in 2018 and we are now starting its review. We encourage academic and practitioner members of the profession to submit comments to this survey.
This survey is to gather views from across the profession on the Procedure and will be promoted through all stakeholders. The survey will be open from December 2023 to March 2024.
Details on the Procedure Review including the Terms of Reference, the Expert Working Group, the Program for the Procedure Review, Project Updates, and the Issues Paper that will result from the benchmarking report and survey results, will be regularly updated on the webpage (https://aaca.org.au/2023-2025-accreditation-procedure-review/).
Terms of Reference
Review the Architecture Program Accreditation Procedure in Australia and New Zealand to the extent which the procedure:
1. Is fit for the purpose of accrediting providers of the Master of Architecture.
2. Meets the needs of regulators and reflects current and emerging risks across the profession.
3. Is aligned with the 2021 National Standard of Competency for Architects (2021 NSCA), and is flexible enough to allow for future revisions to the NSCA.
4. Is supported by an appropriate cost-recovery funding model with cost-sharing between the university providers and architect registration boards, and considering the cost/affordability for stakeholders.
5. Is robust, reasonable, relevant, clear, and user-friendly.
Project Stages and Timeframes
Stage 1: Expert Working Group establishment
October – November 2023
- Key items from stakeholders discussed.
- Formulate key items for the survey.
Stage 2: Research and data collection
December – March 2024
Survey released
- Research and benchmarking
- Interviews of key stakeholders
Refer to the bottom of this webpage for links to the survey and the PDF of all questions.
Stage 3: Analysis of survey and Development of issues paper
April – June 2024
- Culminates in an issues paper released to inform consultation with stakeholder groups.
CURRENT STAGE
Stage 4: Formal input from Stakeholders
July – December 2024
- Collection and analysis of consultation input from stakeholder groups informed by issues paper.
Stage 5: Option analysis
January – February 2025
- Drafting of the revised procedure
Stage 6: Release of revised Procedure
March – April 2025
- Release of the revised procedure for comment by stakeholders
Stage 7: Release of revised Procedure
May – October 2025
- Consideration of consultation feedback and preparation of a Project Report
- Presentation of the Project Report and draft revised Procedure to the Architect Registration Boards
- Consideration of the draft revised Procedure by the Architect Registration Boards
Revised Procedure prepared for publishing
Publish: November 2025
Implement: Transitional
- January 2026 for easy to adopt changes
- January 2027 for changes that require development
Expert Reference Group
| Erin Hinton | ARB Nominee |
| Prof Chris Smith | AASA Nominee |
| Emily Van Eyk | ACA Nominee |
| Prof Paul Loh | ADBED Nominee |
| Dr John Ting | AIA Nominee |
| Paul Berkemeier | AACA Nominee |
| Chris Thom | NZRAB Nominee |
| Dr Chris Landorf | Chair |
| Philip Chum | EmAGN observer |
| TBD | SONA observer |
Communications and updates
All opportunities for input or comment will be advised via project updates, published to the News section of the AACA Home Page, and noted on this Review Page. Project updates are communicated widely to a variety of stakeholders.
Project Updates are released to the following organisations and individuals:
- All Australian State and Territory Architect Registration Boards
- Executive of the AIA, AASA, ACA, and ADBED
- AACA Program Assessor Panel membership
- Australian University Head of School and accreditation contact listing maintained by AACA
- Accreditation Standing Panel membership
- All stakeholders and individuals that made a submission on the Issues Paper during Stage 3 or the revised procedure during Stage 6
- A number of individuals that have requested to be kept informed of progress with the Procedure Review.
Project updates:
2-Jul-2024
The 2023-2025 Accreditation Procedure Review Issues Paper summarises 13 key issues and related sub-issues identified during the initial research and data collection stage of the review process.
The AACA is now circulating the Issues Paper to its Members and key stakeholders with the scope to collect feedback that will inform the next stages of consultation and review of the Procedure. The input from Members/key stakeholders will offer critical insight and guidance to prioritise areas of concern and allow the AACA to identify solutions that will address these issues.
The next stages of the Review will commence in September 2024 with a series of stakeholder focus groups organised around the issues and sub-issues identified as of highest priority for key stakeholder groups.
31-Mar-2024
The Accreditation Procedure Review Survey is closed.
1-Dec-2023
The Accreditation Procedure Review Survey is released.
| Survey link for submission | Survey questions in PDF for previewing | |
| Survey 1: This survey is envisaged for a general audience and questions on a broad range of topics related to the accreditation procedure review. | Survey Closed | Survey in PDF |
| Survey 2: This survey is envisaged for the providers of the Master of Architecture university programs in Australia. | Survey Closed | Survey in PDF |
| Survey 3: This survey is envisaged for the Architect Registration Boards and experienced members of the Accreditation Review Panels. | Survey Closed | Survey in PDF |
The surveys are long, we recommend you view the PDF version before starting. This may help you organise your answers and comments, and assist you in completing all 3 surveys.
Please note you cannot modify your input to the survey after you submit or quit the survey. Please email [email protected] if you want to modify or supplement your input.
Glossary of Terms
Assessment Rubric – AACA do not think it appropriate to nominate an assessment rubric at this early stage. For a guide to an assessment rubric, a good starting point would be https://www.teaching.unsw.edu.au/assessment-rubrics
Panel – Accreditation Review Panel
Program – University Program (e.g., M Arch)
Provider – University provider of the program (e.g., University of XXX)
Risk – In regulating the provision of architectural services, risk is considered in the context of safeguarding the consumer and the public more broadly.
As part of their respective regulatory frameworks, Architect Registration Boards consider risk at the point of registration and for continued registration as an architect as follows:
- To protect the public by ensuring architectural services of an architect are provided in a professional and competent way; and
- To maintain public confidence in the standard of services provided by architects; and
- To uphold the standards of practice of architects.
At the point of graduation from an architecture program, to reduce the risk to the consumer a graduate would be expected to know (but not limited to):
- Regulatory requirements of an architect, code of practice, need for a registered architect to complete CPD, requirement to hold professional indemnity insurance.
- Design and documentation for compliance with the National Construction Code and Australian Standards.
Risk Matrix – AACA do not think it appropriate to nominate a risk matrix at this early stage. For a guide to a risk matrix, a good reference is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_matrix
