As the architecture, engineering, and construction industry rapidly adopts digital tools, collaborative workflows, and data-driven decision-making, architectural education continues to lag behind. Chaithanya Murali, CGO and Co-Founder of Novatr, has seen this disconnect from both sides, first as a student navigating traditional systems and now as an entrepreneur building future-ready learning platforms. In this conversation with Asma Rafat, Senior Correspondent, Realty+, Murali unpacks why most architecture and engineering programs struggle to keep pace with real-world AEC demands. He reflects on outdated curricula, the widening gap between qualification and job readiness, and how technology, AI, and industry-embedded learning can reshape education for long-term relevance.
You have seen architectural education both as a student and now as an entrepreneur. Where do you think traditional architecture and engineering programs fall short when it comes to real-world AEC requirements?
Chaithanya Murali: Most traditional architecture and engineering colleges still operate on curriculum designed 40-50 years ago, from a time when computer-aided design itself was either absent or in its infancy. Over the last two decades, the AEC industry has undergone a fundamental shift driven by digital tools, collaborative workflows, and data-led decision-making.
Ironically, construction remains one of the least digitally adopted industries globally, just above agriculture yet academic institutions lag even further behind. Instead of anticipating technological shifts, most colleges are still reacting to them, often years late.
Educational institutions should ideally be one step ahead of industry evolution. Today, many are five steps behind. That gap is exactly what platforms like Novatr are trying to bridge, by teaching technologies such as BIM that are already seeing large-scale adoption across global AEC firms. Education should lead technology implementation through research and curriculum design, not play catch-up with industry demands.
The pace of change in tools, workflows, and project delivery has accelerated sharply. Why do academic institutions struggle to update curricula at the same speed as the industry?
Chaithanya Murali: Curriculum updates in traditional institutions are slow, bureaucratic, and often disconnected from real project environments. Faculty members who haven’t actively worked in industry for years are expected to define what “future-ready” education looks like.
Meanwhile, industry workflows evolve every few years, sometimes every few months, driven by client expectations, global collaboration, and efficiency pressures. This mismatch makes it extremely difficult for academic systems to keep pace. Instead of proactively shaping how technology should be used, institutions end up adopting it only after it becomes unavoidable in practice.
Employers often say graduates are “qualified but not job-ready.” From your experience at Novatr, what are the most common skills or mindsets missing in young professionals today?
Chaithanya Murali: Traditional educational institutes allocate nearly 80% of their time to theoretical knowledge and only about 20% to practical application and digital tools. The reality of a professional role is almost the exact opposite.
In a real AEC job, around 80% of the work involves designing, coordinating, analysing, and delivering projects using advanced software and digital workflows, while theory plays a supporting role. Since colleges rarely teach these tools or workflows in depth, graduates struggle to perform from day one.
This gap often leads to frustration on both sides, employers expect productivity, while graduates feel underprepared. Platforms like Novatr focus on solving this by equipping learners with hands-on technical skills that directly map to daily responsibilities within firms. Beyond skills, there’s also a mindset shift required, moving from academic comfort to industry accountability, something traditional education rarely prepares students for.
You have built growth systems using technology and AI to personalise learning. How can similar approaches help education move away from one-size-fits-all teaching models?
Chaithanya Murali: Online learning is fundamentally different from traditional classroom teaching, and it needs to be designed accordingly. At Novatr, a learner interacts with over 250 touchpoints during a seven-month journey. Our cohorts include everyone from fresh graduates to professionals with 30+ years of experience, so a single teaching format simply doesn’t work.
We have built our LMS and pedagogy around multiple learning layers: live sessions with lead mentors who bring 15–20 years of industry experience, smaller group interactions with industry guides who act as hands-on buddies throughout the program, and personalised support ranging from assignment reviews to doubt-clearing sessions.
On top of that, we have introduced AI-driven systems like a 24×7 chatbot to handle recurring questions and free up mentors for higher-value interactions. This combination of human expertise and technology creates a more engaging, flexible, and outcome-driven learning experience—something traditional, uniform teaching models struggle to deliver.
Many educators worry that focusing too much on tools may dilute foundational thinking. How do you balance strong design fundamentals with practical, industry-aligned skills?
Chaithanya Murali: This is a common concern among traditional educators, sometimes framed rather bluntly as the fear of creating “Revit Monkeys” rather than thinkers. We’re very conscious of this risk.
Our curriculum is not built around teaching software in isolation. We focus heavily on the why and how before the how-to. Nearly 40% of our curriculum is dedicated to workflows, processes, and systems thinking, helping learners understand how design decisions translate into real-world execution.
By grounding software skills in strong process knowledge, learners develop the ability to use technology as a problem-solving tool rather than becoming dependent on it. This approach strengthens foundational thinking instead of diluting it.
If you had the opportunity to redesign an architecture or engineering program from scratch, what would you change first to make graduates more relevant and resilient in the AEC ecosystem?
Chaithanya Murali: The first change would be a mindset shift, helping students see technology as an enabler, not a threat, from the very beginning of their education. Instead of introducing digital tools as optional or advanced topics, they should be integrated into the design process from the early years.
When students understand how technology supports real-world implementation, their design thinking becomes more grounded and practical. I would also rebalance the curriculum away from excessive theory toward applied learning, industry collaboration, and real project exposure.
Education should feel less like preparation for the industry and more like participation with the industry. That’s what builds relevance, confidence, and long-term resilience.
