AC certification

[Petros Ioannou]

Does Graphisoft has an official standard for qualifying users with Archicad knowledge? And if so is there a sort of test or anything else to prove that a student has attended AC lessons or seminars?
I am asking this because a lot of students and professionals who came to the drafting/drawing school where I am teaching usually ask for some sort of verification for their training.
IMHO the best way to verify this is your everyday performance in a practice but people usually need some sort of papers to prove this.
....or sometimes because they just like to collect diplomas!

Petros

[Karl Ottenstein]

Aaron wrote:
The World Archi Games wind down...

[Karl Ottenstein]

Akos wrote:
We would like to encourage you to comment on these issues and help us making a system that best fits your needs.

Thanks, Akos. I hope others will offer comments here.

My concern is that a multiple choice test doesn't really test someone's abilities, and the answers will likely be pretty obvious.

If Microsoft has multiple choice tests for certifying programmers, network specialists and the like, I wouldn't want to hire someone based on that. Certainly in that realm, the question could be related to how to code something and the answers could be a variety of subtly different ways to do it, with errors and problems in each ... and so answering the question would convey a degree of literacy and skill. But, it wouldn't convey that the person could analyze and choose appropriate algorithms and data structures and built an appropriate solution.

Similarly, a test could show that someone understands what each tool in AC does (although how to do that in a way such that the answers are not self-evident seems challenging). But, to show that someone is an expert - that they know efficient ways of utilizing all features of AC, including 'lateral' thinking, throughout a project's life span seems a great challenge.

Were I to evaluate someone, I cannot imagine doing it without assigning them tasks and observing how they tackled each one. In lieu of hands-on oral exam (which I think is best, if not practical), I can imagine trying to do that via a set of model files and questions, where, in response to each question, the applicant is to enter the actions they would take either in prose or coded in some way ... but scoring such a test would be time consuming and couldn't be automated even if actions were coded since there are so many ways of accomplishing the same task in AC.

But, maybe someone can think of a way to certify experts that doesn't require a human examiner?

Karl

[David Shorter]

Karl wrote
=================
.....hardly accomplishes the goals IMHO. If someone took 1 hour to create a model and someone else fumbled around and took 20 hours to create the same model, evaluating them based on the model would lead to the conclusion that their skills were equal......
================
David
Karl, its not an issue of speed, its being able to assess the users skill using ArchiCAD. If the user can use the tool (program) properly then the speed will be there.

Karl wrote
=================
Look at the criteria evaluation form at:
http://www.archicadaccreditation.com/criteria.html
and imagine how it could be filled out in any way that meaningfully assesses anyone's competency. Among other things, the evaluation includes some categories based on the use of modules. Does this mean that the applicant should artificially introduce modules into the model just so that they can have high scores ("Used lots of modules!") in those categories, even if the use was inappropriate?
=================
David
The results of the assessment reflect the users skills and are clearly identified. If I have to assess the users skill prior should I not be testing ALL the skill areas in ArchiCAD. Remember the user has the choice of project submitted

Karl wrote
===============
Further, only by an oral type exam can you throw exceptional conditions at someone and see if they know how to deal with them - either by workaround or telling you that it cannot be done.
===============
David
And how much time is this going to take...?
Whatever process is finally used it must be accurate, and fast.
Ideally one would set a test project in a controlled environment, incorporating all the skill areas over however long it takes to complete.
This is not practical or cost effective. Any assessment procedure must be quick accurate and cost efficient but most of all assess the users correct use of ArchiCAD.

Karl wrote
================
Finally, the goals ("Method") on the original URL include these items:

-Establishment of Competency Standards for teachers
-Develop the understanding of the Building Simulation concept
-Set criteria for accrediting existing teachers

Standards can be developed, of course, but teachers cannot be evaluated without personal observation and interviews by an accreditation team.

All of this could all be an expensive proposition, but I think it is needed worldwide, perhaps with uniform methods and criteria established by GS.

My 2 cents,
Karl
============
David
Karl if you had a user come to you, having spent 18weeks at a local colledge, 2 hours a week and was drawing doors using arcs and lines, you would not be making the above comment.
Again remember we are not evaluating the teachers skill at teaching, this is already a given, but their understanding of ArchiCAD when they have been teaching AutoCAD for 20 years is another matter.

Be interested in your furhter observations

You could send me a CD of your work for assessment.........
Be more than happy to do this for free (in your case)
David Shorter

[Djordje]

David wrote:
Karl, its not an issue of speed, its being able to assess the users skill using ArchiCAD. If the user can use the tool (program) properly then the speed will be there.

David,

Please define PROPERLY. No, nothing as obvious as doors made of arcs and lines.

[David Shorter]

Properly... had to get out the dictionary for this....'fittingly suitably, accurately correctly.... seriously though....
There can be a thousand illustrations. Not unlinking the model sections (I know this will cause an uproar) not placing elevation views on a dummy story. Not setting all the stories to zero. Not manually number the layouts in plotmaker. No using a background master but having the same title sheet on every layout. Not linking the model to plotmaker. Not drawing the same thing in many views when it could be modelled in one.
All these instances are real examples, usually they come from otherCAD users who think they know how to use ArchiCAD (but not exculsively!!!)
In other words using the program the way it was designed to be used.
Does this answer you question?

