The assessment of architectural designs plays an important role in educational settings as well as in architectural practice. In architectural practice, especially in case of design competitions, architectural plans are being assessed by a jury panel in order to select the plan to be built. In education the assessment of architectural plans is a mean to test the competencies of a student at different phases of the curriculum. In both cases, architectural plans are object of an assessment by a panel of experts. However, in some respects these situations could differ. What are the differences and commonalities of these situations, and what can we learn from studying the assessment process of a design jury?

In planning processes concerning the built environment, architectural design competitions and the judgments of jury members are aimed at the selection of an architect for a building project. In order to attain a fair competition, it is expected that the assessment process is transparent, objective and non discriminating. In education assessment is aimed at transparency and objectivity also. By graduating a student, the educational institute guarantees his or her qualities. Assessment should not only be fair towards the students, but also towards society with respect to the competency level of the graduates. So in practice, as well as in educational examinations, high demands should be made concerning assessment procedures.

The aim of this joint project was to tentatively formulate characteristics these situations have in common, and to recognise aspects in which these situations could differ. The project aimed at a contribution to the improvement of transparency and fairness in jury judgments and students’ assessment. Existing procedures were point of departure. Therefore some (real life) judging processes were observed and analysed. Next to that the authors studied reports of previous design competitions.

The findings of the research suggest, among other things, that especially in educational settings predefined criteria are hardly used during the assessment of student work. In practice as well as in education the assessment procedure is often not prepared beforehand and therefore most juries design a procedure on the spot. By designing this procedure the members of the jury create their own frame of reference. In case this procedure is carefully described in a jury report and communicated to the participants and students, the report could fulfil the aim of transparency and contribute to a stimulating learning environment.
During the process of assessment several phases can be distinguished. Both analytical and holistical judgement are applied alternately. The first phase of the process usually starts with an rather technical and analytical approach to reduce the number of submissions while the final decision is mostly based on an integrated and holistical decision.

In general two aims of assessment were found: 1) testing if the requirements are met and 2) awarding design excellence. Both types are necessary elements of the whole assessment procedure. So in spite of the differences of the settings, one single underlying model could be found to describe assessment in educational as well as practical settings. The paper will address these findings more thoroughly and concludes with suggestions for future assessment settings in education as well as in practice.