https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WRU4NUJSVc&feature=player_embedded

I was fortunate to have been invited to participate on the Village Square Critical Issues Session panel titled “Legislation: The Role of Educators”. My panel mates Caren Martin, Ph.D. and Rosemary Botti-Salitsky and I spoke to an audience of about a dozen. The light attendance concerned us.  I suspect the reason for the low interest was the fact that there were multiple “critical” sessions occurring simultaneously, the sessions occurred at the end of a long day (perfect time for a nap) and quite frankly the topic of interior design legislation can be dauntingly complex and like any discussion pertaining to religion or politics, potentially disputatious (my new word for the day). I don’t blame conference attendees for avoiding our session. None the less, since I personally believe the effort to regulate the practice of interior design is one of the most important issues facing design educators and the profession in general, I was disappointed by the turnout.

There were several other sessions that I would have liked to attend as well. Hopefully others can post thoughts on the sessions here. My hope is that attendees can at least share their perceptions for those who were unable to attend the conference. Ideally others will be brave enough to offer assessments and opinions of the topics at hand- but I am not going to hold my breath that others will feel free, and/or have the time to do so.

Back to my point.

Do we as Interior Design educators have a responsibility to advocate for the profession beyond complying with accreditation and scholarly endeavor requirements? The answer to this question applies not only to the issue of Interior Design legislation but most of the other Critical Issue topics as well. Should we really care what our students call themselves? What responsibility do we have to ensure that graduates of our programs can in fact become vetted “professionals”? Should we follow academic trends that make it increasingly difficult to find and attract terminally degreed practitioners seeking a career change in order to fill needs amongst our ranks?

With that I welcome any answers to the above queries or comments on what attendees saw and heard.

John Turpin, Ph.D., FIDEC, posted a succinct homage to the first 50 years of IDEC on the 2012 Conference Website.

http://2012.idec.org/hot-topics-in-the-21st-century#more

Does anybody care to speculate what a list of IDEC’s accomplishments may look like if written in 2062?

I just finished reading BIM & Integrated Design by Randy Deutsch http://bimandintegrateddesign.com/the-book-2/

I have to admit it rocked my world.

Personally I am struggling with the transition from CAD to BIM. However, as an educator with an irrelevance phobia I am forcing myself through it. Since I do not use it on a daily basis or within an integrated practice environment the transition is difficult. I am sure I am not the only digital immigrant ID educator facing this dilemma. Currently as a department we teach both 2-D ACAD and Revit. Our design process and our Construction Documents are still based on the traditional SD/DD/CD/CA process. I was thinking that the transition the  from 2-D CAD platform to the BIM platform might take 3-5 years.  After reading Deutsch’s book I think that is wishful thinking on my part. BIM appears to be here NOW.

Is there anybody out there that has jettisoned AutoCAD and is focusing entirely on BIM (Revit or other 3-D parametric programs) ?  If so how have you escaped the traditional academic silos to create a true multi-discipline cross collaboration BIM experience? If you are thinking that teaching REVIT as a 3-D design tool in isolation of other disciplines and the additional dimensions that BIM & IPD provide (I have seen as many as 4 additional dimensions) then you are doing your students a diservice. However, I acknowledge the difficulties in creating relevant theoretical projects utilizing BIM and not just pretty REVIT renderings.  

I have seen lots of discussion on the AEC side of this issue but very little that focuses on Interior Designs role in this new paradigm. I hope somebody with IDEC is taking this issue on and will be presenting in Baltimore.  We need to think about this deeply as it has enormous resource implications at a minimum. We also need to help eachother out as as quickly as possible because the trainsition is not going to wait for us to ponder it too deeply.

OKAY GO.

Here are two press releases regarding the use of VR to invision interior space. One is in an academic setting and the other is in a retail setting.

http://www.afaqs.com/news/company_briefs/?id=52427_Godrej+Interio+Takes+Virtual+Interior+Design+to+New+Heights+with+Dassault+Systemes

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/dec/20/3-d-lab-helps-mu-architecture-interior-design/

While V.R.technology has been aroung for awhile it is not an inexpensive endeavor.  Now it seems to have gone mainstream as they say particularly if it is being used to assist buyers of residential furnishings.  Wow.  Are we prepared for this? What does this mean for helping students to visualize 3-D space? Are the days of Revit and SketchUp as 3-D design tools numbered?

I have been aware of this site

http://pinterest.com/

for some time now but did not give it much thought until some of my students began using it to compose inspiration images.  As I think about it this site has much more potential for creating, storing and accessing visual information.  Does anybody have experience with Pinterest as an interior design education or practice tool or am I just way behind here?