[Anonymous]

And David, don't forget my ongoing obsession- how to effectively use ArchiCAD when designing so as to quickly perform ongoing design iterations in order to interrogate, understand and enrich the building design. When used in that way ArchiCAD can be like Sketchup on steriods; when not used properly, the design process can be like walking through rapidly setting concrete.

[David Shorter]

David wrote:
And David, don't forget my ongoing obsession- how to effectively use ArchiCAD when designing......

I must admit I hadn't thought this particular area of ArchiCAD through as far as Accreditation is concerned..... I think its so far outside the basic accreditation requirements, having a user who can use ArchiCAD/PlotMaker 'properly' is only the first step. To use ArchiCAD in 'design mode' is one thing being able to 'design' is another but I'm not going there...... I think (again) that until we have a real 'design front end' for ArchiCAD, one that can be evaluted in a subjective way I'll stick to the basic stuff and try and lift the standard in all the other areas.
Watch the Accreditation space....

[Steve Jepson]

What should ArchiCAD certification mean? This needs more discussion.

Because a working knowledge of the ArchiCAD functions is not the same as having an “expert” ability to manipulate them to their best use, perhaps there should be different levels or kinds of certification.

I think certification as an ArchiMaster, ArchiExpert, ArchiDrafter, ArchiUser, ArchiGuru, ArchiTeamWorker, ArchiLister, ArchiRenderer, ArchiTrainer, ArchiTech, ArchiWhatever… should be as non-subjective as possible. (by the way GS, I think you would do well to copyright some terms like these while you still can. I may do it myself and then try to sell them to you.)

Personally, I don’t think being an “expert user” is a quantifiable or testable kind of achievement because more often than not, being an expert ArchiCAD user means you are able to accomplish the task at hand in spite of the orthodox ArchiCAD procedures and functions. We would all agree that “There is never only one way to skin a cat.”
This is especially true of ArchiCAD. That is what makes it such a great program. Some users will produce a truly “expert” set of working drawings using a completely different set of tools and skills than someone else.

Which user is the expert? The one who used all of the ArchiCAD tools and functions or the one who found a way to make some functions useless by using an alternate, faster method?

I think the ArchiCAD skills required for certification as an ArchiWhatever would not be that difficult to evaluate with a test that requires very little subjective analysis. Furthermore, I think subjectivity should be the test for the questions or exercises. If the question is subjective, throw it out! You are barking up the wrong tree; trying to test the un-testable.

The test for certification could be something you can download and return with in a certain period of time, then retrieve the next part of the test and do the same.
It could include things like… go to some .ftp site and download or import a variety of files .dwg, .dng, .dxf, .bmp, .pmk, .lbk, .pdf, etc…, perform some specific tasks with them, render some specific views, add some specific custom model parts, make some specific material list, set up for some specific TeamWork profile, make a module out of these specific components, x-ref in some file, create layers and layer combinations for a certain kind of project, publish it, send in this or that screen shot to show how the task is done, create a systems configuration to produce drawings that look exactly like an example,…things like that.

When such a certification is available for ArchiCAD I think there will be many organizations such as the American Institute of Building Design (www.aibd.org) , or the National Council of Building Designer Certification (www.ncbdc.com) that may want to include this certification, and programs like it, into their own certification process.

I hope that ArchiCAD certification will evolve with an eye toward how it will fit into other programs and educational curricula.

I recognize that I am probably the only one interested in my opinion about this, but I think ArchiCAD certification should remain as far as possible non-subjective and deliberately stay clear of trying to evaluate those subjective qualities that make someone an “expert”.

Don’t design ArchiCAD certification around the kind of recognition you wish you were getting.

Being recognized as an expert in your field should be a process generated by your piers. It should be a process that evolves from the Work you do, the publications write, the training programs you offer, the templates you sell, the CAD shoot out awards you have won, and other contributions to our craft.

I think there would be a benefit to everyone if Graphisoft would establish a program for recognizing nominees for the distinguished title of ArciMaster(or what ever you want to call it) awarding, and rewarding them for their contributions.
However, I don’t think ArchiCAD certification should ever be the tool for doing this.

I think David Shorter is definanantly on the write track.

Put that in you pipe an smoke it!

[Anonymous]

I think the idea of having categories clears up one of the problems I have with accreditation. After using and teaching the program for many years, setting several companies up and writing a heap of GDL I have never touched several components of Archicad. No one I have worked for has needed team work for instance so I have never learnt it. I am sure there are other people like me who have great skill in some areas and totally lacking in others.

My option for what it is worth.

Julia

[Anonymous]

Julia wrote:
I think the idea of having categories clears up one of the problems I have with accreditation. After using and teaching the program for many years, setting several companies up and writing a heap of GDL I have never touched several components of Archicad. No one I have worked for has needed team work for instance so I have never learnt it. I am sure there are other people like me who have great skill in some areas and totally lacking in others.

My option for what it is worth.

Julia

Here in the states we have Boy Scouts who earn merit badges (maybe you have them there too). Perhaps it would be something like that. I can see the next ArchiCAD University with people wearing medals and ribbons on their chests like officers in their dress uniforms.

While I like the idea of acknowledgment for achievement, the the notion of a formal structure for this gives the old libertarian side of me a bit of the willies.