Note the graphic of the rubber stamp in their promotional message… ;o) And the note that they are not reviewing technical content, only format. Too funny to me.
CSI has at least twice paid consultants to survey the construction industry and find out what members and others perceive CSI to be. The survey taken while I was on the board indicated CSI was well-known, but considered a bit stodgy. I suspect similar results would be obtained today. As David noted, this comes up every so often; how many times will we seek the same information, at what price?
One of the things that disturbed me about the recent survey was what appeared to be a predetermined result - that the name will change. Other questions did not allow for a full range of responses, but that is typical of surveys.
While I understand the possible value of re-branding, I also am aware of the risk of a name change. Is it wise to give up name recognition on the chance the new name will be so sexy everyone will want to join? A gradual change from one name to another is possible, but adds cost and may reduce the supposed impact of the new name.
One of the big questions is, what do we offer that is unique? What sets CSI apart from similar organizations?
AIA pretty much has a corner on education, so that’s off the table. Most organizations offer networking and fun parties, not much difference there. Our love of what we did so well decades ago kept us from seeing the change from paper to electronic documentation, and the BIM train left the station without CSI. Certification has little practical value, because it is not required, as are professional licensing and LEED AP. AIA has a captive audience, and it seems everyone knows AIA means architect.
As Anne notes, there may be a common belief that CSI is for specifiers only, though why anyone who went to a meeting would believe that I can’t understand. Perhaps what seems to be a recent increase in promoting CSI beyond its members will help.
Until we know what CSI does, what makes it important, and what it has to offer, there is no point in changing its name. I suspect all those things were clear twenty years ago; what is different now? It’s easy to blame the economy, but it’s more than that; AIA and USGBC seem to be doing quite well.
The tag line, or motto, or slogan, or whatever it’s called, should be more than something to fill space; it has to make sense. It also should stand on its own, with little need for explanation. Apologies to those who suggested the following examples; they sound good, but it isn’t clear what they mean.
The Building Knowledge Network - what knowledge would that be?
Advancing Project Delivery - do we do that?
Those are better than some of the goals in our strategic plan a few years ago:
“CSI will be the premier integrating force for creating and sustaining the built environment.”
“CSI will be the primary gateway to resources for programs, services, and the exchange of knowledge.”
They sounded great, but were they achievable?
Maybe we don’t need a slogan. I’d rather skip it than have something that is difficult to explain.
And then there’s the mission statement: “The Construction Specifications Institute advances the process of creating and sustaining the built environment for the benefit of the construction community by using the diversity of its members to exchange knowledge.”
I have yet to hear someone say that without rolling their eyes, or even gagging. Heck, most members can’t even remember what it is. It is good for buzzword bingo, though.
Looking back to the old “Advancement of Construction Technology”, maybe it makes sense again, what with computers and BIM and all. Or a slight update, assuming we are able to continue what we started: “Advancement of Construction Communication” - which is what CSI has been doing all along.
“Most organizations offer networking and fun parties, not much difference there.” The difference with CSI networking is that it with all the participants in the design/construction industry - big difference from networking only with your fellow architects, product reps, contractors, etc.
I also had some problems with the survey - for one, the subject of construction contract administration was never mentioned in the survey. More people take the CCCA exam over the CCS exam by a very wide margin each year. Specifications was in the survey over and over again, and construction contract administration was not even mentioned?
I must admit that I have long ago gotten tired of the 5 year cycle of the planning committees that have come up with a new mission statement each time instead of concentrating on the strategic plan to achieve the mission - Sheldon lists some of the resulting bad statements. As Sheldon states, how many members could state the current mission statement word for word??? I know I couldn’t. It needs to be simple and to the point. Every member should be able to say it without having to think - it should be natural to them.
Sheldon’t last suggestion (Advancement of Construction Communication"} is actually going back to 20-30 years ago - it was the mission statement for quite a few years. In my mind you don’t change the mission statement every five years unless there has been some major change in the organization like a change in who the membership is - you periodically evaluate your strategic plan to achieve the mission in light of changing times. I for one don’t think that the mission of the Institute has ever changed from the “Advancement of Construction Communications” in the last 25 years. Yes, the means of communication has and is changing, but that doesn’t change the mission statement, that changes the strategic plan to achieve the mission.
