“Caulking” used in temporary construction sheds - Division 01
“Caulking” removed because it is asbestos-laden - Division 02
“Caulking” installed as a foundation waterstop - Division 03
… for masonary expansion joints - Division 04
… under column bearing plates - Division 05
… between sheets of sheathing - Division 06
… used as sealant - Division 07
… holding glass in framing - Division 08
… commonly called painter’s caulk - Division 09
John,
I suffer the same problem. Aluminum wall panels in Div 5 (metal fabrications) because it is a metal and exterior stone veneer in Div 9 because it is a stone finish. Site improvements in Div 2.
Numbering was based in MF95 in a MF04 world. I could not stop the train.
As Joel’s buddy in Risky Business said “Sometimes you have to say what the @#$%.”
I still remember my introduction to
CSI’s numbering format during a summer job after my second year of architectural school – way, way, waaay before MF95. I was assigned to convert the firm’s library from the AIA classification system to CSI’s format. I had a great deal of difficulty understanding why steel doors and aluminum storefront framing were in Division 8 rather than Division 5. Luckily we didn’t use stone or else my head would have spun right off.
The firm was also lucky I was redoing the product library and not the office’s master keynoting system.
Refering to Peter’s first comment, I had a problem with a new architectural firm to which I had suggested using MasterFormat for their keynotes. Well, without asking for further guidance, they took off with the idea and starting using the full MasterFormat list to create their keynotes without understanding the connection to the specifications.
I kept getting calls that asked things like “What is the number for the glass panel supports on the guard rail.” When I gave them the number, they would respond, “But we used that number for the railing!” I tried to explain that several items are in one section and that each “number” should include a suffix to identify components and other elements of the installation.
I’m halfway there, but they are improving. I’ve started to create a keynote list for my masters, which uses the following structure:
99 99 99.X99 or 99 99 99.99.X99 (for 8-digit MF numbers)
X equals:
A - Systems or whole assemblies (e.g. curtain wall)
B - Major components/materials (e.g. framing member)
C - Accessory components/materials (e.g. fastener)
Thank you everyone for your helpful insights about keynotes.
I have been tasked with revising the master specification used by a public agency and linking it to a master keynote system and a master properties set list for BIM. The Owner (Public Agency) thinks this will actually improve coordination of their documents, lead to more accurate cost estimates, cause fewer change orders, and ultimately save money (for the agency).
While I don’t think keynotes are the answer to all of life’s problems, I’m pleased to have the head of this public agency trying to improve the process. I’m pleased that he’s paying our office to do this. I think we are in the best position to generate this information. I have actually done this before, when I was an in-house specifier. I find the architect-generated keynotes to be a huge source of frustration for me. In the filed-sub-bid world of Massachusetts, using the wrong keynotes leads to all sorts of bid disputes and change orders.
If the draftsperson, designers and senior architects have to learn where information is located within the project manual, then I think that’s a great goal! Perhaps fewer contractors will say, “I can’t find it in the spec.” After all, those inexperienced draftspeople may be doing construction administration tomorrow.
When we’re done, I’ll make the information available as a resource to the 4specs community.
If it weren’t difficult, it wouldn’t be worth doing.
As I have been updating our Office Masters to MF04 and utilizing the latest MS Sections via LINX to assure they are up-to-date, I have been comparing the REVIT keynotes (out of the box) with the latest MF section numbers. I have found quite a bit of disparity, obviously due to the subjectivity of the decision-maker at Autodesk as to where a product should be placed in the Divisions and Sections, and our (the user’s) interpretation of the REVIT and MF systems.
An interesting development in this blog discussion and subsequent discussions with my Drawing & Specification team revolves around just how much customization should be done to REVIT? We are trying to use the product “out-of-the-box” as much as possible to prevent someone spending enormous amounts of time doing customization each time an update software release is received and deployed. REVIT has thousands of components in the database with keynotes already embedded, and if we (the spec writers) say it should be different from what REVIT used, someone has to go into each REVIT component and change the linkage to the correct MF number.
So, this is a deeper dilemna than originally thought. If anyone has already been through this and emerged successful, please share your experience with the forum.
Keynoting is a tool to improve coordination between drawings/models and specifications. As stated before, the best way to establish such a system is on a firm-wide basis. The best place to start is with any firm-wide reference details and the firm’s master specification.
To have individual project teams set up their own independent keynote systems for individual projects will not be productive and will result in frustration and confusion as noted by several above.
Since keynoting is a coordination tool between drawings/models and specs, it only makes sense that firm leaders for drawings/models and for specifications work on establishing the system in a joint coordinated effort - the views and concerns of both should be considered in its formulation. It also really helps if the people involved have substantial experience on the other side - the drawings person have a good understanding of specs and the specifier having had good experience producing drawings/models.
