How do you train or "grow" a spec writer?

Archive of Older Topics Archive - Specifications Discussions #3
1

I’ve just finished reading the very interesting thread on how people learned to be spec writers. Not neglecting the critical importance of practical experience and subject matter knowledge, I am interested in how to deliberately train someone to write good specs. Assume that they are willing and assume that you want them to shoulder part of your workload as soon as possible – assume that you have so much business that you are turning away work ;>). Assume that you can’t afford to spend a lot of time correcting their work, so learning by trial and error would not be very effective. What would you start with? Would you tell them to read the PRM? How would you test them? Would you test them?

I write this after much thought about the spec writer “shortage”. It seems to me that the shortage is not new, that there has always been a shortage because there never has been a training school – we all learned “on the job.” So, how can we making learning on the job faster and more effective? There are a lot of firms that do their own specs who would like to know.

2

First; Indulgence, pleae from the strident CSI folks. Hear this out.

I firmly believe that pre-PRM there is a need for fundamental [even pre-CDT] instruction to merely understand what specs are, what they look like, and how they function. It was quite enlightening to staff in our office when I wrote a specs handbook much in this direction [and our office nuances]-- many simply didn’t know antnyghin about specs. Also, did a 6-session [one hour each] lunch hour course on various isolated aspects of specs-- superficial perhaps but informative.

As I noted on another thread I have blocked out a Specs Primer much to the point of all this [at least David Wyatt thinks it has value]-- an introduction in simple tems; a guide; a preliminary view. Just can’t find a publisher.

Then, one can be weaned in the office specifics and in the CSI-preferred methodology with all of the many many good points.

We do need, though, to instill the thought that there are many solutions and many variaitions from strict CSI guidelines, BUT we need to understand those basics prior to “doing other things”.

Any help?

Oh, I do not see this or intend this to undercut CSI, but there are many things that can be done-- there is need to have some instruction between zero and CSI, I think; have a lot of material to share if any one is interested.

3

I read Hans Meiers Book in college and then self taught by having to push my way through his Library of Specifications and a spec using Spectext and then using SpecLink. Questions were answered by friends. Email and the web helped a little even back in 1997.

The PRM is great but with the exception of Division 1 does not really deal with specs it deals with the whole process. Should it be read of course but not as a sole source spec writing text book. I have not read all the way through but so far like John Regeners new edition of Rosens book.

There are some CSI members who have taught courses in spec writing.

4

Before one selects a specifier candidate, a selection process should take place. It seems to me that the first thing a specification writer candidate has to have is the proper attitude. First, they have to want to be a specifier, secondly, they have to have a deep desire to learn, and thirdly, they should be self-motivated. All other skills and technical knowledge will come in time with the proper attitude.

Bosses can “force” someone to write a specification from the many available sources on the market and from manufacturers, but generally they are not a good spec - passable at best - usually fodder for the contractors/estimators.

A well written specification will most often be acknowledged only when the bids come in and when a project is completed with only minor change orders.

When one starts looking deeply into any given technical topic, there are a surprising number of references and educational sources out there if they are only sought after. CSI documentation and chapter involvement is, obviously, the first and best starting point. After the basics, I would suggest assigning each candidate a select number of divisions to master, then letting them expand their horizons as they develop. Assigning young specifiers Divisions 1 thru 14 is bit overwhelming starting out [even though a majority of us on this board most likely started with all the divisions].

5

I believe the want, desire to learn, and self-motivation are important generally to success in whatever endeavor. Other important skills or “intelligences” (with the idea that there are many) are perhaps more important. I think a good specifier has to be:

  • Particularly detail oriented. If nothing else, specs are a myriad of details and if you don’t pay some attention to all of them, you will miss someting.

  • Inquisitive, and not satisfied with a broad-brush take on the product/assembly. Or, at least know you’re doing it beacuse you have to given project exigencies. (Holding one’s nose and moving forward.) Inquisitiveness is why you study that ASTM standard a little more carefully, because you wonder if it is really getting you what you want.

