A major retailer just sent me their guide specifications for some projects. The mechanical specifications are numbered 15A, 15B, etc. Electrical specs similar.
Does anyone know the approximate time span when this system was considered acceptable? I could look it up…
I’d like to let the client know how antiquated it really is.
I had written specifications using Masterspec, with a similar numbering system for Divisions 1-14, in the late 1970’s.
When I became a full-time specifier in 1982, the copy of Masterspec the office had was using that numbering system.
To steal one from a Disney movie:
Voco IXII!
This client needs help. was it written in latin?
The specification format in the Uniform Construction Index (UCI)(1972) had the 16 divisions and then unnumbered titles listed below. The document did not say how to designate the sections, but the numeric/alpha system was the commonly accepted way of that time.
The first edition of MasterFormat in 1978 included 5-digit numbers for the section titles under the divisions. A quote from the Introduction: “The numberical classification system has been adopted and is recommended by the Technical Documents Committees of the Construction Specifications Institute and Construction Specifications Canada.” This was a pretty big deal at the time. It was a significant step when public agencies such as DOD adopted MasterFormat - you can see their approvals at the front-inside cover of the 1983 and later editions of MasterFormat.
The other big deal at the time was that AIA refused to participate in an update/revision of the UCI in the mid-1970s. CSI decided to do it on its own and got other organizations to agree and support it which resulted in the new title of MasterFormat. The previous multiple versions of the format in the UCI (specifications, data filing, cost analysis) were combined into one format in the 1978 MasterFormat.
Another inovation in the 1978 MasterFormat was the addition of Broadscope Section Explanations to provide a commentary on what was intended to be included and not included in the titles.
1978 is your year for 15A, 15B, etc. going away. That’s only 30 years ago!
Additional Historical Note:
The first official copyrighted publication of The CSI Format for Construction Specifications in July, 1964 had the same type of listings as per the UCI in 1972 (I believe there was an earlier publication in 1963) - Numbered and titled divisions with unnumbered titles under each division. The example table of contents for a project manual included in the document did include numeric-alpha designations for the titles listed within each division. Quote from the instructions in the document:
“Much of the usefulness of the CSI Format is derived from its flexible numbering system which permits sections to be arranged in any order within their respective divisions. The fixed division designations create the national uniformity that has been so long sought. The non-fixed section designations permit the flexibility that is so essential to practical use.
The number system is quite simple. Each section is identified by a number and a letter; e.g. Section 2F, Section 8C, Section 14A, etc. The number is that of the division under which the section is located. The letter is any letter, beginning with “A” and conitnuing alpahbetically.”
My historical documents jump from 1964 to 1972. I am not sure if there was another version published between those dates or not - the short historical summary in the 1978 MasterFormat does not refer to any publications during that period.
I was participating member (region representative) of the Technical Documents Committee from 1974-77 and then full member from 1977-80 so I was there for the “fun” of the skirmish with AIA over updating and the subsequent creation of the 1978 MasterFormat. It was pretty exciting times.
1978! 30 years to adopt the five-digit numbering of MasterFormat?
Whew! That means I don’t have to get serious about changing to the six-digit numbers and 49 divisions of Masterformat 2004 until 2034. I suspect I’ll be retired by then.
Seem absurd? So is the idea of change for the sake of change. Unlike the clearly beneficial adoption of constant five-digit numbers in MF 78, MF 04 makes fundamental changes in specifications organization beyond merely adding a sixth digit and tweaking the title of spec Sections.
MF 04(quietly) adopted two major “groups” for the Division numbers, with five “subgroups” under the second major group. It adopts a confusing dual-level organization for Level 2 Division headings. Somehow despite the addition of the sixth digit, there are not enough pre-assigned Section numbers and titles in MF 04, so a suffix and two additional numbers sometimes must be used (eight digits, not counting the period). Site construction is now in the Site and Infrastructure Subgroup (Divisions 30 through 39, rather than Division 02), following rather than preceding the Facility Construction and Facility Services Subgroups in order to not disrupt the legacy numbering for Divisions 03 through 14 in the Facility Construction Subgroup. How else should you read a book (Project Manual) but to start 3/4 of the way through it?