The first step is to agree on the identification term and keynote designator to be used for each component including which work result (specification section) the component best relates to.
Another further step is to agree about what more detailed descriptive information about the component should be on the drawings or in the specifications. The PRM (soon to be Practice Guides) provides basic principles about the types of information to divided among drawings and specifications. The work comes with applying those principles to all the components used.
In formulating such a system, there are many decisions to made about which is the best location for detailed information about components of work results. This often revolves around numerical characteristics such as capacity, gage, thickness, etc. - looking at each component, should it be in more detailed keynotes (or notes added to keynotes) on the drawings on in the specs - does the information vary greatly by location (drawings) or is consistent for a project (specifications)? Can the varience in location be easily scheduled in the specifications or is it best conveyed on the drawings? A good master keynote list will make those types of decisions for all the components and provide instructions on where such information should be located. Such recommendations are of course subject to exception for an individual project when appropriate.
What I am trying to get at is that a firm-wide keynote system can become a significant coordination tool beyond just using the same identification label on the drawings and in the specs.
As an consulltant who on occassion has had to deal with kenotes I find that they make it harder to understand the content of the architectural drawings. The process of going from the note on the detail to the list providing the text associated with the note is distracting.
Although I tend to agree with Mark, I would suggest that the potential benefits of better coordination between construction documents outweighs this inconvenience. I have, therefore, kept my grousing to myself.
Dennis
This will always be a problem with a MasterFormat based keynoting system. MasterFormat does not designate one location for every component. This is very evident by the Includes and May Include listings under MasterFormat titles and numbers the system says you can specify it here or you can specify it there. The specifier may specify various components in different specification sections which then would affect the keynote designator for that component. This is in addition to the fact that many components are commonly used in multiple work results (fasteners, joint sealants, etc.).
An example of this would be under slab-on-grade vapor barriers do you specify them in separate Division 07 section, in Div 31 earthwork section, or with Div 03 CIP concrete section? Roofing or horizontal waterproofing system deck insulation do you specify it with roofing/waterproofing section or in a thermal insulation section? You can go on with many other examples.
A MasterFormat based keynote system always has to be coordinated with the master specification being used. If the keynote system is created independent of a master specification system (Revit), there will be coordination problems. If you are starting with such a universal keynote system, you first have to do is modify it match up with the numbering and scope of your master specification sections.
This is one of the challenges of creating an industry-wide master keynote list. Not only would the list have to be on a broadscope basis to accommodate the variances in narrowscoping, but also to accommodate the various locations (across divisions) that the components can be specified in based on a firms preferences among the choices provided in MasterFormat. In other words, an industry-wide keynote list would have to include some components in multiple locations to recognize different practices hopefully the same component would have the same consistent keynote suffix. A firm starting from the universal master list would then need to modify the list for its practice in coordination with its master specification.
In reation to comments about keynotes making it harder to read drawings - there is an option in the NCS to include both keynote designator and identifying term on the individual drawings. This combines the benefits of the designator tying the component to the specifications with the self identifying words. In my experience, if project teams are given the choice, they will more likely choose the combination method.
We have created our own in-house keynoting system for Revit. We found that the one supplied with Revit was overly detailed, aside from not completely matching MasterSpec. The lead specifier (me) created the office master keynote list, and the terms used in the keynotes match those in our specifications. In a fwe cases that meant changing a term in the specs so the note and specs worked together better. The specifications group controls the master keynote list, which is copied and pre-edited for each project.
We only use the keynoting on large K-12 projects. Materials tags give the number, similar to what Ron Geren notes above, and a legend of numbers with associated text appears on each sheet. However, virtually all of our work is done in Revit. I’ve been suggesting that we use the keynotes even when the materials tags will NOT be the number, but will instead be the text. That way the terminology will be consistant with the specs. (Revit allows you to display either the number or the text.)
As to the “duplication” of terms in different sections: yep, it’s there. But you select the keynote for the assembly it belongs to. This has been sometimes a challenge if some members of the team doing the modeling have not gotten the proper training and guidance on the materials and systems they are modeling.
OK first off I will say I have never worked in a firm who used keynoting, so this is my off the cuff personal opinion on the subject…
There was a principal I was taught in school…KISS…it used to mean Keep It Simple Stupid, but the second S has been replaced with Smartyguy in our politically correct world and sometimes I feel it has lost a bit of its edge by the change. The one example I will always remember is a physics teacher’s example of a person referring to a luminaire in an attempt to make themselves sound more technically competent. His response was “It’s a light, Todd!”
