Who here uses programs other than word processing to edit/write their specs? At a meeting yesterday I was told that our firm better get on board because our competitors are using “e-specs” and that we are behind the times.
I guess we are, too…
e-specs has never inspired me. there is a difference between cutting edge and bleeding edge and e-specs just doesnt deliver much for the cost.
David: Since we’ve been REVITized, we are moving in that same direction. I am hastily trying to update our Office Master Specifications to MF04 and to the latest MasterSpec Section Updates. As soon as we’ve finished that task, which I estimate to be the year’s end, we will massage the Keynote List that comes with REVIT to align it with our Office Masters, then we will begin using e-specs since it links the Drawings and Specs together. But currently, we are only using WORD 2007.
Not here. We looked at e-specs but the cost is to intimidating at this time. We have offices in Seattle, NYC, Dallas, LA, Mexico City, London UK, Bangalore, Bejing, and Shanghai. We dable in Revit on some minor noncomplex projects. In NA we still do things the old fashion way. We use MSWORD 2003, but migrating to 2007.
We do not compete in the same market sectors as your firm. We have found other means and methods to do more with less and work faster/smarter.
we have been trying e-Specs for about a year now, with limited, if any, benefit. The reason we chose it, was, of course, to integrate specs and drawings–it was the only game in town. This is a GREAT GOAL of the honchos, but they have NO CLUE what’s involved and how limited this is in reality. e-Specs Lynx [the non-Revit version] can be made to work, but use it to maintain masters and you’re in another dimension of complexity. It was developed by InterSpec as they serviced clients as spec consultants, and they have the familiarity and constant use to make it work for them. Between the frequent updates and more frequent ‘patches’ we’ve found it very difficult to keep everyone on the same version. Their marketing aside, there are very few firms that are using it as a primary tool. ‘Bleeding edge?’ Think ‘gushing edge.’
Is everyone so charmed by the new process that they are not looking at the quality of the documents produced? The “group think” I have witnessed among architecture department managers is that the integration of specs with BIM means that they no longer need to keep their troublesome spec writer on staff. These are people who, for the most part, never understood what spec writers actually do; thinking that any primate could perform the function. Now that they have “specs in a box”, all they need to do is turn the crank, listen to “Pop Goes the Weasel”, and wait for the specs to come popping out.
Only after firms discover that the raw output is not adequate to build a project will they come to appreciate the value of having input by someone who understands materials and how they are used.
I am not saying that these programs are flawed tools; just that they still require intelligent users to get intelligent results. It is going to take a substantial amount of prep work to get to the point where you begin to see the benefits.
We do 100% of our projects in Revit and have done some investigation into e-Specs but have not implemented nor does that seem to be on the immediate horizon. The start-up costs are daunting, primarily on the training/ in-house side and, until the overall building technological sophistication of the staff is raised, the necessity of the dialogue between the designers and specifier to produce quality documents is understood to outweigh any perceived benefits of the “single model” theory. As I’ve said before, the folks who know the most about Revit tend to know the least about buildings . . .
As an independent spec consultant, I have seriously investigated e-Specs products, as well as BSD SpecLink, and found them lacking the kinds of functions I need. Customization seems especially cumbersome, although this would be of particular importance to my practice since I work w/ a large number of clients & a broad variety of project types.
The idea of a spec editing system that uses a database sounds great in concept, but in reality these programs seem to be in their infancy. The current versions take a “broad brush” approach – a number of basic decisions can be addressed through checklist features, but many details still have to be handled by traditional word processing.
From my discussions w/ other users, these systems may be more suited to firms with repetitive or similar project types. They will have to become considerably more robust (yet with simpler interfaces) to be worthwhile for my practice – and I hope they will eventually. For now, I continue with separate checklists & word processed master specs.
I also continue to report to my clients the dozens or sometimes hundreds of conflicts & errors found in the Dwgs during reviews for spec development. The linked/automated systems certainly can’t offer this “second set of eyes”.
Jeffrey, Well said. I too prefer spec masters using good old word processing.
Thanks
I agree with Jeffrey too.
As independent spec consultants, we also took a trial run with e-Specs, including several training days in our office, and came to the same conclusions.
I am interested in hearing from some in-house specifiers about how this is working for them. I would love to work with one of our A/E firms to customize their data sets and make BIM work for specs, but it seems no one is ready for this yet.
My office has recently obtained SpecLink-E. I have worked on only 1 project with this program as a beta test case. I am not convinced that there are advantages to this program. I had to put together the table of contents “manually” because of consultants specs and owners documents. I had to edit some of the owner’s Division 01 documents. I had to import some of our specs because SpecLink did not have sections. Lastly, I sometimes had to fight with the program itself because it would not allow me to do certain things.
It is interesting that the people in my office who are pushing for SpecLink have never used the program.
And I’m sure they never will. Oh well nothing is difficult for the person who doesn’t have to do it.
Somehow I can’t log in as my usual identity…
I use the SpecLink-E and have been doing so for the last few months. I’m quite happy with and prefer it’s, more direct, simple language.
Are there obstacles, yes. I feel the benefits of the structured system is a net benefit. It is much easier for me to move from project to project only making the changes without losing the original text. The PDF production phase alone is so much easier with a system like this. Then when they change the project name…again, you know what I mean.
