A big part of the issue, I fear, is that the e-specs products (e-specs/ spec-link e) are sold as though they can do the SECOND issue. Practicing specifiers can see through that canard quickly – but practicing specifiers are not always the ones making production decisions in their offices.
E-specs claims that it can “produce a 70% spec” right off the bat. It can’t. The other products claim that they can do “most” of the coordination between the BIM and the specs.
Well… if every time we used a product, we all used it in the same way (or, maybe a couple of variations), and if on one job we used each material in only one way, then an “automated spec” might be achieveable. However, how many times has one written a – masonry spec – let’s say – and it was all pretty much the same except where something was arched, and something else corbeled, and in another place its load bearing and in another place its not? The old saw about the first 90% of the spec taking half the time and the last 10% takes the other half of the time is pretty much correct – and its that last 10% that isn’t very effectively covered in the BIM models or the “automatic” specs.
Nomenclature is a big problem; is it gypsum wallboard, gypsum board, drywall, or sheetrock (argh!). There may be a number of firms that have resolved this issue, but I have never worked in or with one. And when one or two new people get hired, they bring in fresh expertise which may or may not be compatible with the general firm expertise. Unless carefully trained in some detail, their expertise will creep into the carefully crafted systems established and maintained by the firm.
At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what generic term you develop and use for plasterboard as long as it is used consistently and then defined in the specifications. Ah, that’s the rub, coordination with the specifications.
Nomemclature is a BIG problem with or without e-specs and spec-link. The trend lately has been for the color selections to move to the top of the selection process list long before the actual product or system has been selected. We have office standard “type designators” for all interior and exterior products/systems but they get trumped by the “color desingator.” These are invented on the fly and take on a life of their own at the expence of office standards. He/she who picks the colors has the gold. Multiple types of one product category are labelled by their color. A recent example is louvers. My project has two types of louvers. Sand-trap intake louvers and standard exhaust louvers. They are both noted as MT-04 because that is their color. Which one is exhaust and which one is intake is a RFI question.
As soon as I am assigned a project I issue the tables with the office approved "type designators? for interior and exterior products. To late. To much water under the bridge to change now is the usual excuse.
yes, and just try putting the colors into the BIM. tghat will definitely work.
actually colors are not a problem, you can place them in the properties dialog box (in Revit) as a comment or mark, you can add it to all of one type of object via another dialog box
and last but not least you can add it to schedules.
so it’s easy - but do you really want to? - That is the question.
that last post was from me but I was not logged in
Not Anne’s post (obviously)but one coming up.
David, lets take the topic a little different path and approach it differently. Maybe specifications have become user unfriendly? eSpecs and Speclink are just process tools. What they try to do is engage the project team into the specification process. That really is not a bad thing. That said, they do mean that you may need to adjust your process. Something that typically tough for an individual to do. It also might mean that your fee structure and methods may need to change. Most of the time I hear the argument that specifications out of the box (Masterspec and Speclink) require much modification therefore many stick with their custom modified or originally authored specifications. That actually has led many to stick with old methods. Again, not necessarily bad, however, it may be costing you more effort than different approaches.
The different path I wanted to take was due to a presentation I did to a company concerning documentation. During that presentation, I asked the question, has anyone reviewed their specifications? Silence was the answer. That was the entire company including the PMs. In fact the only person that said that they had read a specification said they did it once in their career. I find that true now with companies since most on working on their margins and have inexperienced staff running projects and/or eliminated QA/QC staff. PMs and PAs both do not have time to read 2-4 volumes of specs to see if they are coordinated. Today’s client typically will not even read a 10 page proposal or report. They go straight to the bottom line, cost. Today, the people involved do not have the time of make the effort in coordinating the specification. So, maybe the title of this post should also include the specification itself and not just the tool. The iPod became a hit due to research into the target market. That market was Gen Y and Gen X people (it grew later) and what their traits were. I even have to admit, I long for the days that a spec was 1 volume and not even an inch thick. With that said, should specifiers look into alternative ways of producing the spec? Has the path taken the product to where the construction team ignores it? Has it become nothing more than a CYA tool?
BIM is changing how architects work and what they deliver. Should specifiers look at their target market and change their spec? Food for thought…
Heck, Call me old school, but I am still waiting for the paperless office!
I am currently moving my office and filling recycle bin after recycle bin.