I’m not even going to bother with CSI-Connect anymore. It’s pretty clear that the board and management don’t care what the membership thinks. The silence about the main questions is deafening.
I am curious if they have done irreparable harm to the organization buy burying their collective heads in the sand and ignoring the very important questions that still remain unanswered. Here’s a hint: It’s not about the software! Please stop ignoring the important questions.
I know other chapters have sent letters requesting more information that members should have access to. There are a couple of chapters exploring the possibility of leaving CSI altogether.
Yes there is a very vocal group who is at the forefront and taking the arrows. I am grateful for their willingness to stand up. I also know there are many, many more that support and want answers.
Without answers, we are only left to speculate. We can assume a lot, from the best case scenario (looking out for the best interest of the members) to the most nefarious (illegal activities) or is it something in the gray?
There will be a live demonstration of the Dynamic Standards with Keith Robinson and Mark Dorsey on Thursday, June 25, starting at noon (Eastern Time) on Zoom.
Go to the CSI website to sign up. They say that questions will be accepted and the presentation will be recorded.
@David Axt… Did you read the post before responding? It’s not about the software at this point. It’s about the leadership and the direction of the organization. The software is just a symptom of the fish rotting from the head. I have little ambition to continue to support and volunteer for an organization that treats members with disrespect and the industry it serves as a source of revenue for a third-party company. CSI was built on the backs of volunteers to standardize a documentation system that our industry now relies on for clear, correct, concise, complete and coordinated documents. Now we’re asked to continue volunteering to feed a for-profit entity that we also need to fund with our subscription fees.
CSI board and management have been desperately trying to frame this discussion as a bungled product launch of their new software. If that’s all it was and if they had been transparent in their explanations to membership since the end of February, the magnitude of the dissent and the heat of the public discussion would be a lot less than what we are seeing.
There should be no need for an organization like CSI to be so secretive with its membership. This isn’t the Manhattan Project, it’s just a re-organization of a construction standard.
And the other problem is that because they aren’t being transparent, some people begin to wonder if something is being covered up, especially regarding the finances of the new for-profit spinoff. People are asking if there’s someone on the inside benefiting from those newly generated profits on the back end of the deal.
Full transparency from the beginning would have nipped those speculations in the bud.
@George Everding People are asking yes indeed! Fully agree.
You mean being the CEO of a non-profit and simultaneously being the CEO of a for-profit negotiating the sale of the non-profits IP assets to anonymous for-profit shareholders of whom he may be one, while this transfer of valuable IP assets* doesnt appear as income on the non-profits tax filings really looks and smells like a bucket of week-old herring on the dock in the sunshine?
*we know these IP assets are valuable or they wouldnt be trying to charge for their use. No use claiming this was some kind of in-kind exchange.
So, yes, absolutely people should be asking. And keep asking until they answer.
“I guess Mark is going to get his wish. CSI will no longer have members and is going to be a software company.” Anonymous malcontent who was on the webinar.
Full Transparency. I am the anonymous malcontent. Here is a message I sent to Robert Vaughn (Mid Atlantic Region Director), Jarrod Mann (incoming Board Chair), and William Sundquist (current Board Chair). the most telling comments were not about the CSI Dynamic Standards(sm) but those below. Will CSI edit the recording before releasing? I am waiting to see.
++++++++++
Gentlemen,
I am writing to you as my representatives at the CSI Board meeting.
I am truly concerned with two surprise announcements from Keith Robinson during the CSI Dynamic Standards(sm) demo yesterday.
At the end of the demo and in passing without explanation, Keith announced that Outline Specs, PPD Author, PPD Estimator, and PPD Scheduler tools are in development, now. With this, I can only presume that CSI is now a software company and not a member driven service organization. I have all the same questions as for the CDS. Where is the market study that suggests these tools are needed and wanted? Is CIN involved in this effort too? Why is CSI trying to compete with commercial software providers? Why would these software providers continue to support CSI when CSI is a direct competitor?
Might I remind you of an earlier CSI development effort that failed miserably Perspective. Need I say more? Development is not CSIs domain. You may say this is different. If that is the case, show me.
Keith made a second announcement that ASTM and CSI are working together to create a single overarching UniFormat for all facilities. He mentioned two in specific airfields and wharfs. This is no wonder since Brian Joos is chairing the committee. I sit on the ASTM E06.81 subcommittee that maintains ASTM E1557 UNIFORMAT II. The ASTM document lead and I are unaware of any activity with CSI regarding UniFormat.
This is especially interesting because I proposed this when I chaired the UniFormat committee in 2000. I was told then to forget it and simply make the CSI UniFormat match ASTM E1517. When my committee finished our work, the documents were the same. However, there has been no collaboration with ASTM since to keep the documents aligned as evidenced by the current transition matrix for UniFormat.
Is CSI going it alone on updating UniFormat? If not how will CSI and ASTM be brought into alignment again? ASTM revisions are much more difficult to accomplish because of the balloting process. If ASTM cannot accept the proposed changes will CSI publish, anyhow?
I am a very interested observer of all this due to my work in varied roles and capacities in the industry for nearly 35 years. I am greatly concerned, not as a member of CSI, but as consultant who advises organizations on implementing standards, preferably, open national and/or international ones, to effectively execute modern project delivery.