Regarding the name change debate. That was also a Board issue in the late 80’s and was assigned to a task team for research. The recommendation that was accepted by the Board was to totally emphasize “CSI” rather the title in words. The primary example of that time was “IBM” - how many people knew it stood for International Business Machines? We have all sorts of examples today in the media - who knows what ESPN stands for? But yet is has a very strong identity. The idea was to keep the “CSI identity” while getting rid of the restrictive words of the full title that did not reflect the full mission of the Institute. Unfortunately the staff of that time never followed through on that Board action and continued to use the full name in communications and Board members never called them on it (I am one of the guilty parties).
“The difference with CSI networking is that it with all the participants in the design/construction industry - big difference from networking only with your fellow architects, product reps, contractors, etc.”
As Ed McMahon would say, “You are correct, sir!” That must be part of the message, though; “networking” by itself doesn’t say much.
I love reading posts from Bob and other elder members. It seems every time I come up with something, I learn that it’s something we either did, or considered doing, years ago.
A big problem with volunteer organizations is their reliance on individuals to get things going, and then to keep them going. I have seen many initiatives get off to a good start, only to fade away when the officer or committee chair responsible moved on. For an organization so deeply involved in communication and documentation, we do a miserable job recording our actions and thoughts.
I recommend that Institute forgets promoting their activities and focuses on promoting their local chapters.
CSI’s strength is in the local chapter community and the relationships built there and not in the Institute’s contribution to the community beyond what it has already done with standards.
A judo or aikido move against the flow.
Just my opinion.
I agree with Colin and I don’t, we need strong chapters. we also need national level products and opportunities that small chapters just can’t produce.
NOT to get political but…How would you build a interstate highway system using only city monies and private business??
on a lighter side see my next post.
MISSION STATEMENT CREATION
Please select one sentence from each category.
FUNDAMENTAL COMPONENTS OF A MISSION STATEMENT:
WHO ARE WE?
We’re you and me.
We’re young professionals looking for the spotlight.
We’re experienced leaders sharing the limelight.
We’re fathers playing baseball on a summer evening with our kids.
We’re mothers packing another school lunch.
We’re America growing strong.
WHAT DO WE DO?
We’re building a better America today for tomorrow!
We’re discovering our future in our past.
We’re fighting terrorism at home and abroad with the tools of democracy.
WHO DO WE DO IT FOR?
We do it for Mrs. Jones and the guy across the street.
We do it for major corporations and sole proprietors.
We do it for the government and the governed.
We do it for multi-nationals and
We do it for ourselves.
HOW DO WE DO IT?
We’re using tomorrows technology to solve yesterdays problems for todays success story.
We’re using communication to silence the calls of despair.
WHY DO WE DO IT?
We’re driven by a passion for doing!
Because its there!
Why? Because we LIKE you!
I hate to tell you, Sheldon, but the mission statement you quote was replaced in the FY2011-2015 Strategic Plan with this: “The mission of CSI is to advance building information management and education of project teams to improve facility performance.”
I noticed recently that we’ve had a tagline on the magazine for many years. Under “The Construction SPECIFIER” it says “Solutions for the Construction Industry”. Why should that be a tagline only for the magazine? I don’t recall ever seeing it used elsewhere and it seems like it would apply to the organization as a whole.
I thought we were using yesterday’s technologies to solve tomorrow’s problems to make up for today’s promises of success.
So, can we decide to just go with CSI (no byline, and verbally let people know we’re not the TV guys) and revert back to some variation of “Advancing Construction Communication?”
How about “Getting people to talk with each other without resorting to sharp objects?”
Well, what I thought was the funniest was the last line in the announcement of the CSI approved documents:
See Guide Specs Apprved through the CDR Program.
I have a hard time seeing a successful campaign for documents when the marketing piece has a very prominent misspelling right in the link.
I think the real mission of the Institute should be “providing enough value so that employers think having a lot of certified professionals is a good idea.” CSI needs to commission a study or two showing the value of the CCS; the value of the CCCA, and perhaps the value of the CCPR. We can’t market these certifications just as another credential – we need to show fewer claims, smaller claims or something that would demonstrate an ROI for firm ownership or building management.
Just because we (almost intuitively) understand the value of the certifications, as Anne’s stated we should be able to quantitatively prove it.
How about “CSI: More than just formats”?
My experience as a CSI member is limited to the last decade I joined shortly after I became a full time specifier. As a generalist practicing architecture, I of course thought I could write specifications, just because, well, I was an architect , Id done it lots of times before, and jeez, thats part of what we architects do, isnt it? But it didnt take long to realize how much I needed to learn.
What CSI did was take me from real dumb to real smart, real fast. Seems to me that is what we do best at CSI. Dont know exactly where to specify something, or what a section should look like? We have the formats for that. Want to figure out specifications, or construction contract administration, or product representation? We have certifications and training for that. Have a specific question about a tricky construction related issue? As my mentor and friend Bob Teller often says, Pick up the phone and start calling CSI contacts.
