I for one am, in fact I never changed to MF04 and have remained busy to this day, in fact, not meaning to gloat guys, but even in these uncertain times we have over 1.2 bil constr cost projects now coming on line for specifications, some local, some international and none of those projects does the architect or developer want to use MF04; hell I was even sought out on one project if I promised to not use that ‘confusing 6 digit spec section system’; so I am curious who else is a black sheep like me, first I shun word and only use wordperfect and now I dis MF04, and remain successful, busy, and fully employed. Oh yeah and to Ralph, William, Dave, David, Phil, Ronald, Richard, Russell, Tom, Colin, Anne, Nina, Mark, Tommy, Robin, et. al, be nice to me with your comments, today is my b-day and I feel like gloating.
Good question. I am planning to change the division pages at the end of the year, having the MF04 pages as primary and provide a second set of division pages for MF1995.
Note the links to the section pages are broken and I need to double check that every section is linked both ways. A user can bookmark the page above as their main 4specs page and consistently view the MF1995 sections.
The MF04 division pages will change to a format similar to:
Comments are appreciated.
If I was as old as you, I’d gloat, too!!!
I sense a plea for mercy, but just think, you arrived early and didn’t re-define Halloween!!!
Kind enough?
Happy Birthday and sincerely many more, my good electornic friend!!!
We are using both; MF04 is the preferred format, but MF95 is still being used by others with whom we consult. So we need to be bi-format for the foreseeable future.
And Jerome - HAPPY BIRTHDAY! You don’t look a day older than you did yesterday.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY to a curmudgeon.
We use both but mostly MF04. I do wish the Division 32 subject matter, “Fences and Gates” was back in Division 02. I have be ever viligent that my one lonely Section 32 31 00 makes it in the project manual among the civil stuff.
Happy Birthday, Jerome!
Based on your obvious preferences, I bought you a couple of presents…
A Sony Betamax VCR and a Sony Walkman cassette player. Enjoy!
Did I say “bought”? I meant “found” (along side a road somewhere).
Why did we change from the “OLD” Section 3A, 3B, etc.?
embarassingly enough, I am still using MF95. I had pretty much gotten my office in Seattle converted over (and the rest of the northwest was converted over) but the southern California folks didn’t follow along and I was not permitted to use the new numbers for any project already under contract at my new firm. and our projects here take ages to move into CDs. I’ll probably be more converted over next year. what a pain…
yes, ps. Happy Birthday Jerome…
We’ve “officially” converted to MF04 for all new projects, unless an owner insists that we stick with MF95. We use SpecLink, and as a result, we’re able to switch between the two formats “on the fly”, so it’s been a relatively easy transition for us.
We have started new projects with MF04 since 2006, but I manage to work in MF95 everyday.
The ongoing exceptions are phased projects that started before MF04, and those clients (University of California campuses) who have “their own Division 1”, which always is pre MF04, pre CAD, pre MF95 sometimes, so you can almost smell the mimeograph aroma looking at them.
MF04 since August of 2005. A small handful of '95-legacy projects here and there, but nothing recently. And no problem with consutants following suit; they’re not given the choice.
Any client who wants/insists on '95 specs will be presented with a proposal for additional services (to reconvert).
Happy Birthday Jerome,
One these days (years?) I’ll be as old as you.
Unless a client request MF04, I’m still using MF95.
Tommy, long time, how is Grace?
What do you mean as old as me!..doesn’t look like we will be in CA any time soon, except maybe a stop over at LAX on the way to Hawaii, my wife’s first pick for travel after she gets better next year. Unless I get my wife on Ellen’s show, 3 different cancers in one year is pretty unique, and now she is positive for BRCA, so after she finishes with all the chemo she will probably have a double masectomy to avoid getting breast cancer - number 4 cancer, really sucks…we agreed that we would celebrate all our birthdays in style next year.
Ronald, I much prefer my walkman over those damn Ipods and even an 8-track now and than, never got into Betamax though…
I use modified versions of MF04; one that works. As for unifromity in location of subject matter, that went out the window with MF04. Poor Colin will still have to list both when he retires
Is anyine using the new 2008 SectionFormat/PageFormat?
I’m using the new SectionFormat/PageFormat. For the most part that is. Still trying to figure some of it out.
I’m still using MF 95, and plan to continue doing so. I have had 2 clients say “you’re not using those new numbers I hope”. They are happy when I say no. I have just added to my proposal/agreement “using 5 digit section numbers”.
Architects can’t remember 5 digits. They call and say “Look at section 9900 and tell me if . . .” Their eyes will glaze over on 6 digits.
In full disclosure, my practise is largely made up of a number of small offices, some do 8 or 10 schools or hospital remodels a year, many of them do one or 2 assorted projects a year. They all come to me, I don’t have to compete against anyone, and most of them have been clients for years.
I suppose if I were working with firms which do cutting edge work (either in terms of design or documentation), I would have to change.
But, my clients are happy, I’m happy, why change just for the sake of change? I’d rather spend my time trying to get the spec. right than to juggle numbers around.
As with most CSI format changes over the last 40 or 50 years, there is a certain degree of inertia because people are comfortable with the system “they have always used.” In fact, there is no system anyone has “always used.”
MasterFormat 2004 can be seen to be the most radical reformatting since “the CSI format” (whatevery that is) was introduced, but it is, in my view somewhat of an incremental shift instead of a paradigm shift.
Because there is so much industry buy-in by many “stake holders”, I believe that there will come a time when it is more difficult to remain with MF95 (or MF88 or …) that go with the new system. At that point the inertia of change (motion has inertia) will ovecome the inertia of stasis. I would estimate that we will start to see this in a few years.
Maybe it is time to begin working on a new 100-division format!