To me, the most effective way to communicate requirements on a drawing is through notes in plain, simple, consistent English. It is sometimes a challenge for trade contractors on site to understand what we are trying to say through written words. I can’t imagine taking a tradesman through a whole level of complexity where they have to understand some cryptic set of codes for a document they know nothing or little about. The same thing could be said for some of the draftsmen in architectural, structural or MEP offices.
Furthermore, I look at it from a liability standpoint and imagine with horror some fresh-out-of-school junior CAD operator trying to assign keynotes based on MasterFormat numbers he has no clue about, then a Project Architect checking them (with the BIG assumption that the PA actually knows anything about MasterFormat). Once the documents, which could potentially have many errors due to lack of coordinating the cryptic keynotes, get into the hands of the Contractor, I can imagine the Contract Administrator pulling his hair out (more than usual) with a cantankerous Contractor that is making numerous outlandish claims for extra because the roofing nails in Section 07 31 13 are more expensive than the common spiral nails in Section 06 05 23 which the keynote referenced. And so on, and so on and so on.
One of my current mandates it to produce a list of terminology to make notes and specifications more consistent in our office…so we have “sheet waterproofing membrane” on our drawings instead of “ice & water shield” (especially when we are talking about a wall) or “exterior gypsum sheathing” instead of “GlassClad”.
I find it cumbersome enough at the beginning of a project to decipher the tags for various wall types in a project, let alone having to relate what something is based on a MasterFormat keynoting system. Call a nail a nail and not an 06 05 23.P!!
John,
How much customization does that require your office to make to the Revit software? How often does AutoDesk send out updates? What does your IT/CAD management team think about it?
And what would happen if DCAM required you to use their new keynote system, but it didn’t match your in-house system exactly? Hypothetically speaking, of course.
No customization at all is required for Revit. A copy is merely ‘attached’ via some process that I don’t have to do.
I would have to see how different DCAM’s keynotes were form ours. It would also depend on if we were using their spec masters, something I’m not necessarily in favor of.
For those not from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, DCAM is the Division of Capital Asset Management. They are the state agency that owns, leases and constructs buildings for most state agencies.
I have heard that contractors come to be okay with it relatively quickly as they learn the keynote numbers for a project. And, the lengend is on each drawing.
Consider the beneficial side effect of the keynoting system as an instructional tool that graphically coach the drafter or contractor on understanding project conventions such MasterFormat and ultimately where to find something in the spec.
Eventually the numbering system kicks into memory and the learning curve is over for the drafter or contractor.
Pure ConDoc keynote numbering has never been practiced within any office that I have worked. However, whenever I was master and commander of the drawings and specs I used generic terminology with the spec section where and when appropriate. The spec location of some stuff is simply not that intuitive to the uninitiated. Such as resin panels from 3Form.
It is better than saying SEE SPECS. At least I gave the Chapter in the specs.
Between 5 & 10 years ago, my mentor and friend Louis Medcalf, FCSI, CCS as part of our Production Management Group, developed an office master keynoting system, with Louis taking the lead on it, to work within AutoCAD. It was based on the ConDoc system we adopted 20 yeas ago and successfully used on several projects and twekaed per Louis’ wisdom and years of experience. At that time, the program would do keynotes, or notes, or both. We chose the keynote route and used a master legend on one of the G-sheets in the set and sheet keynote lists on each sheet. We thought it worked well and the few younger staff members on the project teams did begin to gain an understanding of Masterformat numbering. However, the system died due to general contractor retort on the projects we used the system on.
I think we are moving that direction again using the REVIT platform, but for now the MF numbers applied to REVIT object materials will not be used and we will use the notes instead.
The beauty of REVIT is that it can be toggled in a project at any time.
e-SPECS v6.0 (to be released shortly) will include keynote master management complete with out of the box keynotes for MasterSpec and VA masters, functionality to create custom master keynotes, project keynote filtering, and tools for assigning keynotes to Revit elements and materials and verifying those keynotes through the project lifecycle.
We invite all those interested to view our webcast presentations on the new keynoting features in e-SPECS v6.0. We can also make available the recorded webcasts to those whose schedules don’t fit our live webcasts. Registration is available on our web site www.e-SPECS.com or request our recorded webcasts emailing info@e-SPECS.com.
The new keynoting functionality was very much customer driven. Please don’t hesitate to send your recommendations on what would improve the keynoting coordination or other areas of the e-SPECS products.
Thank you,
Seamus McGrady
InterSpec
Bob, Wayne and Lisa: Thanks for the info. I appreciate your kindness.