A seminal industry research report issued by six leading interior design organizations (ASID, CIDA, IDC, IDEC, IIDA, NCIDQ) highlights a growing body of evidence that supports the positive impact of interior design on public health, safety and welfare.    

 The Interior Design Profession’s Body of Knowledge and Its Relationship to People’s Health, Safety and Welfare is based on research led by Denise A. Guerin, PhD, and Caren S. Martin, PhD, professors at the University of Minnesota College of Design. The report, which updates a 2005 study, represents the most current and comprehensive resource for helping design practitioners, educators, researchers, accreditors, students, and the public understand the broad and diverse knowledge interior designers employ in their work.   

 The study asked a sample of 1,578 experienced interior designers to rate their potential contribution to health, safety and welfare across 65 knowledge areas, including daylighting, indoor air quality, ergonomics, and material, equipment and product specifying. Those knowledge areas were grouped, for purposes of comparison, into six categories:  Human Environment Needs; Interior Construction, Codes and Regulations; Products and Materials; Design Theory and Process; Communication; and Professional Practice.     

 Research highlights include:

• The highest contributions to health, safety and welfare were found in the Human Environment Needs, Interior Construction and Products and Materials categories. 
• Human Environment Needs contributes the highest to health and welfare, whereas Interior Construction contributes highest to safety.
• All categories contribute at the substantial level to health, safety and welfare.
• Overall, contributions to welfare are higher than to health and safety.

 ”Continued research and applied knowledge and documentation are essential to advancing the profession and increasing the health and safety of the built environment,” said Jeffrey Beachum, executive director of the Interior Design Educators Council (IDEC). “The unified body of knowledge outlined in this report is both a practical and encouraging step forward for the design industry and the public at large.”    

 The report also includes a series of recommendations and a roadmap for advancing the interior design profession through the continued identification, documentation and measure of health, safety and welfare performance standards to provide meaningful benchmarks. 

http://www.idbok.org/PDFs/IDBOK_2010.pdf

It is that time of year again to renew your memberships or upgrade your memberships. You can start that process here http://www.idec.org/renew

For those of you who may be on the fence trying to decide if it is worth the cost I’d like to give you my 2 cents (1.89 cents given the recent market decline) as to why IDEC membership is a worthy investment. Personally I have been involved with most of our professional interior design organizations at one point or another during my design career. Frankly I never felt that my dues monies provided a return that justified the cost. Not that there is not value provided by our many organizations I just came to realize that for me personally what I invested in time and effort resulted in very little, if any, tangible influence on our profession as a whole. Generally speaking Interior Design professional organizations tend to cater to focused aspects of the profession be that residential design, commercial/contract design, health-care design, furnishings etc.  Their missions and goals tend to be internally focused as opposed to public outreach and public relations. Hence our somewhat conflicted identity amongst the general public.

When I decided to switch careers from practice to teaching 9 years ago IDEC was the first organization I turned to. I found an extreme level of professionalism and support, but not in a businessy networky sort of way….”Hey call me sometime we’ll do lunch- if you specify my product I’ll even buy”.  No this is a group of people who are in fact committed to advancing the entire profession.  Since that time I have learned that we as educators do in fact have the power to influence the direction of the profession. While the impact may not be immediate I can tell that our students have the potential to become agents of change for the better. This alone is impetus enough for me to re-up my membership. While the IDEC credential is impressive there actually is some tangible return on the investment.

Anybody else care to explain why membership is important to you?

As a follow-up to a previous posting regarding the intentional lack of computers at the Waldorf School in the Silicon Valley; http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/technology/at-waldorf-school-in-silicon-valley-technology-can-wait.html .

With the rise in 3-D visualization software (SketchUp and Revit etc.) do you think such software enhances design students ability to mentally model or visualize (AKA “Mentalize”) interior space OR does it hinder their ability to comprehend form, proportion and scale?  Is anybody aware of research on this particular topic? Opinions are also welcome.

From the CATO Institute, a libertarian public policy research organization and vocal proponent of deregulation comes this Op-Ed piece regarding the regulation of Interior Design.  They have signed on to support the Institute for Justice petition to the Supreme Court to reconsider the 11th Circuit Court’s recent ruling in the Locke v. Shore lawsuit.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/should-you-need-a-license-to-hang-curtains/

The Institute for Justice/CATO Institute campaign of misinformation and half truths continues. Should we ignore it? If yes -please explain why? If no how should we respond? And while I am it who exactly is “we”?