  • A bit more left-brain than right-brain viewpoint. Those who are the true designers (right brain) in the profession are less likely to find interest in specifying. The specifier’s brain is sequential, logical, analytical and objective. You know, nuts and bolts.

  • Skeptical.

  • Interested in a lot of different things, since there are a lot of different things you need to spec.

With great respect to my many friends who are independent consultants, I believe that training in specifying takes place most effectively in an architectural firm. Here, they can get their feet wet in specs, learn incrementally, do a bit of CA. I would imagine it being very difficult for a specs-only firm to make effective use of a trainee, and for the trainee to be fully engaged in what they’re doing.

6

I actually started out just doing interiors projects so that the only “waterproofing” I did was for interior tile projects. After four years, I started taking on some exterior assemblies. When I’ve trained people, I’ve also started them out on interior renovation/remodel projects. a novice can’t do too much damage on a job like that; they have few consultants to worry about, the project scope is generally smaller and the project turn-over is faster (as compared to a 2-year 1-million square foot hospital project); and they can get the construction questions faster.
a new specifier has to work through a certain number of projects – they need to see the variety of interpretations available for “standard” language, and the variety of results that one gets from writing the same things over and over again in order to develop a sense of judgement about what is necessary and possible. small projects, and smaller scope will allow someone to do that. A specifier really needs to get a sense of the relationship between the documents and the built result, and that only happens when projects get constructed.

7

Ironically, I started out the complete reverse of Anne. The first specifications I wrote were for waterproofing and roofing projects at a firm specializing in that field. It’s been all downhill from there! (Just kidding.)

8

I would like to add to John’s list above a few more desireable traits:

  • Good organizational skills. A major part of the specifications production process is management of all that information that is compiled and accumulated from various sources.

  • A somewhat decent command of the English language. Know how to spell, and understand that missing or incorrect use of punctuation can completely change the meaning of a sentence.

And I would reiterate the need for some CA experience. Seeing first-hand how one’s specifications perform under real world conditions can be very enlightening (and humbling).

9

Let me pose my challenge in a different way.

Can you distill one nugget of wisdom from your experience to impart to a willing and able candidate who doesn’t want to learn by [trial-and-]ERROR? In my opinion it would have to be a principle that transcended specific products, contract types, construction knowledge, etc.

Or, from another point of view: what characteristics make a spec BAD. Obviously, not using 3-PART format doesn’t necessarily make a spec bad. Using 3-PART format can make it better, but it might have been adequate without that. Conversely, what makes a spec adequate – just enough?

10

“Always convey directly usable information”!

11

Being able to express what someone else (the “first party”) requires in language that the “third party” can understand. A specifier is a translator from design language to construction language.

12

“what makes a spec adequate”

It’s a matter of judgment and balance. It’s application of the four C’s: Clear, correct, complete and concise (no particular order of importance). “Adequate” is measured by applying these benchmarks and then judging whether the spec is appropriate, sufficient, etc.

What is adequate for one project may not be adequate for another. For a project of limited scope, where quality is not the highest value, a shortform spec may be adequate. For a project of simple design but huge quantity (for example, the roof of a 300k sf distribution center), a highly-detailed, 30 page spec may be appropriate and anything less would be inadequate.

How to impart the critical thinking necessary for making these judgments? In my case, it was learning “attention to detail” through military training plus mentoring under a knowledgeable and detail-oriented architect who put on me a real sense of responsibility for what it meant when I drew details and made notes on the drawings.

I believe that specification writers need to work more closely with designers to draw out from them what is the design intent and what are the design decisions to express that intent. From that, the specifications writer can craft appropriate specifications and the “deciders” can learn what they need to decide.

