The Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) today announced that it has acquired Building Systems Design, Inc. (BSD). See press release at http://www.csinet.org/bsdpr
wow, I don’t think that was mentioned in last months summary of actions from the Board meeting…
So now CSI members are co-owners of a commerical for profit entity?
FAQ on Acquisition: http://csinet.org/Functional-Menu-Category/News-Room/FAQs-on-CSI-Strategic-Partnership-with-Building-Systems-Design-BSD.aspx
Wow. What exactly is the mission of CSI anymore?
I don’t mean to denigrate the presumably fine business that is BSD, but…
Do we want to volunteer our time and expertise to a for-profit organization? Is the institute going to spend that profit on membership, technical education, or the care and feeding of even more staff?
I’ve read the FAQs, and I’m not impressed. Yes, I’m asking, what’s in it for me?
“CSI members will directly benefit through increased access to BSDs master specifications software and additional building information management tools through special discounts on the purchase of BSD products and services.”
Don’t we already get discount offers?
“Special BIM and interoperability-related education sessions will also be available to CSI members as a result of the strategic partnership.”
Doesn’t BSD already offer training for their customers?
I’m confused.
I was doing a little Internet searching to confirm that CSI is a “non-profit organization”. I see that in a recent press release for the new Uniformat that they did indicate that they are a “non-profit” organization.
"About CSI
CSI is a national association dedicated to creating standards and formats to improve construction documents and project delivery. The organization is unique in the industry in that its members are a cross-section of specifiers, architects, engineers, contractors and building materials suppliers. The organization has 148 chapters and more than 13,000 members. Monthly Chapter meetings allow members the opportunity to communicate openly with their counterparts and exchange information for successful project management. CSI is renowned in the industry for its rigorous certification programs for professionals seeking to improve their knowledge of accurate and concise construction documents. CSI provides continuing education, professional conferences and product shows. For more information, visit www.csinet.org, or call 800.689.2900.
About CSC
CSC is a national multi-disciplinary, non-profit association with chapters across Canada. In the construction industrys fast-paced environment, the need for and value of CSC is greater than ever bringing together individuals from all segments of the Candian construction industry. CSC is committed to ongoing development and delivery of quality education programs, publications and services for the betterment of the construction community. For more information, visit www.csc-dcc.ca, or call (416) 777-2198."
I find the link with BSD disturbing in that our organization has dedicated a lot of effort and resources to a competing MasterSpec system that I believe a lot of A/E’s have a strong alliegence to. Having CSI linked to and directly affiliated with a specific “Master” system I believe may not be a good thing for the industry. Although the annoucement indicates that they will operate separate, I would expect that financial considerations will be a factor in how “independent” they remain.
P.S. After “previewing” my post, I noticed something interesting in the CSI/CSC annoucement in quotations. It only indicates “non-profit” when describing the CSC portion of the tandem organizations.
Dale:
Could you clarify the fourth paragraph in your post?
By “our organization”, do you mean “the members of CSI” or “the company/firm/consultancy that Dale Hurttgam owns/works for”?
Thanks.
Lisa:
CSI owns BSD; CSI will not be running BSD on a day-to-day basis. (Warren Buffet owns Johns-Manville, but he isn’t developing new roofing systems or supporting warranty customers.)
So, you won’t be asked to “volunteer [your] time and expertise for a for-profit organization”. CSI will go on doing what it has always done. I don’t expect any CSI member will see any significant change in the organization.
Certainly (after the cost of the initial purchase) BSD won’t cost CSI any money operate.
Given CSI’s non-profit status, it’s unlikely that BSD will make money for CSI directly. That ownership is an investment that could increase or decrease in value, but won’t provide any direct financial benefit until sold.
I’m sure there will be indirect benefits to CSI supporting its’ goals and promoting its’ standards through owning an actual tool used for specifying as opposed to just a set of voluntary standards with no actual specification content.
BIM interoperability with specifications is the future and CSI has been a little behind the curve on this issue. Acquiring BSD not only puts CSI back into the BIM interoperability game by owning an actual BIM interoperability tool, but establishes a de facto standard for BIM operability - something that has, until now, not really existed.
Your mileage may vary.
BSD has been a strategic partner with CSI for a long time and has been a member of the MasterFormat task team for years. In many ways, this just formalizes and strengthens a number of relationships between the organizations that already existed.
Scott -
Just to clarify, my reference to “our organization” was to the firm that I work for. I see where that was open to interpretation.
Dale
Scott -
Just to clarify, my reference to “our organization” was to the firm that I work for. I see where that was open to interpretation.
Dale
Interesting! Is this our (CSI) way of getting into the contract document business? First the strategic alliance with AGC, now we (CSI) aquire BSD which just happens to be the software company (Docubuilder) of choice for the AGC Condocs?
Am I showing my age, but I remember when I first joined CSI a member benefit was the “SpecText” documents which CSI later divested themselves of.
Yes, indeed, Harry. And CSRF is still out there and still supporting SpecText, but has no relationship with CSI.
And Dale, thanks for the clarification. Your comment (and your concern) make more sense to me now.
Hey Scott,
Where does your information on the relationship between CSI and BSD come from? What else do you know about this deal?
well… except that CSI is also a strategic partner of Masterspec, so they will be theoretically competing with themselves.
I remember the SpecText “member benefit” as well. The problem CSI seems to have with entitites that it develops and owns is that it never successfully markets any of them, doesn’t provide product support that actually works, and seems to try and do too many things and then does them badly.
What exactly is a “strategic partner” or “strategic alliance”?
How much did we (the membership) pay for this lemon?
dear Lisa - and anyone else who happens to be reading 
Any information in my previous posts that is not in the press release or FAQ or available from some other publicly available source (BSD’s website, CSI’s website, etc.) is purely my opinion.
For example, according to the FAQ, my statement that ‘you won’t be asked to volunteer your time and expertise for a for-profit organization’ is based on the FAQ statement that BSD will continue to be operated as “a separate for-profit entity with a Board of Directors that includes CSI appointees.”
The commentary about ownership and cost is my opinion. For example, it is my understanding of tax law that non-profits can own for-profit entities, but their budgets and operations must be kept strictly separate.
That said, I should disclose - and perhaps should have done so up front - that I am in a unique position to understand both organizations and how they’ll ‘fit’ because I am both immediate past President of the Atlanta Chapter of CSI and a non-management employee of BSD.
My knowledge of the former organization is self-explanatory. Of the latter, I can assure you that I don’t know much more than you guys do because I was not a party to the planning of, or decision about, the acquisition. I do, however, have the benefit of additional context and perspective.
In any case, I have to be discreet about what I say in public. That’s why I’m confident that what I wrote earlier is factual to the best of my knowledge and impartial to the best of my ability to be so.
I’ve been a full time specification writer for seventeen years (fifteen of those as a MasterSpec user, ha!) as well as a long-time member of the Institute, so you can believe that I have great interest in the well-being of both organizations and in doing what is right by my colleagues.
Finally, my earlier post was an attempt to reassure and inform my colleagues and not to defend or promote the acquisition and I hope everybody here took it as such.
PS - And I am not relocating to Alexandria.
Ann:
I hear you. However, with CSRF/SpecText as a cautionary tale, the Institute will hopefully not repeat its’ earlier mistakes.
I also have high hopes that the fact that BSD was developed independently and then acquired means that the Institute will leave BSD alone to do what it does while BSD adds to CSI’s ‘member value proposition’.