CSI Watch Party

Coffee Pot and Water Cooler
1

Via Cherise Lakeside on LinkedIn

Public Service Announcement for anyone in the #AEC Industry: See Watch Party Info Below ~~~~

If you use MasterFormat numbers for anything, you should attend this.
If you don’t know what MasterFormat is, it is that six (or eight) digit number you typically see in Specifications (i.e. 06 10 00 Rough Carpentry) but also used in other Documents.

Tomorrow, the Construction Specifications Institute is hosting a “See the Practical Value of Dynamic Standards” webinar.

Dynamic Standards will affect ANYONE who uses MF numbers (for anything) by way of licensing fees based not on “seats” you own but on your firms revenue. These fees range anywhere from hundreds of dollars to $100,000 plus depending on the size of your firm.

This is a contentious issue among many CSI Members and the Industry at large for those who have found about it. Many don’t realize this yet. You should attend and hear what CSI has to say and make up your own mind.

You can register here for CSI’s Webinar: https://lnkd.in/gB9DXt2T

ALSO, since CSI typically does not allow open chat or public questions (questions can be posed but the moderator curates which ones get answered), our friend Amy Baker AIA, CSI, CDT, SCIP has been kind enough to set up a “watch party”.

At the watch party, attendees (CSI Members or not, this is an industry issue) can openly chat and pose questions, whether you agree with Dynamic Standards or not - all are welcome and are welcome to speak freely.

While we may not be able to answer your questions since CSI is not answering ours, we can commit to getting your questions to the CSI membership and to the National Board. We are not a small group of malcontents but a voice for our compatriots trying to do great work without increasing project costs for our clients.

Please join us. This issue is too important to ignore!

Thursday, June 25 ~~~ 
  
   9am Pacific 
   10am Mountain 
   11 am Central 
   Noon, Eastern 
Google Meet joining info 
Video call link: [https://lnkd.in/gkQn5Kkp](https://lnkd.in/gkQn5Kkp) 
Or dial: <U+202A>(US) +1 720-500-4736 PIN: <U+202A>100 603 803# 
More phone numbers: [https://lnkd.in/g4X87aAX](https://lnkd.in/g4X87aAX) 
 
You still need to register for the presentation on the CSI website separately to watch ([https://csinet-org.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_JbC1ZP1ASkO3vqZxKIem5w#/registration](https://csinet-org.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_JbC1ZP1ASkO3vqZxKIem5w#/registration)). 
 
Please keep your mics turned off, as were not doing any presenting during this call  were only using the chat feature. AI bots will be kicked out.
2

@John. Many thanks for posting this here. @Cherise. Thanks so much for setting up this call. Much appreciated.

3

Well…

This is overkill for what the average spec writer needs – or wants, I am sure.

4

Lorretta,

I agree. Throughout the whole presentation, I kept asking myself, “When would I ever use this thing?”

I use the numbers/titles already on my masters and if I need a special section, I ask you guys or just make something up.

5

As I wrote in the chat for the watch party…

Someone brought up OCLC on another chat related to this. OCLC offers free access to anyone to look up a book. There is a more involved, higher level access to OCLC for libraries like the University of Michigan Library System. (The second largest research library by number of volumes.) Who are actually cataloguing books.

The average spec writer only needs the equivalent of the OCLC access for the average person. CSI Dynamic Standards is only offering us the equivalent of a University of Michigan OCLC access – at a University of Michigan price.

(And that “second level free access” is kind of useless. It would be like OCLC getting you to 636 – which is animal husbandry. Good luck actually finding your book on sheep.)

6

I attended the Chicago Chapter Town Hall as an observer right after the CSI event today. I’m cross-posting from LinkedIn here:

Thanks CSI Chicago Chapter for allowing me to observe the town hall discussion today.

I want to respond to a comment CSI’s new board president made warning about people online who are “actively spreading misinformation.” While that is likely true as a general statement related to online discussions, it unfairly denigrates the efforts concerned CSI members have made to thoroughly research and validate their online statements.

As one of many people who CSI leadership terms “loud voices” and “rabble rousers,” I’ll share just one issue that I’ve focused on: the failure of our board to practice appropriate policy governance. I believe that the magnitude of membership distrust in our leadership is evidence in and of itself that the board is not living up to its obligation “to maintain a trustworthy linkage with the membership, to understand member values and expectations, to establish organizational ends, to delegate operational authority to the CEO, and then to assure that executive performance remains consistent with those ends and with board policy.”

That quote is a long formal way of saying that the board is accountable to membership to make sure that membership’s wishes are translated into how the organization performs. The CEO is responsible for day-to-day running of the organization, and he is accountable to the board. The board then verifies how the CEO has performed and reports the success of that performance to the membership. I believe our board is failing us.

To reach this conclusion, I did substantial research using these sources: the board’s own policy governance manual; the institute’s bylaws; various materials on Carter policy governance (including a recent discussion with a leading consultant on policy governance); and, as the creators of the Dynamic Standards themselves practice, the use of AI (for initial research only with all AI sources verified). I am convinced that what I have posted online on this subject is correct. I am an experienced architect, construction contract administrator, and specifier. I know how to do solid, verifiable research. What I post is not “misinformation.”

I’ve used the process described above on a bunch of other issues, and there are a bunch of other people with better qualifications than mine, who are doing the same thing. Rather than mentioning names at the risk of forgetting somebody, I’ll let them respond if they wish and validate this with their own work.

To close, note that there has been little or no “correction” of specific online “misinformation” by CSI leadership or management, other than vague generalities. I am always willing to discuss what’s going on in a professional and detailed manner. It would be great to see such serious specific discussion coming from CSI.

Finally, I wish Chicago chapter the best as you deal with the weighty question put before you today. You are our biggest chapter and many of us are looking to you for inspiration for how we should proceed.

7

(Posted today on LI and expanded here)

They have been developing this product for a decade or more and they never have been able to effectively articulate what exactly it is, what it does, or why anyone needs it.

Last week’s presentation was directed at CSI members: the people who produce, distribute, and use specifications on a daily basis. We heard confusion, cynicism, and disappointment from the audience. You know what we didn’t hear? Enthusiasm!

Where’s the buzz about this new release? Who are the people saying this is the product they’ve been waiting for their entire careers? How does this product benefit the members of CSI?

The CEO of our organization is on record saying that nobody should run an association focusing on members; it’s customers that are most important. CSI has invested millions in chasing after his scheme. The only thing dynamic about dynamic standards is the changing narrative as they struggle to sell a product the members of CSI never needed in the first place. The demonstration showed them that we want it even less now that we have seen it in action.