And there’s the introduction of “common work results” numbers and titles at the beginning of each Division. And also there is inconsistent internal organization between Divisions for organizing specification Section numbers (why are there three or four different sets of tile specifications based on installation methods when this approach is not followed typically for other subjects such as roofing?).
So, the issue isn’t merely the adoption of five-digit, post-1978 numbering but whether the MF 04 six-digit numbering and internal reorganization of Divisions for “work results” (rather than products) should be adopted.
The greater issue is the adoption of the new-and-improved, industry standard MF 04 rather than the now-archaic MF 95. Unlike MF 83/88/95, the adoption of MF 04 is not simply a matter of changing section numbers and titles. It is the acceptance of a different philosophy of specifications organization (“work results” vs “products” is just the start). I doubt that a retail store owner has much appreciation of the fact that MF 04 better accommodates railroad, marine and oil refinery projects.
Good luck explaining the change to MF 95. May God have mercy on you should you have to explain and advocate MF 04.
The work results concept of MF 04 is anything but consistent. Consider the following:
Ceramic tile (used for centuries), is now Tiling, 09 30 00 plus subtiling of all sorts. Until MF04, I doubt if anyone ever wrote a Tiling section. So this is a theoretical, not real world, title, to stretch the concept of work results.
However, planting (also used for centuries, as “planting” or “Landscape Planting”) is now Plants (32 93 00). Transplanting (32 96 00) is a work result, so I guess if you plant the first time it’s a product. If you move the plant, i.e., plant the second time, it’s a work result.
And, one of the cardinal rules is: Don’t change the section titles, which should read “Stay with our inconsistency, we meant every word of it”.
Go figure.
Yes John, you too can wait 30 years before adopting MF2004 and be identified with people like the major retailed still using 15A, 15B etc. if thats how you want to be identified, so be it.
Gee, if we were going to make a change for the sake of change we sure wasted a lot of effort and time getting input from so many people and organizations, putting out multiple drafts etc over a 3 year period of time. I guess some of the principles that were followed by the task team and publicized at the time didnt mean anything:
Impose as little change as possible into the divisions that have composed the architectural building subjects.
Make MasterFormat more acceptable to building engineering disciplines.
Expand MasterFormat to cover other than building construction adequately.
Revise MasterFormat to follow classification principles.
Provide space for expansion within each division.
Maintain organizational consistency among divisions.
Expand MasterFormat to have the capacity to comprehend the full life cycle, including use by owners and facility managers.
They were all just a smoke-screen to deceive everyone that a change was being made for the sake of change!!
I would sure hate to be the contractor that tried to construct a project in the order that the specifications are written in under any system I dont know of any specification system that was organized by the sequence of the construction I dont think it is a possibility. I think it would be interesting to install all the finishes before all the fire protection, plumbing, HVAC, electrical, and communications systems start installation.
The CSI Format for Construction Specifications and subsequent MasterFormat was never intended to be a product classification system except for the 1972 UCI that had three versions of the format for three different purposes: (1) Specifications; (2) Data Filing; and (3) Cost Analysis. To quote the 1964 document: If the Format is used for specifications arrangement it serves its prime function. The by-products are related to filing and indexing of literature which is used when writing specifications. 1983 MasterFormat: MasterFormat provides for specifying by products, by systems, or by a combination of both and goes on to describe how products may be located in different or multiple locations. It also describes under a discussion of using the format for data filing that the user will have to choose a single location for a product on the basis of the most prevalent used of the product because the format does not have one location for each product. 1995 MasterFormat: MasterFormat is a master list of numbers and titles for organizing information about construction requirements, products, and activities into a standard sequence. Yes, MasterFormat is also used for data filing and for costing information, but its primary function is to organize project manuals and it is organized on that basis. Using the term work results has been a way of trying to educate people what MasterFormat has and has not been all along.
Yes, the retail store owner may not care about railroad, marine, and oil refinery projects which are more adequately covered in MF2004, but I think there would be an appreciation for how the engineering subject areas are more adequately covered, how the new communications and electronics subjects have been expanded, and how maintenance subjects are now included in all the divisions. Sure we could go back to the time when the number 16 was sacred and never to be changed. I remember those days in the 80s and 90s as new subjects became relevant and we had to find room for them within the existing 16 divisions the primary decision maker was to put it where ever there was room that made any sense at all that generally meant squeezing it into Div 11 or Div 13 because most of the other possible divisions were already full to capacity. I dont think anyone would agree on that method as a rational method to classify information.
