JP, my thoughts exactly on Arcom’s narrowscoping of sections, and even article’s within the sections over the past several years - should help many users avoid the old problems of too easily leaving manufacturer’s in the spec who do not make the very narrow group of products finally chosen after editing all the requirements. Plus it is a huge step toward BIM connectivity.
Anne, I agree that there will always be some users who will complain no matter what is being done. Yes Ken even MARC members at times, as in the case of the MPI example, but Arcom is doing what will best serve the majority of users. There will be some who don’t understand, some who do understand but choose to go another direction with that spec section - that is fine - and perhaps some who partly understand and misjudge.
I will also join with Anne and Alan in saying I’ve worked for several firms that use MS as their base documents and yes real firms do deal with sometimes long lists of manufacturers, and of course we tailor them down for the region and project needs! (which will get easier with Paragraph Builder). I don’t understand how users who have this complaint would not have the same exact complaint with any guide spec system that names manufacturers. You have to research if you write specs. You have to modify the guide spec text, it is a GUIDE spec. You have to use the tools as intended and not fight the tools, and then the real benefit will become more fully realized. If you over-rely on past projects, trouble is not far down the road. Where is this implication that using MasterSpec means relying on past projects though - those to me seem to be polar opposite ways to produce specs.
In doing this latest change that started this thread, Arcom has made available a powerful solution that allows products to be filtered by your design choices, and it sounds to me like they are at the same time fully addressing the old complaint that out of business manufacturers are not removed and names are not updated quickly enough, by implementing Paragraph Builder.
By the way there are TWO database spec systems available for interacting with Arcom MasterSpec content. http://www.specware.info/ (See the two on the right.) Both of them have come light years from the old way of managing customized office masters. BSD has I believe the longest history in databasing specs, but my experience there is limited to demo versions because the firms I was with were previously committed to other solutions; I can say that my peers who have used it (SpecLink) were enthusiastic.
Before I go further, let me mention that I’m just a spec writer for a large A/E firm and I have no dog in any fight here, i.e. no one is paying me to say any of this. I just might have some unique insight from working at a variety of firm sizes and business models for producing specs, and I’ve worked on guide specs and software in the past. I’m not trying to toot my own horn, just hoping to help clear up misunderstandings that abound on this thread.
As product innovation and marketplace changes continue to abound, Arcom is doing something about it. Paint is one good example, for which they are sometimes misjudged. I congratulate Arcom on their ongoing work to incorporate the wealth of non-proprietary reliable info that MPI brings, and the recent announcement in one trade journal I ran across that they will be integrating with MPI in Paragraph Builder. Our firm customizes the office master spec sections for painting to simplify adding specific products, if needed going beyond MPI, and including some recent code changes and best practices we’ve learned. Does that mean I should complain that Arcom is making more changes in this area for fear I can’t update the office master? No, I look forward to seeing their innovation and adapting as needed to take advantage of the new tools.
Without MPI we would be lost in a sea of ever-changing and non-equivalent information, with nothing to believe in except the firm handshake, sudden look in the eye and easy smile of a rep. To even begin to accomplish what MPI has, one would have to collect and peruse thousands of pages of product literature and compare test reports, but forget about the testing methods and info being consistent. Days or weeks of research would be needed to produce the same quality of specifications without MPI, or you would have to abandon ensuring “apples to apples” and rely primarily on what reps tell you, and later respond to the school of hard knocks and update your master over many years - but then the products change again and you must start over!
MPI is EASY to use for specifications if you subscribe at www.specifypaint.com for research information. If you haven’t, you just don’t have any idea what all you are missing. You can research by coating SYSTEM, not just by approved products as found at their basic site www.paintinfo.com. Once you have access to the specifier’s full information, vast info is at your fingertips if you follow the systems evaluations links (you can tell I’m a Classic Site user), or you can go without the evaluations and just look at the systems only if you are already familiar. And if you use the new site with Decision Tree I really don’t understand how it could be any easier. There is even now an agreement where MPI will become integrated into the new Paragraph Builder and some manufacturers will offer Product MasterSpec like sections in the new system. If you don’t have a specifypaint subscription you are not totally in the dark because the editor notes and supporting documents in MasterSpec provide much of the info you need. Some people may be tripped up if they don’t understand that this is one of those sections you’d better edit as 3-2-1. It just makes sense to choose the substrates and the coating systems for only those substrates, then review the products, and then the administrative requirements. If you still have problems with paint specifications it might not be MPI’s fault, they can’t do everything - the specifier still has to know which paint manufacturers are reputable and present in their region, and sometimes choose between multiple options of similar products based on what the project requires.
For anyone who thinks of specs as a CYA document while they are producing them, that is all they will ever be, filled with junk you thought you might need, not useful for bidding and construction, making all the truly necessary text less and less defensible. Some firms have been too accepting of understaffing of technical people. That is more the problem than guide spec systems. If you don’t have people on staff who really know contracts and how a building goes together and doesn’t leak, you will have legal and constructability and liability problems. BS specs are just the beginning, no guide spec system will help, and just wait 'til you try BiM without understanding what the elements are that you are drawing based on incorrect and proprietary products and then using that 2 right specks!
Of course we hope for much better from most of those who frequent this discussion forum.
I’m sure I’ve covered too wide a range of issues and made everybody mad somewhere or other…