Just received 2 separate emails announcing ARCOM has been acquired by some outfit called Alpine Investors. A new CEO has also been named.
Is anyone else a little nervous about this? Anyone have any inside info on what prompted the sale and what we might expect down the road??
Visit Alpine Investors web site. I believe it will tell you all you want to know.
I wonder if my fellow anon works for that other company and is trying to simply “scare” up some new business.
change in ownership is always a little scary, due to the uncertainty of the change. Don’t have to be a competitor to be a little nervous - I was when i saw the email.
Anon2:
Anon here. to answer your question: Nope. I work for an architecture firm. We actually subscribe to more than one specification section/writing program/system. I have no ulterior motive in raising the question.
I did poke around the Alpine website and also took a look at the info provided about the new CEO. I do have concerns about this. Alpine claims to be a company that buys other companies to make them more profitable. ARCOM boasts that it serves 90% of architects - so Alpine thinks it can grab the rest? Or, more plausible, will it just be raising costs to the 90% already committed to the product? Or massive staff reductions? Or??
Worst case scenario playing out in my head is that they don’t make the $$ they expected to and then bail. Maybe CSI will step in and grab it at that point… or Google.
ugh.
While equity investment firms do attempt to increase profits by expanding market share, raising costs, and reducing staff and expenses, many also strive to increase profits by adding services and improving customer experience.
Please!! It is always profit before people.
Not always. Read “Built to Last” by Jim Collins. Although companies need profit to survive, the driving force behind some companies is not always profit.
Wayne,
I know there are rapacious capitalists. Yet I also know many companies that have refused potentially lucrative paths because the opportunities were not safe for or beneficial for their employees, customers, or communities. They realize that there are many paths available, so they look for opportunities that are win-win. These companies profit because they meet the needs of people. I am grateful that I can call some of these companies “client”.
This is a change in ownership of ARCOM, not of MasterSpec. The latter is owned by the AIA; ARCOM publishes, supports and maintains, and sells/markets MasterSpec under contract to the AIA, and has done so since 1995.
What about SpecText? CSI used to own it. It has changed hands a couple of times since we let it go, will ARCOM continue the system we started, providing a good solid specification master?
I can’t see them changing MasterSpec, but if SpecText isn’t bringing in much business or generating much profit, they might spin it off.
CSRF owned SpecText, but CSI reviewed and updated it.
It is key that AIA is still the owner of MasterSpec. According to one message that I received, ARCOM’s partnership with AIA, ACEC and NSPE “remain strong”.
I hope and expect that AIA’s continued oversight means that MasterSpec content will continue to be based on architectural practice and not subservient to other business goals.
If Alpine can build on ARCOM’s work to advance the user interface and integration with building information through new applications of advanced technology, then I don’t think this change needs to be feared.
Maybe they will make SpecBuilder Desktop a worthy competitor to Speclink or e-Specs. There is opportunity out there. Both e-Specs and Speclink have their shortcomings.
SpecBuilder Desktop is being transitioned into a cloud-based collaboration platform called “ARCOM One.”
You can try it out here: http://arcomone.com/
They only have it available for the Small Project library at the moment, but the other libraries will be available in the near future.
Ron,
I get an error message when I sign up on the ARCOM site.
If you already have an account with ARCOM, use that username and password.
I think the buyout is a good thing. ARCOM is committed to continuing the excellence in the MARC review committee, that I know. ARCOM has hinted at involving more SCIP members in the MARC committee so that is not a cost-cutting measure.
My opinion only - think they need more cash to complete Spec Builder Desktop and to compete with the obvious competitor. I believe they are committed to continuing the quality of Masterspec and amping it up a little.
One of my concerns is that new Arcom management is going to put all of their resources towards Arcom One to compete with SpecLink and very little resources towards their flagship product of MasterSpec.
MasterSpec quarterly updates have been issued later and later and have become, in my opinion, less substantive. To date the 3rd quarter update for MasterSpec is over one month late! I called Arcom today and they could not give me an answer when the MasterSpec 3rd quarter update will be available. This gives me the impression that MasterSpec is not a priority with them.
MasterSpec is a great product and I would hate to see it fall by the wayside.
ARCOM One (i.e., SpecBuilder 2.0) is MasterSpec–it is just another platform for providing the same content.
Specification content is developed first (i.e., MasterSpec) and then converted into database form for SpecBuilder. Specification content updates for SpecBuilder has always lagged behind specification content updates for MasterSpec.
I know this doesn’t explain the delay, but different people work on different things and it is not one group working on both content and application development. The ownership transition process may have had an effect on the issuance of the update, but this is pure speculation.