You can criticize how MF2004 came out, but I have a hard time taking the opinion that it was a change for the sake of change very seriously.
I also didnt know that we were putting ourselves in such jeopardy when many of us made so many presentations about MF2004 after it was issued I dont recall once not having a favorable reception after the rationale for the major changes to MF2004 had been explained. I dont recall ever having a hard time explaining why those major changes were made, but I appreciate your wish for God having mercy on my soul!
Jo
First, changing the type of term used in the title in MasterFormat does not change an item from a product to a work result. 05300 Metal Deck was not just a product in MF95; it was still a work result of the installed metal decking system including the fasteners, anchors, closures, accessories, welding, etc. In MF04 the title was changed to 05 30 00 Metal Decking to better reflect that it is a work result and not just a product.
Previous editions of MasterFormat have not been consistent in the type of term used, for instance: Steel Deck and Wood Decking. You can find many others.
Ceramic Tile in MF95 was not changed to Tiling. 09300 Tile was changed to 09 30 00 Tiling. 09310 Ceramic Tile was changed to 09 30 13 Ceramic Tiling. In addition another group of titles was added to allow for the option of subdividing tiling by type of installation method rather than type of material. Either type of material or method of installation can be used for the subdivision of tiling as desired.
Regarding the landscaping area, the highest level title was 02900 Planting in MF95 and remained 32 90 00 Planting in MF04 while 02930 Exterior Plants in MF95 became 32 93 00 Plants in MF04. The term Plants was retained because Planting was already in use for the all-inclusive subject title.
I am not trying to defend every title change or non-change of this type in MF04 it was the first time we tried to be more consistent in the type of terminology and to reflect work results versus products. For instance I think 05 20 00 Metal Joists should have been 05 20 00 Metal Joist Framing to be consistent with the rest of the titles around it and under it - we just plain missed that one. There were a considerable number of subjective judgments made on a case by case basis. In most of the instances where changing the type of term did not seem appropriate such as “Windowing,” we could have added the word “Work” (Window Work) to try to indicate that not just the product was included. The decision was made not to do that to multitudes of titles. I am sure that the terminolgy effort will be improved the next time around.
Bob:
My first spex were written using the 2A, 2B, etc. section numbering system. After that I recall the 4-digit section numbering system prior to the 5-digit system. IIRC, the 3-part section format followed shortly thereafter. I don’t remember the effective dates but they were definitely in the late 60’s to mid-70’s.
What year was the first CCS examine?
Thanks, everyone, for the input. Did not expect to re-kindle a debate about MasterFormat, but I should have known!
The State of Ohio has fully implemented MasterFormat for all projects. Division 00 makes it especially convenient for organizing the myriad procurement and contracting requirements that public agencies typically have. Before this innovation, project manuals for public projects, at least in this state, were a hodgepodge.
Again, thanks for the feedback.
Dave Wyatt
Ron
The only thing I am aware of going on between 1964 and 1972 was the Canadians producing a format in 1966 based on the 1964 CSI Format. Those were then combined into the 1972 UCI. Several Canadian organizations are listed among the supporting groups for the UCI and Specificataion Writers Association of Canada was also one of the copyrighters.
I first started writing specs in the early 60’s and found and joined CSI in the late 1960’s. I don’t recall every seeing a 4-digit system. Do you remember anything about where it came from? Tom Heineman has the best historical information of anyone I know - maybe we can get him to chime in.
SectionFormat was first published by CSI in 1969.
I don’t know the date of the first CCS examine. Hans Meir was chair of the group that put it together and Weldon Nash was one of the members. Believe it was in the late 70’s. I was working for Public Owner’s running design and construction programs at the time and didn’t take it until I went back to writing specs full time in the early 80’s.
The first CCS exam was administered in 1978. I interviewed Hans Meier for an article in the NewsDigest to celebrate its 20th anniversary - he called it the “one of the jewels in the crown of CSI”. I liked that.
Guess we missed celebrating the 30th administration of the exam last year, but I suppose we could call this year its 30th birthday.