One tool that I see as beneficial is a listing of key design decisions to be made for each spec Section. For example, are there wood doors on the project? Are the wood doors stained-and-varnished or primed and painted? If stained-and-varnished, what is the hardwood species? (“We want the doors to be green” is one answer I got to these questions that was not adequate … and had nothing to do with the color of paint). This would help desigers to understand what are the full range and depth of necessary decisions.

13

I think having an understanding of what the point of the building is and how its constructed – which requires some experience. is this a monumental building that your grandchildren will be in awe of? is this a facility built for 3-years of use while a campus is being constructed elsewhere? is this a hotel that will have every finish replaced in 4 years as part of a design update? is this a hospital that has to stay in operation?
I used to know one spec writer who basically wrote the same spec for every project: long form, carefully edited, impossible to understand, and using the same products that he had carefully researched 10 years before. his product simply wasn’t appropriate for every job. I knew another spec writer who crafted every project manual as though it was being submitted for spec competition – and blew every budget (and time constraint) he was given.
I think the most important question is simply “what are we trying to do with this project?”

14

I’d like to add a twist to the discussion about how to develop a specifications writer. What about the occasional specifications writer? That is, the project architect or project engineer who has 3-4 projects per year rather than the full-time specifications writer who sometimes has 3-4 project manuals in a week.

The stakes are the same for the occasional and the full-time specifications writer. The four C’s still apply. Professional judgment is still essential. How does the occasional writer learn to produce specifications?

My opinion is that being a competent specifications writer is part of what it means to be a competent architect or engineer. Occasional practice vs. full-time practice means greater experience for the latter. But as it has been pointed out earlier, there is a shortage of full-time specifications in many communities and there are some specifications sections that are typically written by consultants rather than by the (architectural) specifications writer.

I believe there are some tools (resources) that can assist the occasional specifications writer. One is a set of appropriate master or prototypical specifications sections. “Appropriate” means taking commercially-marketed specifications such as ARCOM’s Masterspec or CSRF’s SpecText and “pre-editing” them to suit regional construction practices, typical project requirements (building type, etc.) and office standards. This is a task that one person in the firm or an outsourced specifications writer can do. Then, the project (occasional) specifications writer can edit the specifications to suit project-specific requirements.

Another tool is the computer-assisted specifications system, such as ARCOM’s Linx and BSD’s SpecLink. The specifications writer interacts with the program by providing decisions. The program edits the text accordingly. As it has been pointed out in other discussion threads, this does not usually result in a completed specification section. The result is an 80-90 percent complete spec that still requires input of “user-generated” text such as Code citations and inclusion of information for products that are not in the database of the specifications program. In fact, this remaining 10-20 percent is where the “heavy lifting” of specifications writing takes place. The user still must know how to competently write construction specifications to complete the editing.

Ignoring BIM, with its intoxicating vapors of automagic production of drawings and specifications derived from simplistic design decisions, there will continue to be the need to train architects and engineers in production and use of construction contract documents. That is, the material covered by CSI’s CDT, CCS, CCCA and CCPR programs still needs to be learned and learned especially by those involved at schematic design and design development phases which are gaining in significance under design-build and phased construction (multiple prime contracts).

The development of specifications writers requires some formal training, I believe. What is that formal training?

I have a personal interest in this education and training process because of my book: Construction Specifications Writing: Principles and Procedures. Im trying to develop an instructor guide and other learning tools to supplement the book.

How can the basic information about specifications writing be best learned? Should there be courses in undergraduate architecture, engineering and construction management curricula? Should there be face-to-face education sessions produced by the extension programs of colleges and universities and by professional associations? Should there be distance learning programs such as “webinars” and learning-on-demand online sessions? Where does mentoring fit in? How is a written work product (spec) evaluated when there is professional judgment to be considered (more than one “correct” answer but probably one “best” answer)?

15

How much time you spend writing specifications is irrelevant. You still need to spend the time and energy to educate yourself.

