Hi Chris. It is really be a shame when open discussions get people angry though it obviously happens. Hope we’re still friends. I’m probably still more offensive than offended so I ask forgiveness if I pissed anyone off.
Also I apologize for introducing MPI into this discussion. Obviously some people like it. I find it to be a false positive that I’m just not comfortable resorting to. I’m still happy to find the systems that work for my project and then have my ‘golden reps’ work with me to create a workable document. Just being an old fart. Nothing new here.
As to my other comments, all I was saying is that if you don’t like MasterSpec, don’t use it. My company just renewed our subscription for several of our offices where it is used extensively (but certainly not exclusively). I like doing my own product research; it’s something I enjoy doing and I think I do an adequate job with it. I prefer relying on Colin instead of Spec Agent to keep me in touch with manufacturers. He does a much better job of it IMHO. I don’t list manufacturers without listing products so I may be a bit of an oddity. I don’t know what everyone else does.
As far as I can tell, everyone I know on this forum is a topnotch Specifier. That’s one of the reasons I enjoy participating here; each of you brings up my game whether we agree or not.
Am I hoping that spec writing technology improves at a faster rate than it has to date? Yes. Considering we were hearing that we would have real, working BIM no later than 1999, I accept that it still may happen in my professional lifetime (no, I don’t ever expect to retire so yes, professional and otherwise are the same). Do I think that the vast majority within our industry will be just as lost using a real BIM as they are using 3D, object-oriented CAD? Yes. I just hope that we are in a position to help select products that can be plugged into the model and used correctly. If UniFormat is still the classification system of choice for Revit at that time, and I can get my company to understand the concept and benefit of the PPD, my hope is that we’ll morph to a complete systems approach and maybe get to practice and communicate holistic design.
Then again, reality does usually raise its ugly head come the end of the day. Still, I’m not giving up hope!
Hey Ken-
pretty soon, the stuff you’re concerned about will be in the back corner – just wait until you start dealing with LEED version 4! I got a paint submittal that is using yams for the colorant.
Chris, I am not mad. Never really was. I can attest that Ken is the best specifier I have ever worked with in my 30+ year career as an architect. Do Ken and I have different opinions at times? OF COURSE! Let’s get him talking about Bentonite or MPI over drinks and cigars! Having been a specifier in my career has made me very aware of what the specs are used for. I however have recently looked back at an old set of specs versus what we create now. The older spec was clear concise and only about an 1"-1 1/2" thick. Today, we are all over the map! Trying to do a bathroom remodel in a church and getting specs that are 3" thick doesn’t do the contractor in his truck much good. Yes, I have recently seen that very situation. Having junior CAs come up to me with RFI over RFI with questions that can be answered in the spec also tells me the same. I also get the same issue with the contractor and his subs when I go to the site. Projects have an increase of substitutions asked for all the time. All this burning up the architect’s CA budget. You might say that I should go to the client for additional fee, but the clients are the contractor many times. I won’t even go into the Design Build issues that arise on occasion. The industry is repeatedly asking for usable documents all the time. All I ask is, producing specs that take 6-8 weeks to review a value when your CD schedule is only 8 weeks? I currently know of at least 3 projects that have that very schedule and they are 4-6 floors of wood construction over type 1 podiums and 2-3 floors below grade. BTW, they are apartments and condos. More and more clients are trying to omit the specifications all together. We have a client who is self performing and they instructed us not to produce a spec. We did and guess what. They don’t read it since they will do what they see fit. FYI, this is actually a good client at this time. BIM is pushing us into a realm that we produce CDs at this breakneck pace. Try getting and reviewing a set of specs in that time frame. That is why the need for databasing is now a requirement.
The issue is that Arcom and other spec houses are just now accepting this challenge and they are slow with their response. BIM has been around for quite a while and currently the specs are lagging the most. The other thing is that currently solutions are mainly for Revit and little attention has been paid to other BIM tools. What they are coming out with is beta at best and work arounds have to be developed in order to get them to even work. BIM is a 2 way street and getting spec info into the documents is tough. It is not necessarily their fault as the Bim manufacturers are just as guilty.
Bottom line is that schedules are getting continually stressed to the point that providing proper documents is getting tougher and tougher. People are not reading them, reviewing them and that is costing architects good reputations along with good specifiers. Many clients are saying why do I need an architect. so as the architect goes, the specifier goes too.
As a start, can we take a good hard look at what everyone provides and see how to address these important issues? Think about who uses the documents. Are they really using them? What do the documents actually say? This includes drawings and specifications. Many an article has been discussing the growth of drawings and how we just created drawing after drawing without any meaning. I started looking at ways to reduce the document sets and make them clear and concise. Surprising how a smaller set of drawings has brought back quality into the mix. People coordinate better. Can we actually do the same with specs? I think so. So what does that all mean in a MasterSpec conversation? Well as many have said here, we all start with MS, BSD, and others as a base. They need to change their systems to adapt to the user needs. Making it more complicated isn’t the answer. What I find is that some companies start with MS and then add even more instead of looking how to make them more concise. Maybe if we had a concise spec to begin with that would help us to be better at simplifying the specifications without damaging them.
