David:
“Strategic partners” and “strategic alliance” are business terms-of-art that usually refer to joint marketing and cross-promotional arrangements; i.e., joining forces to share marketing expenses and increase results.
In CSI’s case, companies like ARCOM, BSD and CSRF can use CSI’s name and logo in their marketing materials and CSI has permission to list its’ partners in their own promotional materials. Also, I believe CSI’s ‘strategic partners’ pay the Institute a license fee to use MasterFormat in their own products. (Again, I refer to you to the relevant websites as my source.)
AIA has a similar arrangment with a number of member organizations. AIA owns ARCOM, yet BSD is an AIA Cornerstone Partner (a ‘stragetic partner’ arrangement).
I don’t think that adds up to AIA competing with itself. It shouldn’t be any different for CSI.
Well, Ann and Lisa, I sincerely hope that the outcome surprises you. 
AIA owns MasterSpec (the product) and has an agreement with ARCOM (an independent company) to develop, maintain and market MasterSpec.
Maybe there are some other old guys who remember when an AIA subsidiary called PSAE Master Systems wrote and published the hard copy. In those days, ARCOM merely converted MasterSpec into computer media for various operating systems. In the 1980’s I received MasterSpec on 9-track tape for DEC VAX/VMS.
Scott, I am ever hopeful!
Thanks for clarifying that, Howard. You are correct, but my point still stands, I think.
Supporting multiple spec-writing tools while owning one doesn’t mean one is competing with one’s self. (At least it’s worked out well for the AIA and ARCOM…)
Again, I ask, HOW MUCH DID WE PAY for this?
I understand that this information is confidential, and not something that CSI membership is privy to know.
Hmmm… If that is truly the case, I am seriously considering dropping out of CSI. I am not really that interested in paying increasingly expensive dues to support purchase of for-profit companies that may end up being unprofitable, spawning yet more increase in dues to bail CSI out of a dumb business deal.
Ironic that the first link in this discussion thread talks about CSI having been formed for the purpose of “improving communication between all members of the construction project team.” I guess to hell with improving communication among the membership! I think a lot of folks are going to be pretty upset abous this, at a minimum not being informed at all about what CSI was planning to do with our money!!!
ummm…can’t disagree.
CSI…transparency and accountability…an oxymoron.
Well, I did what I used to advise other people to do, and asked my CSI Region Director for more information regarding the purchase of BSD. There is a FAQ sheet from CSI that I seem unable to copy to this site, but it does explain the thinking a little more clearly. I’m not sure I agree with the purchase, but it no longer seems as bone-headed as it did last night.
As for “what is a Strategic Partner” or “Strategic Alliance” – CSI (and other organizations like AIA) get together with a MOU (memorandum of understanding) that more or less says “we support what you do, and will work to further our joint interests”. These usually exist between groups that don’t do the same thing, but are sort of allied with each other. Arcom has them with AIA and CSI, for example. CSI has them with Arcom and BSD.
So… to all of the people on this site who are grousing about not being in the decision process, I would advise you to contact one of the Directors on the CSI Board (or some other Board member) and voice your concerns to them. Good communication has to go in BOTH directions.
Here is the link to the FAQ as posted earlier above as this thread started.
FAQ on Acquisition: http://csinet.org/Functional-Menu-Category/News-Room/FAQs-on-CSI-Strategic-Partnership-with-Building-Systems-Design-BSD.aspx
Funny, with some changes upcoming in my career writing specifications I was contemplating joining CSI in the new year.
Based on this announcement and my shared concerns with regards to some of the others on this thread, I think I will have to reconsider whether I will join or not.
As I am located in the Great White North, I am frustrated enough with manufacturer’s guide specs that do not have any Canadian content (whether it being not addressing the subtle difference between CSI and CSC PageFormat versions or not considering differences between CSA and ASTM standards), but now I have to consider what the aquisition of BSD will mean for membership costs in the future and what benefits this aquisition will bring me as a member of CSI. My immediate thought would be absolutely nothing!
Strategic Alliances or Strategic Partnerships with software vendors I can see, as it will allow input into tools that may or may not be potentially used by the membership or could provide better compliance with “standards” such as MasterFormat, PageFormat etc. I can’t however get my head wrapped around why a volunteer, non-profit organization like CSI would feel the need to become the owner of a company that offers ONE specification writing software package when it’s mission statement is to “advance building information management and education of project teams to improve facility performance.”. I fail to see how owning one piece of specification writing software will enhance this mission when only one part of the membership would ever use this tool; if even they would ever use it at all. I don’t see too many technical reps or contractors rushing out to buy this software, but I could be wrong…and from what I see it doesn’t appear that even the majority of CSI members who post here use it either. Maybe I am “behind the curve” but Microsoft Word seems to work very well for me anyways.