Some of my client architects have changed the same section mulitple times. Many times they end up back where I started with them. It is easier for me to check / uncheck the changes than re-writing everything.
With Owner provided Division 0 & 1 docs, I usually will take them as a Word file and save as PDFs. The same goes for engineer provided sections in divisions 21-33. (They still haven’t completely caught up with the MF04 numbers.) Specialty consultants fall in the same category. Either way I have to manually modify the Table of Contents anyway.
Then I use SpecLink-E to generate the PDFs in the correct division folder. This allows me to sort ALL the PDFs in order (based on the section number/file name). Then combine them into a new Division PDF.
Any system is not perfect or complete. It believe it was Rene Descartes who said; “The fastest way to become a fool is to devise a system.”
Rich Gonser
I interviewed at one firm that was quite pleased with the “idea” of e-specs, but they admitted that they had spent a fortune cusomizing it, and were still having bugs and problems with it. The supporters of the software admit that “its not there yet” but since there seems to be so much market interest, everyone keeps saying "its just around the corner. " I expect that in the next 5 years there might be a viable product. I don’t see one yet.
And keep in mind – even e-specs can’t coordinate with something that hasn’t shown up on the drawings yet.
About twenty-five years ago, I sold - excuse me, tried to sell - AutoCAD (1.2?), PCs, printers, and plotters. At the time, AutoDesk was saying, “pretty soon you’ll finish the drawings, push a button, and you’ll get specifications, quantities, and cost estimates.”
Well, it’s almost thirty years later, and we’ve been hearing the same thing ever since. Someday soon - and I believe that - what they have been saying will be true, and the specifier we know today will be extinct.
But as Anne notes, we’re not quite there. Even if SpecLink or e-Specs or SpecText can somehow ferret out the information contained in the model, that information must be complete and reliable or we’ll still need someone to know what is (or often isn’t) on the drawings, and write specifications. We’re close…
About twenty-five years ago, I sold - excuse me, tried to sell - AutoCAD (1.2?), PCs, printers, and plotters. At the time, AutoDesk was saying, “pretty soon you’ll finish the drawings, push a button, and you’ll get specifications, quantities, and cost estimates.”
Well, it’s almost thirty years later, and we’ve been hearing the same thing ever since. Someday soon - and I believe that - what they have been saying will be true, and the specifier we know today will be extinct.
But as Anne notes, we’re not quite there. Even if SpecLink or e-Specs or SpecText can somehow ferret out the information contained in the model, that information must be complete and reliable or we’ll still need someone to know what is (or often isn’t) on the drawings, and write specifications. We’re close…
We are using Speclink-E and plan to purchase Linkman when it comes time for our renewal. I really like Speclink-E as it uses ribbons across the top of the page, similar to Word 2007.
David:
I am sorry to hear that your experience with SpecLink-E is not to your satisfaction.
I also understand the agony of dealing with a software change imposed by those who do not have to use it. (Anyone else here ever had to transition from WordPerfect to Word and convert all their masters, rename all their files, rewrite all their macros in the process?)
Honestly, I think the biggest obstacle to the adaptation of SpecLink - especially if the practice already has a dedicated specification writer - it that adopting the software will almost always require that the practice change some aspect of the way specifications are produced.
If I may indulge in a broad analogy: A power driver drives screws much faster and with less effort than a manual screwdriver, but will also change many other things about the way the worker drives screws. It may change larger aspects of the work, like the type of materials selected.
There are definite disadvantages: the power tool is heavier, it requires electricity, it must be recharged, etc., etc. Still, no one will suggest that a manual screwdriver is “better” than the power driver, which is faster but can also drill, grind, burnish, etc., etc. with the right attachment.
You may not agree that SpecLink’s advantages outweigh the perceived disadvantage of having to make changes in your internal specifying procedures, but I don’t think it can be denied that SpecLink is a more powerful tool - especially in the hands of a knowledgeable specifier - than any word-processing-based system out there.
My case was the opposite of yours; I was sold on SpecLink, but could not convince management to get behind it. (Plus, the guy who’d been there even longer than I had and had written the office masters ‘from scratch’ a decade earlier was ready to defend his ‘babies’ to the death.) The change might’ve been painful, but as the guy that did the vast majority of their spec production work for 15 years - using MasterSpec, in WordPerfect and Word - all I can say is I wish I’d had SpecLink a decade or more ago.
The screw driver analogy is a few generations off, I’d say, a more appropriate equivalent would be the improvement spec writing enjoyed when going from typewriter/mimeograph to a word processor on a computer.
What hasn’t really been brought up in this discussion is that there are 2 separate and distinct issues that are being lumped together as if singular. The first issue is the editing tool - BSD and Interspec both offer editing tools that are, in many ways, much better than simply pounding out specs using word processing software. I have used both SpecLink and eSpecs for Revit and both are great for making rough edits, pulling content in and eliminating content - with ease. Refining those edits, I have found, is still much easier to do in a Word environment.
The SECOND issue, the one that is far less developed, and the one that most of the negative comments are directed toward (I think) is the link between the specs and the BIM. Neither of the above mentioned products offers much to be excited about in that regard. We have not been able to get either to work well in my office.
If we ever are able to get this to work, then it MIGHT be really great, but it also might be more of a novelty than anything else, not really making projects better, or spec writers any more efficient (or any more obsolete).