Those Letters After Your Name

By JAMES R. BENYA, PE, FIES, FIALD

These days, it seems like every other person has a string of initials after their name. I sure do. James R. Benya, PE, FIES, FIALD. And I used to have LC until I failed to submit enough evidence of continuing education.

I probably receive 10 emails a day signed by someone with their own string, whether they are an interior designer, architect, or just about any other type of professional in their workplace.

These initials are called post-nominal letters (PNLs). They are the letters placed after a person's name to represent a qualification they have achieved. The most popular post-nominals represent academic degrees (i.e. EdD, PhD, MBA) and certifications (i.e. LC, CLD). They may also include professional membership (i.e. IES) and recognition or significant awards (i.e. FIES, FIALD).

The lighting design industry arose from the perceived need to have expertise in lighting expressed in a manner such as architects (AIA) and engineers (PE) do. But the initials must stand for some accomplishment such as becoming a registered architect, which is generally signified by the letters RA (registered architect) or AIA (American Institute of Architects member, which must be a registered architect).

For this among many reasons, the Iighting industry has struggled to come up with appropriate PNLs. Those reasons include the need to differentiate between lighting designers, lighting manufacturers, lighting salespersons, lighting consultants, lighting systems programmers … you get the picture.

Memberships with objective qualifying criteria seem to make the most sense right now. For instance, using IES or MIES (member of IES) does not indicate a lighting academic or professionally-licensed qualification. Fellow IES (FIES) is different; becoming an IES Fellow is an award based on a peer review of one’s technical accomplishments in the field. You can’t just get there because of organizational political officeholding.

In 1987, I wrote an article in Architectural Lighting entitled “Should Lighting Designers be Licensed?” In summary, I posited that first, the lighting design profession would be better served by a certification program in order to avoid the legal issues of licensing.

Among the ideas of many others, the IES and IALD led the lighting industry in the 1990s to create a certificate program managed by the National Council on Qualifications for the Lighting Professions (NCQLP), supported and initially funded by IES and IALD. Those passing the test would be permitted to use the PNL of “LC” (Lighting Certified). (1)

More recently, the IALD created a program called “Certified Lighting Designer”. The CLD certification is an evidence based assessment of proficiency in lighting design over seven domains of practice. Candidates are required to submit two types of evidence:

• Written information: This includes responses to a set of questions as well as descriptions of projects.

• Exhibits: This material supports your written responses to demonstrate your competency in each required domain. (2)

I think that IALD’s CLD program is well-conceived and timely. Whether it becomes popular and well-received remains to be seen. Like the LC program, the question is not whether it serves a purpose; it does, and I am pleased that IALD pursued it.

There is a new twist, however. Until now, IALD remained a professional entity in which member lighting designers were not permitted to sell lighting. That is how Jules Horton got me to join IALD in the late 1980s. Jules explained that IALD members were not allowed to sell lighting.  At the time I was concerned—and still am—that lighting designers would lose their objectivity and would specify what they sold with a handsome markup.

But with the last election, IALD members voted in favor of suspending that restriction.

I still feel like that to an extent, but with my comments about lighting sales, today you will find me very close to that fence. Only question is: which side?

Why? Likely because traditional views of what it means to be a “professional” are giving way to the financial appeal of selling products, particularly by the lighting designer who specified them. The process is fairly straightforward. A contractor seeks a package price from one or more electrical distributors, who each add a markup to cover labor, shipping, and profit. Those prices are based on manufacturer rates based on what the market will bear and their list price less any discounts or negotiated deals.

There is also an ongoing management process to assure that the luminaires are the right kind, reviewed and signed off by the distributor, contractor and specifier as well … and then, delivered on time.

And then, following up and getting paid by the contractor. A lot of things can go wrong, but most project problems get resolved along the way. A major role is also played by the manufacturers who have acquired subsidiary lighting companies to offer a complete package of every type of lighting. This helps limit paperwork and management time greatly for both the manufacturer and the customer.

Before the internet, this was an all-paper system; now, it is streamlined and has already changed the role of sales representatives and distributors. With its vote, the IALD is saying, “We know our design projects well enough to handle the paperwork and transactions, and we’re capable of streamlining the process and profiting from it.”

The work of lighting sales representatives is something that, throughout my career, has been very important, and many of them have become good friends. I’m not sure I would want to expect myself or my teammates to learn enough about products without the expertise of sales reps.

I worry that sales reps, who were there for me when there was a problem, won’t be there to help. I hate to lose the camaraderie and the support they provide, but I have to guess that the profit opportunity may be worth the training and skills I will have to develop, including my worries about the risks. I know that “my” agents throughout the years have covered my screw-ups and made a lot of my problems go away.

In other words, IALD now permits reversing 50 years of how we have worked, which will make lighting designers more money, but I wonder. This will require lighting designers to take responsibility for a lot of the “big boy” reality issues of buying and selling products on projects where mistakes and problems will now land in their laps.

I suspect that there will be many, like me, who grew up with and would prefer the old system, which could significantly fragment our profession. For those with leadership and financial resources, it is a business opportunity that will transform the industry and has the potential to be very profitable.

I’m not sure whether I am right about this. I invite you readers to comment to me personally and to designing lighting (dl) and our Editor, Randy Reid

References:

1. I was an LC for a while. But the program requires considerable continuing education documentation which I failed to furnish on time 20 years ago. Ergo, I don't use LC.

2. Source: IALD Website