Whether this is another CSI money grab or not, I do not know.
What I do know is, in 2023, a then CSI board member told me that CSI had $11 million dollars in the bank.
Do they really need more money?
Ronald, that aligns with the financial reporting I posted above. However. their expenses in 2024 were 2.5 million more than income and the trend doesnât look healthy. 11 million also doesnât also the reflect the almost 6 million in liabilities. With membership continuing to decline and expenses (legal?) increasing. The financial solvency of the organization has much to be desired.
Over on the CSI Community Forum, William Sundquist suggests that we send all discussion directly to him at this CSI board pres email. I wanted to copy over what I posted there in response:
I am gathering my salient online posts and sending them to the email William Sundquist recommended. In summary, I see two main issues CSI needs to address. First and most immediate: clarify the issue of licensing, not just how it works, but also how we got to this point and why it came as such a shock to members. Second and most important: seriously examine and address the issue of membership distrust and dissatisfaction and respond not just with vague marketing-driven language but with clear and concrete solutions.
The renewed lively use of this discussion forum during this whole fiasco is most heartening . I hope Williamâs suggestion does not derail the dialogue here. We see dedicated members from all generations and tenures of service passionate about preserving our organization. Such dialogue is healthy; if nourished and heeded, it could bring us an improved organization. To those who consider this discussion as divisive, you ignore the obvious warning signs at your own peril.
Well-written specifications are clear, complete, concise, and correct.
Experienced specifiers are curious, inquisitive, questioning, and especially when it comes to sales pitches, skeptical. When we see the following statement, from the CSI website, âYou can access it [MasterFormat 2026] starting March 31 through CSI Dynamic StandardsSMâ, we donât think, hey, thatâs great, what a benefit! Instead, it leads to questions: will MasterFormat be available only through CSI Dynamic Standards (ie will we need to purchase a license to have such access)? What if we donât want to subscribe to CSI Dynamic Standards, does that mean we canât use MasterFormat for our specifications? Or even in our own office masters?
When we see the following statement, from the CSI website, âA license has always been required for use, just like previous MasterFormat versions. Instead of individual user licenses tied to books, licenses are now issued at the firm level.â, we think, Really? How has that been enforced? If weâve bought a previous book, such as MasterFormat 2020 Edition, that purchase included a license. But anyone could use the section numbers and titles in MasterFormat, without purchasing the book. Will that no longer be the case? And if so again, how will it be enforced?
The following statement in support of CSI Dynamic Standards is found at License CSI Standards | The Construction Standard:
MasterFormat
The live backbone for specs and work results-consensus-based numbers and titles kept current, cross-linked to UniFormat and OmniClass, and ready for pre-issue checks via integrations through enterprise solutions so mislabels and rework don't cascade.
I am an educated professional, and consider myself to be reasonably intelligent. But I have no idea what âready for pre-issue checks via integrations through enterprise solutions so mislabels and rework donât cascadeâ means. Nor how that has been a problem, at least for me and my practice. Nor ho Dynamic Standards would be a solution.
I think a lot of the confusion comes from the use of the word âneedâ in the above screenshot (as well as the complete lack of communication from Institute). Is âneedâ being used in the marketing sense to create urgency (eg; "You know you NEED this brand new sports car) or is it âneedâ in the legal sense as in, âYou NEED this license or you are violating our copyright protectionsâ. Like most things in life⌠the lack of clear and concise communication is causing a lot of the problems
âŚalmost as if it wasnât written by a professional specifier?
This simply is not enforceable. Every public project (University, municipality, state, etc) requires the use of some version of Masterformat, so it isnât optional for the professional. In that case, the agency will have to make a copy of Masterformat free to their consultants.
When I was on the Masterspec Review committee, occasionally there would be some instance of a public owner who was using Masterspec as the basis of their own documents, and Arcom had difficulty collecting fees even from those blatant non-subscribers. Once a specification has been published by a client, it is in the public domain. CSI is going to need more staff simply to attempt to enforce this â and I donât think it can be done. What we will see is continued use of some earlier version of Masterformat and it will then be subject to various changes by the users instead of consensus changes by the organization. CSI is not offering additional value.
Netflix has just updated its EULA: If you own a TV, computer monitor, tablet, smartphone, VCR, Betamax, 8-track player, fax machine, or rotary telephone, you must hold a valid subscription. Are we seeing the issue?
The file attachment is from the CSI website at https://www.csiresources.org/standards/overview
Since licenses are issued to firms only, did CSI add a new member category for firms? I do not see a firm category on the CSI website.
