The only time I require the same page format throughout a project manual is when the owner dictates what it will be. We work with a variety of structural, landscape, civil, M&E, and other consultants, all of whom work with a variety of architects; forcing them to change formats for every architect does seem an unnecessary burden. If everyone used the same format, the project manual would look better, but, going back to previous discussion, the intent is communication, not appearance.
As long as the consultants’ specifications are readable, the only thing I require is that their headers and footers are the same as ours. That consistency is a clear benefit to the owner, contractor, and others who use the project manual, as the first information they look for - section number and title, page number, and project title, are in the same place. Once they get where they’re going, the content is what they’re after.
I don’t think changing page format is a problem, especially if you use styles, but I am amazed at how many of our consultants have problems. Especially surprising is how many administrative people, whose primary job is using a word processor, have mastered nothing beyond word wrap - and some don’t even understand that; I get documents from one source that contain carriage returns within paragraphs! I get specs from consultants and manufacturers who use spaces and tabs used to align text, a mix of automatic and manual numbering, and hard page breaks. Even when styles are used, individual paragraphs are often forced into the form of a different style. To further complicate the problem, some consultants are not consistent within their firms; some sections appear to have been keyed in by someone who knew how to use a word processor, while others obviously were done by a two-fingered hack.
This lack of knowledge is one reason I don’t ask our consultants to change their page format. Given the combination of more complex projects and reduced delivery time, I’d rather they concentrate on getting the content right. Another reason I don’t force our format on consultants is writing style. I’m of the SpecText school; I firmly believe that a terse style is superior to the verbose style used by many specification writers and MasterFormat.
I use short sentences and sentence fragments, which make it possible to use two-column format. All of our consultants use specs that are in a more narrative style - with lots of “contractor shall” phrases - which does not work well in two columns. Another common practice that requires a single column format is the use of many outline levels. The deeper they go, the greater the indent, and the less text you get on a line.
Our specs are based on a template, so when an owner does require a specific format, all I have to do is change the styles in the template and all of the specs automatically change to match. A little tweaking still is needed in each section, but all sections can be tweaked in just a few minutes, even less if a macro is used.
I began using a two-column format about ten years ago. After reading a few books about publishing, I tried several combinations of margins, fonts, and outline structure, and settled on one that worked well (maximum density without obscuring the message or hindering rapid reference). Within a few months, anecdotal evidence suggested I had made a good decision; I started getting comments from contractors and suppliers, who said they found the specs easier to read. With a terse style and two columns, more information appears on a single page. For the “sustainability” crowd, the number of pages in a section is often reduced. That sounds good, but the effect is not as great as it first might appear, as a section with an odd number of pages still needs a whole piece of paper for the last page. I wonder if anyone makes single sided paper. 