Hi All,
I’m working with a student team from ODU and HU here in Tidewater VA for the 2010 Solar Decathalon competition. They surprised me with a new question this week.
They have been instructed that all of the keynoting on their drawings have to be tied to the Specification Section numbers. They were asking how to do that properly. Unfortunately, I and their faculty instructors looked like deer in the headlights.
I remember ConDoc (correct term?) from years ago, and attended seminars on it, but never worked on a project that used it.
Help us out my friends! These kids have a great design, I’d hate for a mess up on this point in the rules to make them lose points in the competition.
Margaret, I would think that the National CAD Standards would be the source of proper drafting practice. ConDoc was used as one of the models for most drafting systems that followed its use, but using secton number in keynots was only one aspect of its popularity.
I don’t have the latest edition of NCS, but do have a copy with a lot of errata sheets. Check out Module 7 - Notations. It covers several types of notes, but Reference Keynotes is the one that uses Section numbers as the root of the keynote, followed by a user-defined letter modifier and a two-digit numerical suffix modifier.
I’m sure someone else on this forum has more experience with NDS than I do and could explain how the system should be used.
David is right - Recommendations on how and examples are included in the National CAD Standard/Uniform Drawing System (NCS/UDS) in Module 7 - Notations.
If you are looking for some project examples, contact Rick Green at Wilson & Company in Albuquerque - his firm has used keynoting for years.
If you send me an email, I can send you a keynote list but it is based on MF 95.
Thank you Bob and Dave,
I’ve passed the information on to my students. Hopefully their schools have a copy to use.
Merry Christmas to you and yours!
Same to all of my friends on the forum!
Margaret
Interesting timing, I’m just about to write a master keynote system for a public agency, to match their master specifications. Section number, followed by a letter and a one or two digit number, is the model I was thinking about.
Does anyone own a copy of Module 7? How much does it elaborate on this system? Is it really worth paying $410 for the whole thing if I only want this one piece?
Please send your e-mail addresses to wayne.yancey@callison.com. I have the original ConDoc manual that explains all. I will scan and e-mail. I also have a hardcopy of a ConDoc keynotes from it’s early years.
Im also trying to assemble a specifications-matched master keynote system, somewhat similar to what Lisa is doing. I can work with a keynote list tied to MF95 or MF04 section numbers. Bob and Wayne, I will be most grateful if you will be willing to share your gems with me as well. My E-mail address is sunnyonadipe.1@juno.com. Thanks.
There may be a point of disconnect. MasterFormat numbers are intended to be linked to “work results” not specific products or materials. This is helpful to keep in mind when developing such systems. For example, “1-1/2 Inch IPS Steel Pipe” will receive one Division 05 MF number if describing a hand railing and another if describing a piece of miscellaneous framing.
I am in the process of updating our office masters to MF04 and then we will look at linking them with REVIT using E-specs, or some other program that aligns with MASTERSPEC and LINX. While REVIT has a MASTER Keynote database, it does not align itself completely with MASTERFORMAT. However, for a student competition, I think it would suffice for their needs.
Assuming they use REVIT, they should be able to assign material keynotes to their model.
Additionally, you are correct that ConDoc, developed by Onkal K.(Duke) Guzey of Clifton, VA and James N.(Jim) Freehof of Great Falls, VA in 1987, included a keynote module that was developed in a partnership with McCarty Architects out of Tupelo, MS. It was based on the MF95 format, and was adopted by the AIA a few years later. Unfortunately, not much happened with it after AIA took it over. Eventually, CSI revived it and developed into the Uniform Drawing System (UDS), and Module 7 is the correct module for keynoting. The UDS is expensive.
ConDoc was more than keynoting. It also made popular detail drawing sheet modules based on map style coordinates which became the detail number, such as A1 or C4.
It also provided guidelines for detail modules with separate zones for the enlarged detail, keynotes, and dimensions. Modules were note restricted to one size. Modules can grow in width and height to accommodate the detail. It eliminated graphic density. More white space. Easier to read.
It was a professional development program by the AIA, presented by the Duke Guzey and James Freehof.
In my opinion it is still a great concept but was not widely adopted. Several 3rd party add-on keynoting programs were developed to compliment ConDoc. Somewhere in my personal files I have some samples of the entire system, dead filed in boxes in my garage, covered in sawdust.
I would modify “It was a professional development program by the AIA, presented by the Duke Guzey and James Freehof.” to read: It was a concept developed by Duke Guzey and James Freehoff that AIA turned into a presentation program and then never developed it further.
