I use Mfg’s Guide Specifications to tap the expertise of the manufacturer. Could care less what formats they are using. It’s the content that matters.
Richard, I agree to a point. While I would never use a manufacturer’s guide spec in my Project Manual, it would be nice to see information put in the right place so I can find and cull what I do want. I hate ‘finishing’ a spec only to find that a critical piece of information was off floating somewhere.
Pretty much the same concept as how too many Contractors (and A/Es) look at our specs.
Let me catch up slightly.
To Peggy’s Questions:
Yes - the reviewers are paid a nominal amount. This was a hotly debated item but ultimate came down that often times volunteer activities get pushed to a back burner when paid work is calling. This provides a bit of monetary incentive to keep the process rolling.
Yes the manufacturers pay CSI for the review.
I believe that CSI has always encouraged people manufacturers as well as other professionals to hire qualified specification writers, and carrying the CCS certification certainly is a moniker of that. I agree that it supports the value of a CCS and the value of the Certifications.
To Colin’s Question: Manufacturers are provided the ability to use the Compliant Document designation for up to 3 years without renewal, unless their specifications require modification due to product/industry or other reasons. There is too much detail to go into here about dealing with modifications but it was considered.
As to Richard - Many experienced specifiers stand in agreement - there are however, as we are all aware, many specifiers/project managers/architects/engineers - you list them who don’t have the experience and this provides and a starting point - now they still have to determine if the product is appropriate for their project.
And finally to Ken and back to Ron’s comment of some time ago -I agree - it is nice to have a guide spec with things in the right place using good specification language so that I can do my job better.
I went to the CDR program page on the CSI website. Are the linked examples what to expect CDR “certified” guide specifications to be? (The website uses the term “approved” to describe the specifications).
I looked at one of the STO specifications. I like STO EIFS. I’ve been specifying it since the early 1980s. I was disappointed in what I found in the example CDR specification, however.
Editing instructions were embedded as specification text, not offset as is typically found in guide specifications. I didn’t notice any significant deviations from basic SectionFormat but I did notice punctuation, capitalization and other things I would consider to be deficiencies. I did notice in the page footer that the section was a “shortform” specification. Are “shortform” and “longform” defined in the Practice Guide? I can’t say that I know the difference, except that “shortform” specifications are more concise. I would not expect CDR reviewers to determine for the manufacturer what is the sufficient degree of detailed technical information … although I do just that in the project-specific specifications I produce.
Is there an approved or recommended method of specifying for manufacturer’s guide specifications? As I recall, the methods of specifying are Descriptive, Reference Standard, Proprietary and Performance methods of specifying. And under Propietary, there are Open and Closed Prorietary methods. In my real life experience, almost all construction specifications are a hybrid of several methods of specifying. I didn’t see in the example specification any clear delineation of optional text for “restrictive” and “non-restrictive” specifications. These would be helpful to guide the spec writer/editor who may wish to or is required to produce a more or less competitively biddable specification Section. This would be especially useful for novice spec writers/editors who would be likely to use CDR ok’d specifications.
And regarding specifications writing in general, there are the sacred four C’s to consider: Clear, Correct, Complete and Concise. (And maybe a fifth C, Coordinated, although that might be covered under Correct). Are these principles to be considered in the CDR review? Will the CDR reviewer be expected to evaluate and suggest/require text changes to suit some standard for compliance with the four Cs?
There are also some other common specifications writing principles and practices that I consider to be fundamental and should be included in the CDR review: the use of key words at the beginning of paragraphs; the use of “streamlining” instead of using “shall be”, etc.; logical ordering of Articles and Paragraphs to correspond with construction products acquisitions and sequences work activities (yes, with due consideration of staying on the proper side of the line for specifying means, methods, techniques and sequences of construction).
I went to the STO website and found the “longform” version of the EIFS specification Section. It is what I consider to be a true, manufacturer’s guide specifications, although I can nit-pick on some of the capitization and punctuation matters. I did notice two things in both the “shortform” and “longform” versions: the complete absence of submittal requirements and the absence of sustainable design (“greeen”) building requirements. The latter is something I find very helpful in producing contemporary specifications. And accurate warranty provisions were absent.
Obviously, with my reputation for being too idealistic and, therefore, a troublemaker, I will not be CDR reviewer. From what I’ve seen so far, I also won’t be inclined to be a user of CDR approved … er, certified … specifications until the program matures.
I am surprised that the many comments above imply an expectation that a guide spec should be like any other in house master. So simple even a project Architect can do it.
My guess is that your masters have been a product of extensive modification and adjustment to reflect your firms practice and preferences. Why should you not expect to make the same effort on a Mfg Guide Spec?
Too many “can goods” out there already.
The underlying expection in my comments is just the opposite: a guide specification … produced as an in-house master or as a commerically produced document for sale or as produced by a construction product manufacturer … should provide comprehensive GUIDANCE for editing. These documents also should be compliant with industry-accepted (CSI) principles and practices.
The last thing I would expect, advocate or endorse … especially as implied in the proposed certification of compliance with CSI formats and recommended principles and practices … is that manufacturer-produced specifications would be ready for use in project-specific project bidding and construction contract documents with minimal modification.
I’d just like the non-compliance factor to be reduced significantly and save editing and re-writing time for the spec writer in production of a compliant basis-of-design specification Section.
How’s the Compliant Document Review (CDR) program doing?
Is the CDR program beneficial for selling building products?
That’s what I expected.