Do the member prices shown on this page apply to any company, though separate pricing tiers based on company type are shown on https://theconstructionstandard.com/pricing
2026-02-16_Member_Pricing-10515.pdf (45.4 KB)
Just got the following from The Construction Standard. I write specs every day. I literally have a spec writing firm. This is not about my manufacturer catalog. If you think this does not apply to you, youâre grossly mistaken. We should all be outraged.
So, to be clear: We pay to belong to CSI, we volunteer countless hours to support CSI, share the mission statement, educate the industry about the value of CSI standards and help write the CSI standards. Now, we get the privilege of paying a licensing fee for the very standards we have helped develop and market. Anyone else feel used? I had no idea I was CSIâs shill all these years, but, to be honest, without any additional communication from Institute, this is how I feel now
Been thinking about this more⌠could this be a brilliant marketing idea to reinvigorate the use of MasterFormat and participation in the CSI?
Its seems remarkably familiarâŚ
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=who+decided+to+make+New+Coke%3f&mid=363DFD8EEE1DE78FB24B363DFD8EEE1DE78FB24B&FORM=VIRE
Could we be reintroduced to âMasterFormat Classicâ in a few months after the âDynamic Standardsâ is launched?
We let the camel put his nose under the tent flap a decade ago. We shouldnât be surprised to wake up and find the camel all moved in, sitting in his recliner watching his big screen television,and drinking his expensive scotch. Weâre sleeping in the desert.
@George: Camels stink, and I, for one, do not negotiate with them. You all can grab the camel by the collar and toss him out. I am sure the tent has a tenancy agreement.
What if they gave a party and nobody came?
Most specifiers, whether independent or in-house, write specifications derived from a commercial master. Is CSI now claiming that in addition to the subscription fee that specifiersas individuals or a firmâpay to the company that owns the commercial master, they need to pay CSI a licensing fee to use the MasterFormat section numbers and titles that are embedded in the master?
Just how will that be enforced? How can we be prevented from using the section numbers and titles?
I just Googled 03 3000 Cast-in-Place Concrete. Up came multiple hits, from companies selling concrete-related products to government- and university-issued specifications, to ACI standards. No reference to the Construction Specifications Institute. Ive been retired for 15 years and no longer create specifications. Will CSI now sue me for the search term I typed into Google, without having paid them a licensing fee?
I was at the MSR for the âBig Announcement.â I was not a happy camper. My firm uses a SpecLink for spec writing. It doesnât have everything under the sun. Fine. I used to use the Numbers and Titles Tool (which was whisked away without warning or any information last fall) to find applicable numbers for new specs I needed to write that werenât in the SpecLink catalogue. I am still not clear if I, working for an architecture firm as a spec writer, need to convince my firm to shell out $2500 per year for a tool I would use infrequently. Or, if the rumors are true, I will be able to get the information I need for the new and improved MasterFormat 2026 numbers by virtue of the fact that we have a subscription to SpecLink. (People said I left the âbig announcementâ session too early. I find it hard to believe that by virtue of the fact that we have a subscription to a spec writing program, we would have this access to this AMAZING, UNBELEIVABLE, TRULY EXTRAORDINARY tool. Because, if so, their market consists of a pretty small set of users.)
The âbig sellâ at the announcement was that AI would take care of connecting the dots between OmniClass, UniFormat, and MasterFormat. Whoop-di-doo from a spec writer at a medium sized architecture firm. I havenât used OmniClass since I left facilities management. I have never had trouble connecting the dots between UniFormat and MasterFormat. (Though I really like the idea of the way that Conspectus Cloud connects the two.)
Maybe instead of re-doing Crosswalk, the powers that be SHOULD HAVE TALKED TO CSI MEMBERS about why Crosswalk wasnât selling, if membership NEEDS a tool like that, etc. THE COMMUNCIATION ON THIS WAS TERRIBLE.
Juste Fanou â
I love your alternate version!!
Life may be different in Canada because of the current litigation. It will be interesting to learn. What sort of input did CSC have in this venture?
CSC is not saying a word. The silence is deafening.
I havenât commented because I retired five years ago, and havenât maintained any form of CSI membership or acrivities. That said, since the New Year or so, I am receiving multiple CSI emails every day. So this hunt for new profits includes marketing to old contacts.
That is because CSC is not the owner of the standards. CSC is an invited key participant in developing the standards, but only CSI owns the IP.