Architecture education must train systems thinkers, not designers for an idealised past

In this insightful conversation, Mr. Harkunwar Singh, CEO & Co-Founder of Novatr, offers a sharp critique of contemporary architecture education and its widening gap with industry realities. He highlights how outdated curricula and assessment-heavy studio models often prioritise conceptual creativity over employability, leaving graduates unprepared for collaborative, technology-driven AEC workflows. Emphasising that tools like BIM and computational design are not ends in themselves, he argues for education rooted in systems thinking, performance-led design, and real project contexts. Midway through the discussion, in an interview conducted by Education Post’s Prabhav Anand, Singh underscores the importance of industry-aligned learning, sustainability as a baseline competency, and continuous upskilling through EdTech platforms. Looking ahead, he envisions architects evolving into systems thinkers—professionals equipped to contribute meaningfully to cities, climate resilience, and society at large.

1. Architecture education has long been criticised for lagging behind industry practice. From your perspective, where does the disconnect between architecture schools and the AEC industry originate, and what structural changes are most urgent today?

The disconnect comes from outdated curricula and a weak focus on outcomes. Architecture schools train students to think like designers, but the industry expects them to work within collaborative, tech-enabled systems. What’s urgent is aligning education with real project workflows and employability.

2. With design increasingly shaped by BIM, computational tools, and data-driven workflows,how should architecture curricula balance foundational design thinking with rapidly evolving technologies—without becoming tool-centric?

The mistake is framing this as design versus tools. Tools are simply a medium—what matters is the thinking they enable. Architecture curricula should anchor students in core design principles—spatial reasoning, systems thinking, human behavior—while using technology as a way to test, simulate, and validate decisions, not just represent them.

Instead of teaching software in isolation, programs should teach design intent → digital translation → measurable outcomes. When students understand why a design decision exists and how technology amplifies it—through performance analysis, coordination, or automation—the tools become invisible. The goal isn’t software proficiency; it’s designers who can think computationally and adapt as tools evolve.

3. Indian architecture education still largely follows studio-heavy, assessment-driven models. Do you believe this approach adequately prepares graduates for global AEC careers, or does it need a fundamental rethink?

The studio model builds creativity and resilience, but in isolation, it no longer reflects how architecture is practiced globally. Today’s AEC work is collaborative, data-driven, and deeply integrated with engineering, construction, and operations—something most studio systems don’t expose students to.

What’s missing is context: real constraints, real timelines, real stakeholders. Graduates often excel at concept generation but struggle with coordination, delivery, and accountability. Indian architecture education doesn’t need to abandon studios—but it does need a rethink where studios are industry-linked, outcome-oriented, and embedded within real project workflows. Without that shift, we’re training designers for an idealized past, not the profession they’re entering.

4. You often speak about “industry-aligned learning.” What does meaningful industry participation in architectural education actually look like—beyond internships and guest lectures?

It means learning from people who’ve actually built projects. Real mentors, real workflows, constant feedback, and learning environments that mirror how the industry works—not just lectures or short-term exposure.

5. As sustainability, climate resilience, and smart cities become central to architectural practice, how well are institutions equipping students to respond to these real-world challenges at scale?

Most institutions treat sustainability as a theoretical overlay, not an operational responsibility. Students learn concepts—climate responsiveness, green materials—but rarely how to apply them at scale, speed, or within real-world constraints.

What’s missing is systems thinking: understanding how design decisions affect energy, cost, constructability, and long-term performance simultaneously. Future-ready education must move beyond isolated “green” studios and teach performance-led design, using data, simulation, and interdisciplinary collaboration. Sustainability isn’t an elective anymore—it’s a baseline competency, and education needs to reflect that urgency.

6. Architecture graduates today face a paradox: strong creative training but limited career mobility. What skills—often overlooked by academia—are now critical for architects to remain globally relevant?

Beyond design, architects today need workflow literacy—how projects actually move from concept to construction to operations. Skills like BIM coordination, data interpretation, stakeholder communication, and basic project economics are rarely emphasized, yet they define career growth.

Equally important are meta-skills: adaptability, digital fluency, and the ability to learn continuously as tools and roles evolve. Globally relevant architects aren’t just good designers—they’re problem-solvers who can collaborate across disciplines, work with technology confidently, and deliver outcomes, not just ideas. Academia often celebrates creativity; the industry rewards reliability, clarity, and impact. Bridging that gap is critical.

7. Edtech platforms are increasingly filling gaps left by formal education. In your view, should such platforms complement traditional architecture schools or actively reshape how architectural education is delivered?

Both. Traditional institutions are slow-moving by design. EdTech platforms can adapt faster, update curricula continuously, and bring practising professionals into the learning ecosystem. More importantly, they enable personalised, outcome-driven learning and lifelong upskilling - something the traditional degree model struggles to support today.

8. Looking ahead a decade, what shifts do you foresee in the identity of an architect—and how must education evolve to prepare architects not just as designers, but as contributors to cities, systems, and society?

Architects will move from being form-makers to systems thinkers - working across design, data, sustainability, and technology. As cities scale and complexity increases, architects will need to collaborate across disciplines and continuously reskill. Education must shift from one-time degrees to ongoing learning journeys that evolve with the industry.