Currently, I participate in the BIMForum LOD Specification development committee and we are debating (well less debate and more resigned to doing the change) the need to move the current classification references from Uniformat to UNIFORMAT II (ASTM E1557) due to CSI’s recent puzzling developments. We would hope that ASTM avoids working so closely with CSI/CIN that it gets caught in a trap that really blows things up for so many others moving forward.
In addition, I have been part of the BIM for Bridges and Structures Transportation Pooled Fund [TPF-5(372) and (523)] efforts to apply BIM to transportation infrastructure assets. One thing missing from the US transportation infrastructure industry is a standard classification system (each state uses their own ‘ad hoc’ Pay Item Code system). Recently, ASTM did “extend” UNIFORMAT II for Bridge Elements (ASTM E2103/E2103M-19(2024)), but seemingly without involvement of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) or any of its member state DOTs (or the USDOT FHWA). This still needs to be evaluated by the AASHTO members to see if it should be adopted or if they need to muscle their way into ASTM to help guide further development (there is a LOT missing in the current version). I would hope that this is not further tainted by the proposed CSI effort to extend its Uniformat into other facilities, especially without AASHTO member involvement.
CSI had an opportunity to grow into the transportation infrastructure world, but it looks like they’ve preempted that with the recent tomfoolery… something the state DOTs will NOT touch with a ten-mile pole (they work in a much larger scale ;)), at this point. I’m try to stay abreast of this as best I can to inform my clients about options in moving forward. I appreciate all the work of the “rabblerousers” in bringing the issues to light and poking holes in the tissue-paper platform of the “new” CSI/CIN.
@Jeffrey, I am trying to find out from ASTM if there is any direct involvement in the current CSI update. I expect to learn more early this coming week. Maybe one of the CSI Board members will reply to my email to confirm or deny. I will be surprised if they do.
Robinson’s announcement may be wishful thinking. Time will tell, I suppose.
We’ve been trying to find out exactly who is "CSI staff"for several months. It’s clear that most of the current staffers are contract employees who work for the association management agency based in Tennessee. Sundquist and other leaders have stated that the CEO is not the only CSI staff employee, but when I questioned them directly to find out the names and positions of these “other CSI employees,” they either refused to reveal the information or professed ignorance.
If you go back to copies of the CSI website from a few years ago, or look into the publicly available financial data, you’ll see a number of well paid full-time staff. Those positions were all gone by January 2025 (?).
So the question of who exactly is our staff now, it’s still murky. We’ll see if the current board chair take steps to be more clear about what’s going on. I believe, as a matter of ongoing policy, that CSI should keep a publicly available listing of staff members, titles and positions, and methods of contacting them. To my knowledge we’ve always had that available to us up until the beginning of 2025.
Nevertheless, I’m willing to grant that Sundquist was being generous and thanking those staffers, whether they be on contract or actual employees, who helped him over his two years in office. They helped him keep his tenure uneventful, until suddenly it wasn’t. They help provide him cover when he needed it, and I’m sure he’s grateful for that.
We should be generous and wish him well in his future endeavors.
Dynamic Standards: I want to hear that the Board is viewing the criticism through the same lens we the users are. Meaning, Do we need this? I see no real justification for it, only the assumption that it will be useful because we are digital and thus evolving more quickly? I think a simple shared Google Doc would solve that problem
AI & Digital Standards. CSI - IS - a Legacy Source. See item 1 above. Is there a need for anything more?
Governance: There is only one acceptable path forward if CSI is to maintain any credibility whatsoever. They need a revote. They need to nullify or suspend the current election results, go through a proper candidate selection process, and post nominees for our vote that doesn’t result in handpicked “candidates” elected by Fiat. Nothing less will mitigate the mistrust.
Organizational Health and Member Value:
What the heck does this statement mean: “investments being made to strengthen what it means to belong to this organization”. If CSI is operating on a net loss, what investments are they talking about? At what expense? This needs to be much more openly shared and discussed. I do NOT trust CSI board to be stewards of the funds given the poor financial situation of the organization. Further, I am looking forward to learning what this means too, “We are also continuing to develop tools and resources”. Tools? Like more software we don’t need or want?
Communications: “Proactive” communications would be great, but lets start with reactive communications! What are CSI’s expenses? Why is it running at a deficit? Who are on staff? What do they do? is outsourcing really saving any money?
I am fractionally hopeful the more detailed recap will shed some light on these things, but my hope is waning, and my trust is gone.
Is that a question on the exam to earn the CAE credential: "Who knows better? A) You; B) The Board; C) The other Stakeholders such as organization members.
@Loretta - all we have to do is change the names and it sounds just like our situation.
Thanks for posting. Association staff are showing their true colors, it’s all about them, funding their jobs, and keeping the gravy train going without the trouble of members.
I get so angry when I have to deal with CSI anymore.
I wanted to buy CSI swag for someone who just passed the CDT exam. Part of me was “Why bother?” but I thought it was good way to celebrate. I go the the website, log in, and… the store link doesn’t work. I write to “member services” – because it is now the only email address available. And I get told that I need to log in in order for it to work, and that the link is working. And…
It took every once of energy to be civil in my response. And I know the individual at the other hand wasn’t responsible for why am so angry now.
And the link is not working, and “Member Services” will report it to “our” tech department.
(It’s interesting that the “Member Services” address is PO Box 81, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701, while CSI’s address, according to the website, is 5034A Thoroughbred Lane, Brentwood, TN 37027.)