As somebody who’s job description includes activities other than writing specifications I still consider myself a specification writer as well as several other things. Architects who have other responsibilities are not typically classified as ocassional architects.

While master specifications and automated editing tools are usefull tools, all too often they become a crutch and an excuse not to understand what the specification says.

Rather than talk about full time and occassional specification writers I believe the focus should be on the different expertise that each brings to bare. Some are generalists and others have some technical exertise in one or more areas. For example I have come to realize that while there are some parts of Division 1 I do not have a lot of experience with, my involvement in structural specifications has given me a better awareness of issues related to testing and inspection and some submittal issues than most specification writers.

16

Mark Gilligan:

Experience does matter. The amount of time spent (experience) does make a difference. Tasks I only do occasionally I don’t do as well as the tasks I do frequently. And as I spend more time on some tasks, I benefit from experience with the myriad of little details involved in the tasks. Over time, the experience grows and productivity and accuracy are enhanced.

The key point I was trying to get to was, how does someone gain knowledge and experience in order to better prepare construction specifications? Certainly, architects and engineers are capable of preparing construction specifications and no special certification is required. But the knowledge and experience represented by the certification is beneficial and should not be minimized.

I supposedly am licensed to commit architecture upon the people of my state, including calculating the size of structural members. I know that I have had little or no experience doing so in the past 30 years. The expertise of structural engineers has been used instead. Given enough time and simple guidelines, I could probably do the calcs for a simple building. If I was required to do engineering on a regular basis (“frequently” or “infrequently”), I’d need considerable instruction in order to do it expediently.

Thus, my question: how does someone learn to write construction specifications, from the basics to the sophisticated?

17

I was wrong in saying that the amount of time you spend is irrelevant. The point I wanted to make was that doing something full time does not necessarily make you better than somebody who does such work only part time. Some individuals have done the same task for 10 years and have not learned anything in the last 9.

If you want to be a good specification writer there is no one path. Sure you should be familiar with the PRM but you also need to educate yourself in other ways. You gain the knowledge by practicing and learning. You need to search out opportunities to get feedback and to learn. You need to question what you are comfortable doing. You will be molded by your experiences.

Part of this process is to become a subject matter expert in some aspect of your work. As you struggle with how to incorporate the information from manufacturers, codes and standards in your specification section you will find that the PRM and other sources do not have all of the answers and you will have to find a solution. It is during this search for a solution that you will learn.

18

“Practice does not make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect.” …Vince Lombardy

19

1-1/2 years ago I stumbled across a person who had the qualities of a potentially good specification consultant.
What struck me was the attention to detail and the completeness of their answers to me.
This person was a client representative who shortly after went on his ownas a subcontractor.
I lured this person into working for the company I was with at the time by first having them come in one day a week for 4 months and then hiring them full time.
Over the 4 months they studied for the CDT, took and passed it, and I had them doing real work that I reviewed with them, having them do their own corrections.
I have since moved on and lost the daily contact to help this person continue to grow.
I can only hope that they also move on so they can really take what CSI is really all about to heart.

20

The factors that helped me the most to grow as a spec writer: Having an opportunity to take primary responsibility for specs on some projects (simpler projects at first, like Anne describes), and having an excellent mentor available 1 desk over from me (who is not micromanaging but not detached either), as well as many other contacts I have made, many through CSI, who I can call on for help with a wide variety of technical questions. Also lots of in-house continuing education programs, active involvement with CSI including bi-region conferences and the annual convention, MasterFormat training, and honing of computer skills, all helped me to broaden my experience beyond my original background, which is design/build experience and a degree and license in landscape architecture.

Along the way I also had a valuable opportunity with a mid-sized A/E firm to troubleshoot and help develop a system for management of spec masters, implement new master content through a review process, review some submittals, help with product selection and research, and manage technical resources. Helping the CA’s to answer field questions on the technical side has also been a great way to learn.

A certain humility comes along with each new level of education and training, discovering once again there is still so much more to learn.