Every few years this discussion comes up. Who are we? What are we all about? What are we supposed to be doing? We have the word “specifications” in our name, but are we about specifications or are we about more (BIM, sustainability, professional practice, etc.)
Recently CSI sent me a survey which I answered and I encourage you to answer as well.
It just seems to me that CSI has an identity crisis. It also seems to me that CSI wants to be everything to everyone and actually get away from specifications.
I have always been puzzled by the formation of Specification Consultants in Independent Practice. I find many of their activities goals and purpose to be that of CSI. I just seems like while CSI is trying to figure if they want to get involved with specifications that SCIP picked up the slack and concentrated on specification writing and improvement.
I think we can all agree that CSI is more than just specifications, but it definitely is not trying to be “everything to everyone.” Specifications was a great beginning, but CSI has grown beyond that to include all construction documents and construction information in general, as well as many other areas relating to the construction industry (think facility life cycle).
This rebranding process (it’s more of a brand revitalization process) is trying to find out exactly where CSI fits within the construction industry and how best to project that image to the public.
Successful businesses take branding pretty seriously. I think it’s good that CSI looks at their brand every few years, and am glad that they put together a pretty well thought-out survey to engage all of us curmudgeonly specifiers.
Read this forum for awhile, and you’ll see that we all complain about specifiers not being understood, the value of good documents not being recognized, etc., etc. The more industry members who know and understand what CSI is, the better we can promote the values we work by. I wish them well in the effort.
yes, I think one of the issues that CSI has is that everyone I meet seems to think that it ONLY is for specifiers. I’ve had young people in this office go to CSI meetings and they still think that everyone who goes “is a specifier”. emphasizing the plurality of the organization is critically important. Look at the USGBC – no one thinks that the USGBC is only for LEED consultants – its for “people who care about sustainability”. CSI needs to build itself to “people who care about documentation” or some equally big-tent sort of thing.
Don’t you think the relationship of specifications to BIM is an important topic for CSI?
I believe CSI’s main activity related to sustainable design is GreenFormat - a tool for architects/engineers and specifiers to receive better sustainable information from manufacturers - this is not a benefit to specifers?
I don’t what you mean about CSI and professional practice.
What do you mean “wants to be everything to everyone”? CSI’s mission statement certainly is not like that. Give some examples of what you are talking about.
What do you mean “actually get away from specifications”? One of first new practice guides was Construction Contract Specifications. CSI continues to strongly support the CCS education/certification program, MasterFormat, and Section/Format all strongly related to specifications. Then there is the new master specifiers event this year. I don’t think your statement has any validity.
I have seen many companies/firms that have rebranded themselves. Most, if not all, have not been successful. Sometimes the rebranding even ends up hurting the company. I would not like to see CSI go down the same path.
These companies typically get convinced by a big marketing firm to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to come up with a new name, catchy motto and slick new logo. Just think of all the printed material, awards, banners, pins, etc. that will have to be changed.
Can CSI really afford to spend the money in this economy and with declining membership?
Does CSI really expect to get more members/attendance just by changing their name and logo?
I doubt that, unless you have significant data to support it.
A logo and name change are not definite–they are options. Right now the process is in the research stage and some decisions will be made based on what the research provides.
If a change to the logo and name are made, then yes, some (and I emphasize “some”) items will need to be changed. But most printed products are time-sensitive anyway (e.g. flyers, forms, etc.), so any new name or logo can easily be incorporated as the outdated items are replaced with new items. I can’t see CSI reprinting copies of MasterFormat or the Practice Guides just due to a name or logo change. If stock runs out, new copies could have the updated image.
I don’t recall people complaining when CSI moved not once, but twice, in the past 10 years, which required address changes on everything–CSI survived that and they will survive this, if needed.
“Does CSI really expect to get more members/attendance just by changing their name and logo?” – No, we hope to get more members by the value that CSI can offer; the problem is getting that message out to the construction public, and CSI’s current image appears to be getting in the way.
I don’t see how asking members in an on-line poll how they feel about the organization and what its image is to non-members is wasteful spending.
CSI is a mere shadow of what it was 20 years ago. I want to know why we aren’t as strong as we once were and would like to chart a path to a renewal.
The past couple of years has been nothing short of brutal to the construction industry, which is down something like 20 percent, but my sense is that for specifiers, the hit was more than twice as big. The dedicated in-house spec writer would probably qualify for the endangered species list.
The downturn hit at the same time that design firms were in the process of rethinking how they produce construction documents. It is quite clear that firms don’t value specifiers the way they once did. Somehow, we need to prove that our specialized knowledge is still as important to the success of a project as it always has been. If we are no longer inside making our case, we need a way to be heard, and I believe CSI is going to be the way.
By doing member polling in an open and transparent manner rather than hiring a consultant to produce a report, the board is showing that they want the members to lead the way rather than imposing changes that don’t fit our sense of who we are and what we want to be. We have demonstrated that we can be a pretty irritable bunch if they don’t listen to us.
