After my previous post, I thought I would review the latest demo to see if my comments are still valid.
I will admit (again) that I would prefer to have the final specification in word processing format. SpecLink’s .rtf output does have the automatic header/footers that I like; however, they don’t really support styles (where the automatic paragraph numbering comes in). Their pagination to prevent widows and orphans doesn’t really work very well. These objections really should not matter to a smaller office where the final specs are output directly from the database to the printer.
I was a little surprised, however, to see how “terse” the listing of manufacturers and products was in the sample sections. While MasterSpec may not have as many sections to cover as many “work results,” the sections they do have do a better job of listing applicable manufacturers and specific products. I do realize that you can edit the database in SpecLink to support the products your office prefers to use, but I would prefer to see the list a bit more comprehensive out of the box.
It is possible to import MasterSpec into SpecLink and use SpecLink as an interface to work on MasterSpec. Importing the text and outline structure are relatively straightforward, it is the links between paragraphs within a section (if using above, don’t use below) and the links between a particular section and other documents and sections in the Project Manual that would take time to set up. It is my understanding that this could be done.
In my view, anyone whose typical office duties do not approach full-time spec writing should remember that any specification writing tool requires knowledge of building products and systems as well as knowledge of fundamental contract law. Both MasterSpec and SpecLink can increase the productivity of a knowledgeable spec writer tremendously; however, in the hands of a novice, both can be used to produce something that will not even make satisfactory manure.
It would be hard to argue, however, that SpecLink would not be prefered in a smaller office or on smaller projects. Its requirements seem to be less comprehensive, its language more terse, and the interface provides more intelligent support to the spec writer in a hurry.
I believe BSD is open to providing SpecLink demos in certain areas, especially when you can get several offices together for the presentation (like before or after a CSI chapter meeting). I would assume that ARCOM would be similarly inclined.
I believe that MasterSpec offers me more in terms of indepth support as a primary resource. MasterSpec has been so much a part of the way I generate specs for so long that I would resist using another product as my primary support, however, I will admit that this is largely force of habit.