Master Specifiers

Archive of Older Topics Archive - Specifications Discussions
1

Every once in a while the idea of a certification or other such status is floated in CSI circles for establishing a category of “Master Specifier.” From what I can tell, this means more than the qualifications of the past for CCS - Certified Construction Specifier.

With machine-readable exams, written communication skills are minimal or non-existent test subjects in the CCS exam. So, that is probably one attribute of a “Master Specifier”: the ability to write.

But there is more. Thinking of those who would be considered “Master Specifiers”, what are the attributes of a “Master Specifier?”

2

John,

With machine-readable exams, written communication skills are minimal or non-existent test subjects in the CCS exam. So, that is probably one attribute of a “Master Specifier”: the ability to write.
<<<

So, those of us that took the earlier format of the exam where we actually did have to prove that we could write, take apart a unformatted spec and reassemble it in 3 part format with correct internal order, write letter to a prospective ower explaining the benefits of the CSI MasterFormat and 3 part format including putting it in a correct business format with addresses, signature, etc..maybe we just get credit for that anyway?

Other aspects of a Master Specifier, I don’t think are testable - its not your knowledge of things, but your knowledge of how to find things, how to explain to others what needs to be found (and why), and how things coordinate. The ability to communicate needs as well as the when those needs are met.

I think a master specifier is an educator as well.

I have no idea how one would test for those kinds of things. Frankly, I don’t think they are testable - I don’t think that the classification merits any consideration. There are only a couple thousand CCS in the country anyway, and some of those may write specs, but not project manuals.

Maybe they just ought to drag out the old original tests, glean them for some of the particular requirements and use that if they really want to have a test for it.

Do I and the others that took them get a bye having passed that kind of test anyway?

William

3

The concept of a so-called “Master Specificer” Certification was discussed by the Certification Committee as far back as the early 80s when the Certification Program was little more than five or six years old. At that time we were wrestling with hand-grading approximately 200 examinations in one month with only six examiners, and simultaneously trying to develop an acceptable program for Product Representatives. The CCS Exam (the only one given in those days) had only recently been modified to provide alternative writing exercises for civil, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical specifiers (the landscape option was added somewhat later).

As I recall the discussion, the Committee felt that a “Master Specifier” was an individual who was qualified to prepare Specifications in any of the disciplines we were testing. We concluded, as a practical matter, that there were very few individuals, if indeed there were any at all, who might be considered as qualified to prepare specifications in all these disciplines. As a result, the Committee postponed further discussion on such a program to a future date when other, much more pressing problems had been solved.

It has now been nearly twenty years since I served on that Committee. I still feel that there are few, if any, practicing specifiers who would be qualified for the title “Master Specifier” as the Certification Committee then defined it. I also doubt that there would be any specifiers qualified to prepare an examination comprehensive enough to test someone brash enough to attempt it.

Those of us who took the exam the first time it was offered year, and possibly the second year as well, were required to pass a section that tested on practical matters, such as Building Codes, ASTM Standards, NFPA, and similar requirements. This Section was deleted because it was perceived to be unfair to the engineering disciplines. I suppose it might be possible for the Committee to reevaluate that long abandoned Examination Section, and by redefining the term “Master Specifier” develop an acceptable program, but it would probably still need to be restricted to certain disciplines.

As a final word I sincerely doubt that development of such a program would be worth the time and expense necessary to develop it.

Robert B. Molseed
Certification Committee Chair, 1985-1986

4

If we looked at this from a broad point of view, we might realize that some professions use the term “Master”, and some don’t. They use other designations.

I don’t recall ever hearing of a Master Doctor, Master Physician, Master Surgeon, Master Lawyer, Master Attorney, Master Accountant, Master Actuary, Master Professor, Master Realtor, Master Scientist, Master Journalist, Master Engineer, Master Architect, Master Surveyor, or for that matter, Master Pastor. And, though I have heard of educators referred to as “Master Teacher”, I think the term was used informally, or as a special, honorific title. For some but not all of these, a Doctorate is required, and “Master” might seem to be a step down. And for some, not even a master’s degree is required. All of these professions, except perhaps journalism (which may be exempt due to freedom of the press), have some threshhold licensing or other qualification requirement.

The term “Master Builder,” while sometimes used, particularly in a historical context, as, for example, describing those who built cathedrals or pyramids, has, as far as I know, no official status as an earned or recognized title, even though in the construction industry more than perhaps any other, “Master” IS officially used as an ultimate designation, signifying one who through experience and testing has demonstrated superior ability to those of lower “apprentice” and “journeyman” status. So we DO have Master Plumbers, Master Electricians, etc. I assume there are Master Painters as well, since there’s a Master Painters Institute. In many if not most jurisdictions, one cannot obtain a plumbing or electrical permit without the requisite master’s license. Auto service departments are right proud of their Master Mechanics. Orchestra conductors are often called “Maestro”. And one needs a master’s license to captain a ship.

So, do we really need “Master Specifiers?” Do we then need “Apprentice” and “Journeyman” specifiers as well?

And, if you put “M.S.” after your name, would it really mean “Master Specifier” to anyone? Or just make them wonder if you were perhaps a little too proud of your master of science degree?

5

There’s another side issue here as well, in my opinion. The issue is “Recognition”. I’ve been on my soapbox for so long now (I’ve actually worn out seven boxes) regarding the lack of recognition given to all of our certifications, that the concept of adding another seems daunting. CCS has been around for over twenty years and I still see advertisements for specifiers that require Bachelor of Architecture!

Unless and until we get a lot better at promoting our current certifications, adding another would only cause me to have one more thing to explain.

6

I don’t put CCS on my business cards or stationery because I don’t want to have to explain what it is. I still have to explain what FCSI is occasionally, quite frequently in fact, if I am out of our “select little circle”.
Do we have to flaunt ourselves to the world? Aren’t we confident enough of our ability and our skills to be comfortable about that, without advertising it to others? (Exception, when we are trying to get a job, but a good resume will accomplish that).
Also Master xxxxx, in my experience has been used in the trades: Master Mechanic, Master Plumber, Master Electrician, but not, as noted above: Master Gastroenterologist or Master Judge. Who would we prefer to emulate?

7

“Master Specifier” sounds like a marketing campaign to promote ourselves. We need a good marketing effort, but we need to promote the importance of our work not our people. I have seen too many supposed experts that do not live up to their billing.

8

Right on, Richard.
We need marketing and we need training. We are a dying breed. We sit in SCIP meetings and debate the future of specifiers, but the way it is going, there won’t be a future, because there won’t be any specifiers.
That said “Master Specifier” is still a silly idea.
Each of us that is any good has certain skills, knowledge and experience. But we don’t all have the same skills, knowledge and experience. At our level, those skills, knowledge and experience are not testable, because they are unique to each individual.
What matters most is to do good work, and to gain a reputation in the community in which we work, for so doing. Marketing can help in this, then the reputation will follow.

9

Mr. Woodburn: There is indeed a “master architect”, the proverbial legend in his own mind. Care to guess who? To find out, point your browser to Snurl : le Journal des Rédacteurs