John,
I’m assuming your most recent post is in response to the fact that you didn’t receive a response. I saw your post and decided that much as sticking a stick in a hornets nest and stirring is not a good idea - the previous post seemed to be just that and sometimes it is best to just let things ride. But given you want to stir…
The purpose of the CDR program is NOT to be beneficial for selling building products. It is to encourage and recognize that well written specifications are beneficial to the industry. Specifiers are notorious for gritching about the poor documents that are available from manufacturers. This program is to recognize and encourage appropriate application of the CSI Formats, standards and good specification writing practices.
Given that you are the co-author of several editions of “Construction Specifications Writing - Principles and Procedures” you obviously value the intent.
While the CDR program will not cure cancer in Canadian Rats, it will not cure hunger in the United States or anywhere else, and it will not sell building products - none of these were its intended use. To date there haven’t been a million participants but with each manufacturer that recognizes the importance of well written specifications it is a step in the right direction.
“A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step”
I appreciate Nina’s clarification and I think the CDR program is a good idea.
However, astute product manufacturers would not bother with it if they did not see a financial benefit to it.
And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
We spend a fair amount of time complaining about poorly-formatted guide specs, websites that require registration, and the indifference with which some manufacturers regard our professional needs. If the CDR program helps them overcome those problems, promote better communication, and sell product at the end of the process, I cannot see that any harm is done.
What I’m looking for from manufacturers is technical information. Some manufacturers understand that it is to their benefit to provide the technical information, and some have been distracted by the idea of “guide specs” as a way to pretend to provide useful information. I think of them as “buy my product” specs, not guide specs.
CSI sells the CDR program to manufacturers with the pitch that this is the way to get architects to use their “CSI Certified specs” - and some manufacturers fall for the ruse. Some architects fall for it as well. The hinted at and assumed benefit to manufacturers is that this will help sell their product. And to architects the pitch is that you won’t really have to write your own spec, you can just use the “CSI Certified spec.”
And, most importantly, this program makes money for CSI!
As Ron indicated in an earlier post - the use of the word “certified” is incorrect - CDR stands for Compliant Document Review.
A business is in business to make money, no matter if that business makes widgets or if that business prepares construction specifications. So yes most of us are looking for financial benefit no matter the shoes we wear.
There are a lot of guide specs out there and every design professional needs to remember that their first name is GUIDE, and that no guide spec should be used without editing for project specific conditions.
Peggy - I completely agree that technical information is quite often lacking in what is provided by manufacturers. But I believe that guide specifications can/may be useful in gleaning technical information that doesn’t exist in other places.
There are certainly some Manufacturer Reps that pitch the “you don’t have to write your own spec” but there are an equal number that are really working toward being a trusted advisor and a well written guide spec is merely a tool that can be used. I don’t believe it is fair to lump all reps or all guide specs into one pile.
Right on Nina!
The operating costs for the CDR program is negligible since the reviews are conducted by CSI volunteers–almost every dollar of revenue goes to CSI for other expenses and programs (i.e. improve the member value proposition). Therefore, whether the program is popular or not, it does not hurt CSI financially.
For those of us who are independents and write guide specifications for manufacturers, I think we can help promote the program. Ask your clients if they want you to submit the specifications to CSI’s CDR program–I do. I’ve only done one guide specification for a manufacturer since the CDR program was introduced. They haven’t made a decision yet whether or not to submit to the CDR, but if they do, or a future manufacturer client does, I’ll just pass the cost on to the manufacturer as a reimbursible expense or include it in my fee.
I think this is an opportunity for us specifiers to help CSI’s bottom line, which, in turns, improves CSI for us, other CSI members, and the construction industry.
Ron,
The CDR program is an opportunity for specifiers to help CSI, other CSI members and the construction industry.
Most of the reviewers receive a small fee for their review work. This was implemented primarily to avert instances where deadlines are looming and the volunteer effort slips, it provides CSI a bit of leverage should they need it in the case of the reviews not happening in a timely fashion.
Nina:
Moi? Stir things up? I didn’t go to Berkeley just to fortify the status quo.
(Actually, I worked on campus in security and had a daily, positive working relationship with the campus police … during the height of campus unrest circa 1969-70.)
My greatest concern is “selling” design professionals and building product manufacturers on the value of well-prepared bidding and construction contract documents. I believe that promoting this value will fuel purchases of CSI documents, attendance at CSI programs and lessen construction conflicts.
I think the CDR program could promote and implement well-prepared documents. Or, it could at least raise awareness of the benefits of “well-prepared” and “compliant” documents. Although, “green washing” would probably sell building products better, if one is cynical.
Ok, I’ll help John stir the pot, just for fun. After all, years ago John was one of my first instructors 
I just took a look at one of the Napco Security sections as specs in the “coms” have always been a challenge for me personally. Sorry, but I was disappointed. First of all, the Summary article was much too detailed. My second concern is the use of proprietary specifying without options. We all know that one need not name specific products for the spec to become proprietary, this can also be accomplished with criteria that provides no options. In my opinion, this is not the idea behind a Guide spec.
I do think the basic premise of the program is sound but also think the review needs to be done with more critical thinking.
Karen:
My impression is that the CDR program is pretty much limited to affirming compliance with “CSI” formats and evaluating application of recognized principles and practices of specifications writing. That is, compliance with Masterformat, SectionFormat and PageFormat.
Choice of method(s) of specifying (Descriptive, Reference Standard, Performance and Proprietary [Closed Proprietary/Open Proprietary and even de facto proprietary] are not part of the compliance review. Nor are inclusion of editing guidance, and adequate requirements for submittal, quality assurance and warranties, and (of course) “greeny-ness.”
Yet, these latter qualities are what those who are “professional” specifiers value and put lots of effort into.
“gritching”
According to Merriam-Webster: “The word you’ve entered isn’t in the dictionary.”
However, I like the combining of griping with bitching. That’s bitchin’!
Oh, how I miss “just the facts, ma’am” SpecData!