First off, if you are on the committee this is not a slight against you personally. I am just curious.
I want to know how the CDR Program has come into being. I want to know who is on this committee of peers that will be reviewing specifications for “compliance”.
So, we really are getting “spec police” these days?
Thanks so much! Melissa
There is no committee. The reviewers are CSI members with CCS certification. If you meet these qualifications, then you can request that you be added to the list of reviewers.
The CDR program is to assist manufacturers with providing product guide specifications that conform to CSI standards (i.e. MasterFormat, SectionFormat, PageFormat, and the Construction Specifications Practice Guide).
If you are a specifier that prepares product guide specifications for manufacturers, and you are a CDR reviewer, then you cannot review your own specifications.
Also, if you review a guide specification and return corrections that need attention before getting the “compliant” seal, you can assist the manufacturer in making those corrections, but you cannot review the resubmittal.
Believe me, I would rather use a CDR compliant guide specification over most of the guide specifications that manufacturers have out there.
I can hardly wait until manufacturer’s get on the CDR bandwagon and proudly advertise that their specs are “CSI Approved.”
No, John, they’ll say they’re “CSI Certified”!
Kool Aid aside now. I have questions. To whom do I address them regarding this new program.
There is a general article in the October issue of the Specifier - pg 12, the CSI Weekly focused on the program in todays issue and you can e-mail cdr@csinet.
To further Ron’s comments - this came out of the Technical Committee starting at least 2 years ago. It is NOT a program that address the appropriateness of products for a project or the technical merits of a product, but simply is to assist specifiers in finding guide specs that conform to the principles to which we profess.
One more item - the “official” seal reads “Compliant with CSI Formats and Guidelines” no certification - no approved no certified - just compliant.
The reviewers are also not intended to be “wordsmithing” as there are many good ways to write a spec. So the reviewers look at conformance as Ron has pointed out - with CSI Formats and good specification practices as outlined in the Practice Guides.
Comments to the contrary I would respond to with “get a grip”. This is nothing new, and it has not been secretive. It’s not in the realm of “kool aide” either. Tis relates only to manufacturers guide specs, which on the whole are a miserable example of specs to the point I train all our PA’s to avoid them.
Only good can come of this, even if it is only marginal improvement. They are so far down now that bottom looks like up.
No one got freaked out about the old program for product data formats, too bad that died. It’s tough for a volunteer organization to maintain programs, this one seems setup to succeed if we get behind it.
Understood. I wanted to pose some technical questions to those “peers”. I have been writing some manufacturer specs and need some guidance. I believe it would be a great idea but also I have ran across a couple of companies that believed once I provided a master I would then in turn provide them a “compliance” seal since I am a CCS with CSI. Then, when I tried to explain this new program I realized I needed to know more about it and it’s backstory. I don’t care where it came from and if it was hatched in the back rooms of some bodega, lol. I want to know facts.
I am turning to CSI to discuss these items and want to move beyond the selling points. I will send my items to that email. Thank you.
Melissa, I wonder if since you are a CCS you could get on the “list of reviewers” Ron refers to & kill 2 birds with one spec.
Contact Rob Holson at Institute or Nina Giglio.
I too was on the beta section CDR review testing committee and the description of the program made by Nina and Ron are accurate.
I performed many of the initial manufacturer section reviews and reviewer agreement and section compliance form revision and modification recommendations.
Rob at Institute has the current reviewer agreement form and section review checklist along with other information to get you started.
The article Nina included in the Specifier magazine in a good initial overview of the program and what it is looking to accomplish.
You are also welcome to contact me if you want any further information.
The link on the Institute website is: http://www.csinet.org/Home-Page-Category/Formats/Compliant-Document-Review-Program-for-Guide-Specifications
Is the “section review checklist” available to anyone, or does one have to be an approved CCS reviewer to gain access to it? I didn’t see any reference to it on the webpage cited above…
Bob - I don’t think there is anything secretive about the checklist, but I honestly don’t know the answer to your question.
Please contact Rob Holson at CSI through the cdr@csinet.org e-mail address would be your best bet.
Thanks. I did, and Rob sent me the 3-page template as a pdf. In subsequent exchange, he clarified that also returning a marked-up section is not requred, but currently is allowed. That makes sense, since markup is a routine part of submittal review, and often the simplest and most specific way to convey comments.
I decided I’d look at an example, and chose Thermocromex. Couldn’t find it on the company website.
It might help both manufacturers and us specifiers if, on its main CDR web page listing, CSI would include a general description of the work results specified in the compliant specs of these companies (especially since so many manufacturers choose such cryptic corporate names/trademarks). I saw only four companies listed so far as having compliant guide specs. Sto I recognized, but “Thermochromex”? What is that? or “Southwest Progressive Enterprises”?? A masterpiece of vagueness! (That company appears to specialize in lime-based plastering. Whoda thunkit?)
Of course, just listing manufacturers in order by their MF division would help–or better yet, listing all the section numbers and titles in the main list, under the manufacturer’s names. (And since the manufacturers are likely paying per section, they’d probably feel they were getting more value for their money…)
General questions about the CDR program:
Are the reviewers paid by CSI for their services, or is this a volunteer activity?
Do manufacturers pay for the CSI CDR review?
Does CSI make any effort to encourage manufacturers to hire CCS spec writers to create their guide specs? It seems to me that this would both support the value of hiring CCS specifiers and promote the value of CSI certifications.
I’ll add to Peggy’s questions - is there an annual maintenance fee for manufacturers to have their compliant specs listed on the CSI Website?