Awwww, time to get off my soap box. Ken, have you gotten that PPD done yet? LOL! Well, that is my 2 cents worth.
Yams? Really? So much for longevity. I guess if the owner is planning on repainting every year or two, it won’t really matter how long the paint keeps its color.
What MPI number do yams fall under?
Alan, that must have been a weak moment doling out such high praise to me. Let me know what I owe you and I’ll write you an EPDM check (can’t get real rubber anymore).
I agree with Ken, the MPI system is still somewhat suspect in our area. There has been a great deal of push back from painting contractors.
I also agree with Alan that specs in general are getting Fat and not always with good reason. However my experience has indicated that a lot of that problem, at least in the public/institutional sector, has been in the front end and not necessarily the product sections. Much of this additional paper comes from the client’s “legal team” and we are instructed to include it even if we register concerns over it’s value. Not sure what the solution is to that but it is frustrating when a contractor looks at our product (the spec) as one big CYA document.
On a lighter note: Anne’s yam colored paint made me picture little bitty marshmallows floating on a sea of orange.
Back to Master Specs, will the new manufacturers date work without internet access? I work in locations where I do now always have internet access (on the train) and this is a problem.
Regarding the original posting, manufacturer and product lists do remain in MasterSpec. Lists are reached through Masterworks Paragraph Builder. With this productivity tool, users can edit options in opening paragraphs, find and select dynamically updated manufacturers and products for an entire section, and preview results for accuracy. These steps allow design professionals to prepare specification documents more efficiently.
The Evaluations continue to play a vital role in the MasterSpec specification system. They may be reached through Masterworks (on the ribbon or in a drop-down menu), just as they have for years.
Paul thanks for the very CONCISE follow-up! (If I get any wordier Colin will have to move me over to the newsletters section like some of our other friends here.)
Ken how about MPI INT 9.2L BIOMASS COATINGS…hehehe…and of course we are friends! I welcome other people’s perspectives; forums are great for this sort of thing. Maybe I worded too sharply due to a deadline nagging my mind and using the forum as a tiny reprieve, I did not mean to vent at anyone. No apologies needed, from anyone here! You all bring up my game too and I really appreciate that. I’m reminded again that I need to learn to trust ‘golden reps’ too, and I do with a few but they are getting harder to find.
I hear what you all are saying about specs being less usable the longer they become. That to me is a case for two things: Specifiers and their PA’s (sometimes the same person) really writing to the scope of the project and not including anything that they do not know is in the project, and secondly, choosing a library to start with that reflects the complexity of the project. It would be worth looking at MasterSpec Small Project for firms who would design the renovation of just a bathroom, and if they do that often, they could pre-edit the currently needed sections with track changes on as a first pass to represent their typical project and save it in a folder for master specification development. Then copy the sections to the project and finish editing. Before long you would have an extremely useful tool for providing usable specs for such projects.
If we give the contracting team the info that they NEED, in concise form (all 4 of the C’s actually), they will be the first to ask for the project manual. Oh, and put the finish schedule in the project manual too, it becomes then an indispensable tool, as intended. It’s also easier when working with a full size set of drawings if you don’t have to keep flipping to the finish schedule sheet on the drawings, you can keep that open in 8.5 x 11 format right beside the drawings.
Randall: You need to move to some other less backward country, like Japan, or most of Europe, where they not only have trains, but have internet connectivity on them! Problem solved!
I’m just digesting the paragraph builder aspect. It appears to me that having to make the selection of manufacturers/products, rather than just leaving in a list, will go a long way toward reducing the major grumbling I hear from manufacturers about the specifications they receive: unedited manufacturer lists. The second major grumble: receiving master specifications that have had no editing whatsoever.
I don’t think any specification system can overcome endemic user ignorance or laziness, but as this latest development appears to bring with it the potential for ongoing updating of manufacturer and product information, that will be a very good thing. It’s an especially good thing for the thousands of users who are not full time specifiers and do not maintain databases and brain cells full of up to date product information the way that many amazing participants of this forum seem to.
I suppose I am late to the party, but here is my take on the issue:
While I do not object to the concept of ARCOM’s “Paragraph Builder” (PB), it is their rendition of it that causes concern. I discovered that most of the links within PB for Section 072100 were faulty - no manufacturers or products show in the dialogue boxes. I contacted ARCOM support and their solution was to send me the Word document for the OLDER version of that Section. They included in their response “please let us know if you run across anything else” - what, am I beta testing this for them?!?!? Am I getting a discount for using a beta version? Of course not.
When I contacted ARCOM about a permanent solution to the problem or getting corrections out to all of the other subscribers, I was greeted with the sound of crickets chirping.
FYI - I have now found a total of 3 sections that have faulty PB links.