I will continue to monitor this discussion and the CSI website for future information before making my final decision.
And I too find it strange that nowhere in any of the press releases is ANY mention made of the purchase price or even a ball park figure of the purchase price. If I was an existing member I would be demanding to know. It seems strange to me that a major financial decision like this would appear to be could be made without some kind of vote from the membership.
Re: “…but Microsoft Word seems to work very well for me…”
We are having some subtle challenges with Microsoft Word 2007 and the most recent issuance of MasterSpec. Let me explain: text disappears when in “print layout” and reappears when switched to “draft layout”…however, when the document is PFDd, text will be gone if “draft layout” was used, but will be there if “print layout” was used…but only on some computers in the office. MasterSpec says they are aware of the glitch (something to do with a macro), but don’t know how to fix it…
Computers: making our lives easier, making us more productive…
I have no direct knowledge of why CSI has acquired BSD, but with the financial world where it is at today there arent many good places to invest your money. One of the best options out there today is acquiring another company. (I drive a lot these days and I am hooked on CNBC, what can I say)
Before this group rounds up the pitch forks and ropes, lets see what happens. I have been using BSDs Speclink for over 2 years and Im very happy with it. It is not perfect, but neither is MasterSpec or using MS Word.
There is risk in every investment, but I think this one has a chance to be good for CSI. If the discussion about Docubuilder/Condocs is correct, then I think it makes even more sense.
Unregistered Guest(s): I’ve stated on which side my bread is buttered, so feel free to ignore me, but -
Anne has a point. If you really want to know what this deal cost the Institute, contact your CSI leadership.
I know as well as anyone that specification writers as a group are often underpaid and underappreciated, which leads a lot of us to be cynical and cantankerous.
However, you’re just shouting questions at no one in a position to answer on a public discussion board. How’s that workin’ for ya?
It sounds like you were already very unhappy with CSI and that, for you, trying to see the benefit in this acquisition just isn’t in the cards.
That’s a shame and I’m truly sorry for it. It’s not like CSI picked your pocket; you signed up and gave them your money.
If you don’t like what they did with your money, tell them! And if you don’t like the response you get, don’t give them any more of it.
Good luck.
Paul:
It sounds like there might be a lucrative opportunity in developing a set of master specifications (or modifying an existing set) that adhere to the CSC format and properly reference CSA standards.
It seems to me that any of the existing specification-writing systems would be interested in taking you on as a ‘Canadian partner’.
That said, I’m not sure how to address your concerns. I guess I would first ask you (and the others who are objecting), ‘What if this acquisition has no noticable effect on my experience as a CSI member?’
If there’s no ill effect or additional benefit and you were considering joining CSI before you heard about this, why not go ahead and join?
Submitted for general consideration (and this is purely my opinion and speculation on my part):
CSI used to own stuff; SpecText, the CSI Show, the Institute building in Alexandria. Over the years, CSI has sold off all of these things.
Now the Institute’s only asset is its’ intellectual property: MasterFormat, the PRM, the certifications classes and exams.
Perhaps the Board and Officers of the Institute decided it would be a good idea for the Institute to own a for-profit entity that is doing well despite prevailing economic conditions.
The value of that asset - even though it is run as a completely separate entity with no commingling of funds, expenses, etc. - would be a present hedge against continued poor economic conditions and set to increase greatly in value should economic conditions improve significantly.
Anyway, since the current Officers and Board of the Institute are (1) presumably sane, (2) better informed about the state of the Institute and the industry than we, and (3) in no position to profit personally from the acquisition, then they must have had what seemed like pretty good reasons.
CSI never owned SPECTEXT. It has always been owned by CSRF.
CSI had an agreement with CSRF where CSI provided a technical review of SPECTEXT and in return recevied the profits from hard copy sales. That agreement disolved in the 90’s. CSI has not had any involvement with SPECTEXT since then.
Scott,
It is naive of you to think that CSI boardmembers are not reading (and likely participating) in this discussion thread. I know for a fact that they are.
Questions posted on this thread are absolutely being read (and directed) to the people that can answer them, but they are choosing to be silent on the matter.