Sheryl Dodd-Hansen
When I started my first job out of school in 1967 in Calgary Alberta with Cohos Delesalle & Evamy, one of my primary duties was to maintain the product data library. The spec writer at the time used, what I think was, an AIA FILING FORMAT, which was comprised of double-digit section numbers. Perhaps the example cited in the first post is a legacy of that system. By the time I started writing specs in 1973, I was using the formats Bob Johnson mentions above. In 1973 SWAC was still the name for what is now Construction Specifications Canada (CSC).
Wayne
Filing literature was also one of my duties as a high schooler working part time in an architect’s office starting in 1956 - we also used the AIA Filing Format.
In recent months, I have encountered resistance to change to MF04 from the very people it was supposed to benefit.
I find mechanical and electrical engineers stuck in the early 1980s with section numbers and titles, especially for plumbing and HVAC specifications, based on some version of Division 15 that resembles MF83. Electrical engineers use something that resembles no version of Masterformat I’ve been able to find. Typically, electrical engineers use one, huge Section 16000 - Electrical for power and lighting, with specialty items such as assistive listening systems in individual sections that resemble MF95. Both mechanical and electrical engineers tend to write “Level 2” sections despite the complexity and scale of the project.
Spec writers, especially independent specifications writers, do not have enough authority to make mechanical and electrical engineers change. Complicating this is the decision by specifications writers in my community to NOT be involved with Division 15 and Division 16 specifications because they are poorly written (poor coordination with Division 1, poor use of references, inability to conform to common Section and Page formats, etc.).
What was most shocking recently was a telecommunications consultant who absolutely insisted that his Section be in Division 17. It was like a claim of ownership of Division 17 for the telecommunications and low voltage systems engineers.
I am more than a little torqued that Masterformat was changed to accommodate interests who do not understand or appreciate the changes and who refuse to adapt to them. Again, the specifications writers do not have enough authority to enforce the changes.
If Masterformat 2004 is primarily to enhance specifications writing and not sell publications, then I would expect to see more organized efforts at Institute, Region and Chapter levels to promote conformance to CSI’s formats and specifications writing principles.
I have to agree with John - The MPE community is way behind in getting up to speed on updating to any MF version, let alone MF04.
As an in-house spec writer, I have no authority to get our consultants to change.
The same goes for Civil and Landscape onsultants.
John-
this seems to be a southern California issue. The Mechanical and Electrical consultants in the northwest were actually leading the effort to change, and for the most part, the northwest converted over… 2 years ago. the northeast and midwest also seem to be doing fine with the 04 system. I’m surprised at how much resistance there is in southern California to this change and how difficult it is in this market. its like the whole CSI group down here decided to just sit this one out. I think this is really the only part of the country where the 95/04 “issue” is still an issue.
of course, the northwest has always been progressive…
I am doing private developer projects for a variety of architectural clients from the Mid-Atlantic region, to Texas, to Utah, to New Mexico, to Colorado and have found no significant resistance to MF2004 - that includes MEP engineers and other consultants. For well over a year, I have only done MF2004 and it isn’t even a matter of discussion on new projects. I understand one private developer complained to my architect client about the new numbers and the architect responded that we follow the standard of the industry - end of discussion. At this point, I would not do a MF95 project because I have not kept that version of my master up-to-date.
Yes independent consultants are usually not in a position of authority over a project but they should be looked upon as leaders in how specifications are prepared. I did spend a little time educating my longtime clients about the coming change several years ago, told them we would be moving that way, at first gave them the choice on a couple of projects, and then lead them to use MF2004 consistently. Almost everyone is naturally resistant to change and have to be lead to make those changes. I see that as any specifier’s responsibiltiy (whether inhouse or independent) - if we are looked upon as the experts in that area then we should be leading people to keep up with the current standards of how specifications are prepared.
Yes CSI is and should be promoting the use of MF2004, but the best promotion and education is done on a person to person basis by CSI members and specifiers. If you are having a problem in Southern California (I thought that was supposed to be the progressive state), have the local CSI chapters thought about putting on some education programs/workshops for the MEP engineers or getting someone on the local engineer association chapter/region programs to discuss the subject? Why not band together and attack the problem? The best thing of course is to get to the engineers by convincing them that you are going to help them produce their specs more efficiently and with higher qaulity at the same time.