I posted this message on the CSI Community Forum tonight:
Over the past several months, CSI has seen disturbing and perhaps irreparable damage done to member trust, organizational reputation, and fidelity to the organizations mission and historic role. Members and others are raising specific serious questions about executive managements strategic judgement and financial stewardship of the organizations assets.
Each member of the Board of Directors has a fiduciary duty to membership; we members have an obligation to hold each of them accountable for determining whether current executive leadership is capable of effectively leading the organization after such a major loss of member confidence and reputational damage. Since this is a governance question, it is the boards duty to act.
Examination of public discourse and numerous private discussions over the past three months has revealed four issues of particular concern to CSI members, sponsors, and customers.
- Loss of Trust: When discussing Februarys release of the Dynamic Standards initiative, members repeatedly express surprise, confusion, and consternation at inadequate communication from management when attempting to explain the new product. CSI itself acknowledged communication failures several times in public statements, but management seems to focus on a botched rollout of a new product rather than on a systemic loss of trust from membership.
Major structural changes were insufficiently disclosed, members did not understand implications beforehand, and trust rapidly deteriorated as details either emerged sporadically or were withheld entirely. A board that places a priority on healing a serious rift with a distrustful membership must examine:
Did executive leadership adequately inform members of its ongoing strategy to transform MasterFormat?
Did management effectively assess stakeholder sentiment about the upcoming changes?
Was market demand sufficiently assessed?
Were risks properly evaluated?
- Damage to CSIs Reputation: This issue has expanded beyond internal disagreement. The controversy is now publicly discussed across many online forums including LinkedIn, 4specs, Reddit, chapter forums, and trade media. Some public commentary explicitly calls for leadership change, suggesting that CSI has a CEO problem.
Whether these online comments are fair or not, there is an undeniable perception from both members and outsiders that there exists a perception of dismissiveness toward member concerns, questions regarding executive management’s understanding of MasterFormats role within the AEC industry, and intolerance by leadership of legitimate member dissent. A board that takes seriously its obligation to protect the reputation of CSI must evaluate:
How far has member goodwill materially deteriorated?
Has stakeholder confidence been irreparably impaired?
Is the CEO now a liability to organizational and professional credibility?
- Questions about Strategic Judgment: There is widespread concern among members that the rollout of MasterFormat 2026 and its attendant Dynamic Standards model was mishandled. Members argue that the bungled rollout resulted not from a mistimed release but from flawed strategic assumptions on the part of executive management. Many members criticize executive leadership for treating MasterFormat as rigidly controlled licensable proprietary content while the industry views it as shared infrastructure, and they believe this miscalculation triggered a highly public backlash that should have been anticipated.
Members have been candid that their criticism is not a rejection of modernization per se but rather a confirmation of what CSI has already recognized, the commercialization model was strategically mishandled. A board that is interested in correcting its mistakes must ask:
Was stakeholder resistance foreseeable?
Was risk modeling adequate?
Were alternative monetization strategies considered?
Did executive leadership misjudge member expectations?
- Concerns over Financial Stewardship: Public commentary continues to question the millions of dollars invested in the Crosswalk initiative, the costs of developing Dynamic Standards, and the lack of transparency in setting up the for-profit company CIN. Experienced specifiers who have tested the new products question its usefulness and question whether it is worth the price.
Most importantly, members are asking legitimate questions about whether the expenditures align with CSIs mission, and whether executive leadership exercised prudent stewardship. A board that lives up to its fiduciary responsibility to its membership must question:
What was spent?
What measurable return exists?
What metrics justify the investment?
Were projections accurate?
Were potential conflicts-of-interest avoided?
July 1 begins a new fiscal year for CSI. We will see new members of the Board of Directors assume office, including a new board chair, a new chair-elect, a new treasurer, and several new board members. This is an opportunity for the new board to begin the process of healing, a process likely preferred by everyone concerned. The alternative for the board, continuing a course of non-responsiveness and lack of transparency, will not satisfy the concerns of members, sponsors, and customers.
Healing our organization will require the board to make a difficult and honest self-examination of the actions and governance that led up to our current uncomfortable situation. It will be necessary for the board to make a serious inquiry into whether our current executive management can offer effective leadership given the vocal and public expressions of concern about questionable strategy, poor communications, and erosion of trust.
It is time for us, as members, to hold our board accountable. That is our duty if we profess to care about our formerly respected organization. It is time for the board to do their duty and face the underlying governance question that is the root cause of our current distress: Can our current CEO still successfully unify the membership and lead the transition forward?
Before the board can answer that question, it owes the membership a transparent review of the decisions, assumptions, expenditures, and governance processes that led to the current controversy.
If the answer from the board is yes, membership is owed and will demand a full accounting of the investigation the board undertook to make that determination.
If the answer is no, the board must make a leadership transition, regardless of whether the Dynamic Standards strategy proves successful.
This is not about the sale of a piece of software; this is about the soul of an organization.