The raw scores given to each of the students by

The raw scores given to each of the 23 students by both the external examiners and professional body were considered the variables in this study. The scores of the students from the two assessments were compared using the paired sample t-test (repeated measures). The results in Table 2 show a statistically significant difference between the scores of the representatives of the professional body and those of the external examiners [t (22)=5.90, p<0.001], with a mean difference of −7.78. Table 3 reveals that the mean score of the external examiners (M=61.17, SD=5.94) (Table 4) is significantly higher than that of the representatives of the professional body (M=53.39, SD=4.68). The effect size is also large (Eta squares=0.61), according to the guideline provided by Cohen (1988), 284–287.
Conclusion
Introduction Construction literature identifies many guiding frameworks that may inspire practitioners to achieve better practices, improve their knowledge, and effectively deploy tools and systems for various tasks, including design, project, and quality management. In relation to this, several reports suggest that architecture practitioners must improve the way with which they caffeic acid phenethyl ester manage their businesses. This argument can be traced back to The Architect and His Office [Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA, 1962)], which highlights the need for better management skills and knowledge among architects. This argument has been maintained over the years in the architecture management (AM) literature (e.g., Brunton et al., 1964; Nicholson, 1995a; Emmitt, 1999a; Alharbi et al., 2015). A comprehensive review of the small yet increasing volume of research in the AM field reveals that previous studies have primarily focused on the creation of a knowledge base, but not on how to bring such knowledge into practice. Although the need for improvements is acknowledged, the achievement of such improvements is not supervised by any guideline. Specifically, previous studies lack a mutual agreement on the normative focus of AM, its core components, and the intersection between these components, thereby limiting our understanding of such concept. Furthermore, previous studies have mostly failed to distinguish AM from other managerial fields (e.g., project management) and specify its requirements (see, e.g., Alharbi et al., 2015). Hence a clear set of guidelines for architects must be established considering that AM is a developing field and an important issue for architects working in a management-oriented construction sector. Since its introduction over 50 years ago by Brunton et al. (1964) the concept of AM remains open to interpretation in the literature despite several studies that have articulated the importance of adopting such concept, especially by the CIB Working Group W096 Architectural Management (see Emmitt et al., 2009). Although CIB W096 is the only international network dedicated to examining and promoting AM, this group has yet to adopt a definitive definition of this concept; a criticism that can be made of their only book, Architectural Management: International Research & Practice (Emmitt et al., 2009). For clarity, this research adopts the following original and recent definition of AM, which is grounded in empirical research:
Literature review This literature review reveals the lack of a structured guideline for transferring AM from theory to practice. Miles and Huberman (1994) defined a “framework” as any visual/written product for explaining factors, concepts, variables, and their presumed relationships. Based on this definition, three guiding frameworks have been identified at the abstract level. The definition of AM proposed by Brunton et al. (1964), which illustrates the relationship between the two components of AM (i.e., “Managing the Business” and “Managing Projects”) is generally considered the first taxonomy framework (Figure 1).