A few years ago I did a presentation for our chapter on specifications, and was taken aback to be introduced as a expert in specifications thats a humbling thing to be called given the length and quality of experience seen from those who I considered to be the real experts (most of you folks who post here and have multiple decades of specification experience, instead of just one). But humbling or not, it is certainly true, I am now one of the experts in specifications in St. Louis. And that happened quickly real dumb to real smart, real fast because when writing specifications became my full time job, I was able to tap into the inexhaustible wellspring of knowledge that is CSI.
It will never be the tag line or the mission statement or the slogan: CSI: takes you from real dumb to real smart, real fast! But for me, that rings truest and its why I continue to stay a member and to stay involved.
It has been my belief for about 10 years now that what CSI is very good at and where it has contributed the most is the development of organizational structures for construction data thereby converting the data into useful information. There have been other useful contributions from CSI, but it is this area in which they continue to contribute. Although this has primarily been in the area of specifications, CSI’s contributions have been to in the area of Procurement and Contracting Requirements, Drawings (interesting that CSI seems to have taken the lead in this one although AIA participated), and BIM. I believe that ultimately, CSI’s contributions to and support of OmniClass will make it the defacto structure for BIM.
For me personally, CSI has also been about collegiality and fellowship and the willingness to share information. At this stage of my career, I get as much out of a 30-minute conversation from another CSI member (professional or industry) as I do from a formal presentation in an education setting. At my last CSI Show, I did not sign up for any education sessions, but walked the floor of the show and talked to colleagues. I felt like I has as successful of a “CSI experience” as I have had at the other 20 I have attended.
The mission statement was “The Construction Specifications Institute advances the process of creating and sustaining the built environment for the benefit of the construction community by using the diversity of its members to exchange knowledge.” Then it changed to “The mission of CSI is to advance building information management and education of project teams to improve facility performance.” If you look back further you will find that it has changed about every 5 years for some time.
Anyone notice the revolution? A change in the mission statement would indicate a major change in direction by the Institute our reason for existence has changed, the makeup of our membership has changed, we have decided to take on a whole new area of responsibilities. I pay pretty close attention to what goes on at the Institute, and I havent noticed any changes of that significance.
It is interesting to note that Sheldon didnt have the current mission statement and that Sheryl was the only one to notice (I certainly didnt notice). This illustrates how much the membership is paying attention to a mission statement that changes every 5 years. What percentage of the membership keeps up with the constantly changing mission statements? I would say very little.
Mission statements should be short and to the point you should not have to work to try and remember and understand long statements. What percentage of the membership can remember the long current statement, or the longer one before it? You cant even twitter these statements! Every member should be able to state the mission of the Institute without having to think about the exact words.
Mission statements should remain constant for an organization unless there is some major change such as a significant change in the makeup of the membership you are representing or serving, or the organization is moving into a whole new area of involvement. If there are not these sorts of major changes for the organization, why would the mission statement be constantly changing? By contrast, the strategic plan under the mission does need to be periodically evaluated and revised to meet changing times, changing challenges, past failures, past successes, etc. If you are changing your mission statement every five years, you are confused about who you are.
Several of us (Sheldon, Ken, myself) in this discussion are in agreement that it is about construction communications advancement, improvement, improving take your pick of words. I think Peter is also saying that in talking about development of organizational structures for construction data that is construction communications in the broad sense. All CSI programs center on this understanding each others roles (you need to understand the person or organization you are communicating with), understanding the basic documents of communication, understanding how to organize and communicate information to all the other participants. I think that this has been true for CSI for at least 30 years, and in fact it was the formal mission statement of the Institute back in the 80s. The type and means of communication has changed radically since that time and it will change even more in the world of BIM and IDP. It will always be a challenge for CSI to keep up with the changing means, methods, and content of construction communications; but it has always been about construction communications.
Sheryl, you didn’t either hate to tell me! 
Yep, you’re right; I was looking at older documents for examples of not-so-great goals. We seem to have made some progress since then.
The point is, Sheldon, that you are pretty alert to what’s going on but, as Bob noted, it’s not easy to keep up with mission statements that change every five years or so. Each time we develop a new strategic plan, we have a new consultant with their own catch phrases and ways of developing the plan. And yet, do we actually change much?
I think the Plan is largely about how to accomplish our goals. We need to own our niche centered on construction communications or solutions or whatever our “brand” needs to be and be consistent in how we present ourselves.