It my opinion, this program could have had much more success if a master list of keynotes had been developed on a broadscope basis to cover multiple master spec systems. The master list would have had to be restricted to basic materials found in most projects. That list could then be adjusted and expanded by firms for their practices. It would have accomplished two things: (1) Keep firms from having to reinvent the wheel over and over again; (2) Established a keynote standard for much greater uniformity for those who deal with drawings from many different firms (constructors and suppliers). The same basic materials would have the same keynotes from project to project.
I quoted from the cover of my ConDoc manual, 2nd edition, from November 1990.
I could not agree more with your points (1) and (2) above. I have employed this methodology in my spec sections. If a type designation is not used, it is noted as not used versus renumbering from top to bottom, again, for each project.
and hence, one of the problems with the keynoting system – it takes some judgement to assign the numbers so that they make any sense, and it definitely takes someone who oversees the whole effort. I only worked at one office that attempted to do a keynoting system and it was never well supervised, which meant that I was continually scrubbing “bad” numbers off the drawings and re-numbering details. From my perspective, it was one MORE thing that had to be carefully watched on the drawings along with 1) does this detail make any sense at all? 2) is the note attached to the detail reasonably grammatic and interpretable? 3) does this detail even belong in this set? and then finally 4) who came up with this spec section number?
MasterFormat is classified by work results.
Keynotes under the MasterFormat numbers are referring to the components of the work results.
The same components or materials may be used under multiple work results as Peter points out. That is one of advantages of keynoting in that it makes it clear what work result the component is a part of. Thus if you wanted to make the glazing and/or joint sealants part of the storefront work result, the keynotes indicate that in coordination with the work included in the storefront spec section.
In putting together a firm’s master list of keynotes we used the same suffix beyond the section number for components common to many work results (fasteners, joint sealant, etc.) This made the keynotes easier to recognize and understand - we generally used alpha’s at the end of alphabet for these common components. We also tried to use the same suffix for any component that was used in multiple work results in addition to the very common ones.
As Wayne noted, the smart way to do this is to create a firm-wide master keynote list coordinated with the firm’s master specification.
At my previous firm, we had this set up so that you could only insert keynotes on the CAD files fom a masterlist file that had been edited from the firm’s masterlist by a project team leader for that project. That project list was then a tool to keep materials you did not want to use on the project from being inadvertently included by some team member. If a material was to be used on the project that was not in the firm’s masterlist, it was added to the project keynote list. That was then a tool to have everyone on the project use the same term/keynote designator instead of different terms/designators for new unique components.
Keynoting can be used to improve drawing/spec coordination. One of the secrets to do that sucessfully is to have the system setup on a firm-wide basis so that everyone is working off the same system. Then have one person control it in coordination with the specifier for each project starting from the firm-wide masterlist and have one person or small group control the masterlist for the total firm.
Having different people setting up different systems for different projects is more likely to result in more confusion.
It would be fantastic if we had an industry wide masterlist for the basic materials so that we would have much greater consistency in our industry wide communications. As stated before if would have to be on a broadscope basis to allow for the variences in scopes, titles, and numbers of sections among master spec systems. It would also have to restricted to the most common components. Then firms could start with a master system, adjust the section numbers to the master they use, and add to it to include other components they commonly use. It would be great for all the constructors and suppliers to see the designation of components on the majority of drawsings/models that they see based on the same basic system.
I agree that knowledge of construction products and their conventional assignment to Masterformat numbers and titles is needed. I recently received a set of drawings with a keynote for wood gymnasium flooring referenced to Division 06. Logical, no? But they failed to list vinyl composition tile and PVC sheet membrane roofing in Division 06. After all Division 06 is for wood and plastics.
What about using Uniformat numbers? Consider that specifiers are often not involved with the project during Design Development when a Preliminary Project Description is supposed to be produced following Uniformat. The PPD is produced by designers who have only superficial understanding of construction specifications. You know, the ones who note caulking under Section 7.
Everyone’s comments since my post are spot on, and it is very good dialogue. I just didn’t feel compelled to espouse the entire ConDoc story as a response to Margaret’s original need.
We adopted ConDoc in 1990 and have been using it ever since, and have adapted it to REVIT best we can without a whole bunch of customization to make it do everything we’d like it to do to fully integrate with the ConDoc/UDS/NCS methodology. We have completed projects using keynotes and without keynotes and currently aren’t using them. We’ve had mixed reactions from the end-users, i.e., general contractors, who build our buildings, with most desiring the written notes instead of keynotes. It is a huge paradigm shift for us and them.
As a profession, it appears to me that both architects and construction specifiers often wax philosophical in our own little worlds without seeking input from those end-users.
In any case, I look forward to continued dialogue on the matter. Who knows, perhaps one day we will have our cake and be able to eat it too.