Expanding on the “no specs” category, there is also the “no specs and scarcely even any product data” category.
Full extent of a mfrs product data seen today: a list of sizes, and “meets all applicable ASTM standards”
Ran across this tidbit while researching in a mfr’s product literature today. This was actually in their guide spec:
“Customization: Available in insulated, energy performance, , decorative and more.”
I especially love the “and more” part!
If that marketing lingo ever makes it into someone’s project spec, what is the subcontractor supposed to price and order?
Seen in an actual manufacturer’s guide spec:
“Customization: Available in insulated, energy performance, , decorative and more.”
Not necessarily related to guide specs specifically, the attitude that any product data other than the trade name is confidential information that they don’t want to fall into a competitor’s hands. They don’t seem to understand that the design professional is legally responsible for product selection and that product selection should be made on the basis of “Trust me; this would be a great product for your project.” Two manufacturers have recently told me that they would not give me more than the most general description of their product even though more specific information was required to make an informed decision.
Those manufacturers are ignorant of the real world. They are think that their confidential information is just obtained from their website or printed data? It is a long standing practice that product reps of competing companies meet in a parking lot somewhere and trade catalogs. Corporate espionage will always be around. There are a multitude of ways for competitors to obtain information trade show gossip, suppliers, installers, etc.
The best tactic a wise manufacturer can take is to get their product information into the hands of the appropriate design professional and get their product successfully installed. Repeat business, faithful follow-through and support, good recommendations from satisfied customers [design and owners], and a loyal following will make them successful.
When the standards or tests associated with the product are listed in the building code the building code says that the building official has a right to the information. If the information is not provided when requested it is assumed that the product does not comply with the code and thus cannot be used.
The design professional’s option is to not specify the product. You could also make the submittal of the desired information a required submittal. Thus if the informaiton is not supplied the product cannot be used.
When you decide not to use a product because the required information was not provided send a short note to upper management at the manufacturer noting that you were unable to consider their product because they were unwilling to provide information you needed to evaluate their product.
Most of my concerns have been addressed, I will emphasis a few:
- Guide specs should be prepared in CSI format, using appropriate language and ideally reviewed by someone familiar with preparing specs. Find that a lot of times, the guide specs need to be reworked substantially to be used. Although it takes time - it is still beneficial that they are there. But if they were better to start with it would be good.
- Most Websites now let you view without registering, or if they have registering, it is optional. Some require registering to download a “Word” copy of the guide spec - I generally don’t register unless I am desparte for the info.
- Just this week I was working on a couple of Sections that I looked at the guide spec for the products hoping that they would expand on the product info that I was not finding on their Website. Did not have luck there either. If we are to spec manufacturers products, they need to provide definitive info regarding their different product lines or models for us to be able to specify them. In these two cases, they had different products, but it was difficult to find the specific criteria for each.
- Some websites are loaded with info regarding color and pattern options, but are very short on technical info and criteria on the products. Find that this is especially true of some of the non-US finish products.
PS - I am a “member” of the forum. I seemed to have trouble logging in today - usually happens automatically. The last time that I entered my info, it seemed to accept - but I see that I am still coming up as “unregistered”.
I consider manufacturer’s guide specs typically as totally worthless.
Even those that have great language and format to CSI standards, the information is almost never comprehensive. That is, it does not cover all options, accessories, and other items that are actually part of the system or material. So using them you are likely to leave out something critical and not realize it.
There are actually some that do a good job of it, but its so rare that they are tainted indirectly through the poor quality of the vast majority. I would rather work with manufacturers data sheets. And if the information is not complete on that, its sure not going to be any more complete on the guide spec - all of which has something to say about that manufacturer and that maybe there is a better choice in a different manufacturer.
William
ps - this site has not automatically signed me in in months. It used to, but I recall Colin saying something regarding that. I have to manually sign in with every post.
Manufacturers should move responsibility for their construction specifications from marketing to technical support. If I’m looking for a guide or prototypical construction specification, I’m already sold. What I’m looking for is a competenly written construction specification.
And the first thing I eliminate is marketing hype from the specification. Marketing language must go. Superlative descriptions such as “best”, “high performance”, “superior” and “A no. 1 okey-dokey” are unenforceable and have no place in construction specifications.
What they should do is hire a certified specification writer to write and maintain their specs. There are many available.
I agree with everyone on this matter - guide specs tend to be too wordy or too much information by trying to include all of their products under 1 section - However, my biggest pet peeve, and it looks like I’m not alone, is having to spend 5-10 minutes “registering” to gain access to a website. I too am refusing to go there and will not specify the product it I have to “register” to use their website.
What annoys me most about registering is the box that asks what is your primary function. 9 times out of 10 my only option is “Other”. Specifier or specification writer is usually not offered yet we are the ones most often on their websites.
If I’m in the mood, when I have to register for a manufacturer’s site I’ll just make up a name, like Neddy Seagoon or Sebastian Weetabix
I use Valued Company and Valued Customer. The guys from Car Talk give many other examples during their credits like the chauffer Pickup Anddropoff.
Richard "guide specs tend to be too wordy or too much information by trying to include all of their products under 1 section "
One Question “Do use MasterSpec”?
I agree with William - just provide me with a useful product data sheet. It would be ideal if manufacturers of similar products followed a format to make comparison easy but I know there are reasons why they wont. If they would simply list the appropriate standards that the product meets (and I know they know which standards are really meaningful), relevant physical characteristics, available warranty, etc. that might be enough. I certainly think I can write a specification as well as or better than any I have seen in any manufacturers literature. One more thing: make it clear what is standard and what is optional for a particular product whether it is a feature or a finish or something else. It really bothers clients when the architect or specifier has to come to them after bidding and say something like, The anodized finish is an up-charge. The standard is a baked enamel in chartreuse only!
I don’t use MasterSpec - talk about being too wordy! They too try to make “1 size fits all”
Trying to edit one of their sections is like tryingto edit a mfgr’s guide spec
We use an in-house master that has been tailored to the type of work we do, including all of the DSA (California thing) requirements.
Also, we had to cancel our subscription to MasterSpec as a cost cutting measure 2 years ago.
Names for consideration (with due credit to Click and Clack - The Tappet Brothers, and the source they stole them from:
MALE NAMES
Jim Nasium
Pete Moss
Wing Flap
Luke Warm
Art Majors
Adolph DeFlor
Ike Arumba
Linus Scrimmage
Noah Count
Rick O’Shea
Rick Shaw
Noah Comprendy
Jim Shortz
Gene Poole
Paddy O’Furniture
Marty Graw
Bud Tugley
FEMALE NAMES
Ann Tenna
Ann Onimus
Lisa Carr
Eileen Dover
Natalie Attired
Sara Bellum
Sharon Apartment
Sandy Beach
Ima Hogg
Candy Barr
Helena Handbasket
Sasha Deal
Lucinda Bolts
Kay Sera
Lois Bidder
and last
Shirley Ujest
John,
This one is real. Rhoda Henbest.
And here are a few others.
MALE NAMES
Haywood Jabuzoff (“Hey, would you buzz off,” customer care representative)
Claudio Vernight (“cloudy overnight,” meteorologist)
Pikop Andropov (“pick up and drop off,” their Russian chauffeur)
FEMALE NAMES
Marge Innovera (“margin of error,” statistician)
Firms:
Dewey, Cheetham & Howe (lawyers,.on Cartalk’s office sign in Ha-vad Square)
C.F. Eye Care (“see if I care,” optometric firm)