I hope that when people reply, they show the same kind of concern and thoughtfulness that is reflected in this discussion.
Thanks David, for bringing this up. I responded to the survey and, per usual, told them exactly what I think.
“It just seems to me that CSI has an identity crisis. It also seems to me that CSI wants to be everything to everyone and actually get away from specifications.” ← I agree. I’m watching from a distance these days as CSI becomes less and less relevant to my work as a specifier focusing on sustainability.
Ron, I do have an open mind, but I’m just not feeling the specifier love from CSI/HQ at all these days. In my view, the most valuable ‘product’ that CSI has is the certifications. Recently I saw a posting on CSInet indicating that several manufacturer written specs had been ‘approved and validated’ (I can’t remember the exact terms that were used). It seemed odd to me that CSI would promote the idea of manfacturers writing their own guide specs rather than encouraging them to have a CCS prepare it for them. To me, this devalues the CCS specifier - pushing us a little further out on the limb.
On another note, the upcoming changes to the member categories significantly narrows the range of diversity in CSI. That diversity has been, to me, a major differentiator that brought tremendous value to the organization. No polling and nothing transparent about that change Richard. Done by HQ on their own as I understand it.
My response to the survey was that soon CSI will soon be an organization of manufacturers reps talking to themselves.
What are the “upcoming changes to the member categories” to which you are referring?
In the 2011 election last February, CSI members approved an amendment to CSIs bylaws which combined the former Associate, Industry, and Professional members into a single class of members (Professional). Chapters and regions are in the process of modifying their bylaws to reflect that change to the Institute bylaws.
One may or may not agree with the results of the vote (and I didn’t), but the process was highly transparent and obviously there was polling, ie the election.
Peggy: if you look at USGBC, what are their member categories? individual, corporate and non-profit. and yet, they promote themselves as the biggest “big tent” organization out there. Member categories is pretty irrelevant. membership is what we’re looking for. I don’t really care what you call them. (and I do agree with Dave about the results of the vote, but ultimately, I don’t think its that important).
CSI messed up originally by not having corporate members (like AIA, like USGBC), and I think CSI also suffers because for most people its their “secondary” organization – their “real” organization is AIA, or National Glass, or some other targeted group that directly addresses their specific industry. Not many of us can get our companies to pay for two memberships in something.
But I do often see CSI Institute as going off and doing things that aren’t necessarily in the interests of the membership but reflect staff’s preferences or capabilities. And that, I think, is an issue. CSI has certifications, but they don’t mean anything because there are no alliances with the building users/owners (so: no demand from clients). Get a CCS required on federal work, and the institute issues will pretty much go away.
I received my copy of the March Specifier a couple of days ago and read Ron Gerens article about CSIs rebranding effort. I participated in the survey he mentions and pretty much agree with all 6 key points he lists, especially number 4 which suggests a new tagline would help clarify what CSI is about. Ron says that CSI is open to further input, will monitor brand-related discussions on the CSI Linked In Group, and offers the e-mail of the Brand Revitalization Task Team for input.
Then yesterday I received my copy of the March edition of Building Design + Construction. On page 7 theres an editorial written by Robert Cassidy entitled CSI at a turning point What is the organizations mission? Mr. Cassidy talks about much of the same things as did Ron and explains that he was asked to participate in a study group charged with the review of over 1,500 survey responses. At the end of his editorial Mr. Cassidy states that the study group made two recommendations to the CSI Board; one for the Name of the organization and one for the tagline.
Name: CSI: The Building Knowledge Network
Tagline: Advancing Project Delivery
Although I appreciate Robert’s willingness to bring CSI’s rebranding efforts to a more public front (and his willingness to participate on the Task Team), the recommendation he presented was not the final solution, but one of many possible solutions.
Please believe me, the Institute Board and the Task Team do not want this effort to move forward without the involvement and input of the CSI membership. It will be as open as physically possible.
Thanks Ron. Glad to hear that rebranding is going forward and that we’ll have a voice. As with the sentiment already expressed, I look forward to seeing the various options available.
Well, definitely they should plug something into the re-branding lingo about how CSI is going to rubberstamp manufacturers’ “guide” specs, as long as they have the paragraphs in the right order (because that’s what counts apparently): http://www.csinet.org/cdr
Do Designers request specs from manufacturers or do manufacturers try to push their “guide” specs onto Designers?
I’m usually the first to deride sillyness disguised as product. but I believe there is a bit more here than just “rubberstamping paragraphs.” Let be fair in our analysis - then complain about it.
And as for numbering paragraphs - isn’t that a big part of what CSI is about? …format, format, format. What’s wrong with promoting one of our core product areas?
Can we do more than format? sure.
Are we involved in more areas now-a-days - yes.
Sorry.
I was positive there for a minute - I’ll return to regularly scheduled sarcasm after this break.