Are there any BSD SpecLink users on this discussion forum? Can you give me your experiences with this program?
My office is very excited about buying and using this software. They believe that it will solve all of our coordination issues and help me to produce better specs faster.
Yes, I love it but it does not solve ALL problems!
However, it does wash windows and remove unsightly yellow stains!
Coordination = nothing gets deleted so you can always back track and change the spec without having to recreate the thing OR live with strikeouts /underlines until the final final draft.
You can place notes to the user that also never get deleted. Yes, I know you can add comments to Word too.
And as the sections are smaller and more terse in their language they are faster to edit. Some would say they are not as “complete”
Well, depending upon the project I agree. On most jobs, I don’t need Masterspecs sealant section with all the testing asn samples etc. it’s just toooo much. SpecLink’s works great. On some hyper critical building with complex finishes and water issues, the detailed testing etc in the masterspec section is great.
Newer version of Speclink out in the spring will have better word processing etc. and more cool stuff. Newer version of Masterworks (in the works) will also have cooler stuff
That being said, its all in how you use it. Garbage in garbage out.
I own both and use both masterspec and speclink.
PS Don’t tell anybody I use two programs! shhhhhhhhh!
Though I have to use a variety of programs for specs, SpecLink is the software I use whenever I have a choice.
It is the easiest to use, and the most frequently and comprehensively updated. Revisions you make are not wiped out by updates (a big plus!) and editing the master doesn’t delete text, but just “hides” it; you can get it back any time you need to simply by re-selecting it, without having to copy and paste back in all the relevant paragraphs from the unedited master.
You can toggle between your edited version of a paragraph and the original master text at will. And since the original master text is always still there in the background, any project can be used as a master for any subsequent project. This is the most realistic approach to workflow, since starting with the most similar recent job is one of the most efficient ways to work. (If an update comes along before you finish a job, updating it won’t wipe out your editing or your additions, and you can update the whole job with a few clicks, or selectively update only what you choose.)
Other unique features are the ability to toggle between MF95 and MF2004 at will, and the automatic “linking” of related text in various Parts and Sections (so text related to text I include or delete is also automatically included or deleted). Though that’s the fundamental feature of SpecLink, it’s probably the one I most take for granted.
Much of our work is military, requiring SpecsIntact software and the UFGS masters. Another large volume is for a large hospital complex, which requires us to use its own masters – .doc files, edited in MS Word (using “track changes” for interim review). Those two systems at least have the advantage of being tailored to the owner’s preferences.
Currently I am being required by one of our other offices to use MasterSpec for a couple of jobs, so I got permission to use the short language version (with the requisite upgrade to our license). I must say that, despite my frustration in the past wading through MasterSpec (it seemed like walking in mud), MasterWorks makes the editing process efficient enough to make MasterSpec tolerable. But it still lacks the benefits mentioned above, most of which are unique to specLink.
This is the first time I have used MasterSpec for a whole job in years, and my first experience with MasterWorks. I use MasterSpec mainly as a fairly comprehensive reference tool – like the Encyclopedia Britannica – and occasionally as a source of sections not found in SpecLink (though MasterSpec sometimes also lacks sections I need). MasterSpec’s Supplemental Documents are, in my opinion, more useful than the master text itself.
As master text, it is way too unwieldy. It seems to be written in a deliberatly verbose, redundant style, to maximize the bulk – as if we were paid by the word, or the page. (How else would one explain its default triple-spacing between articles, than as a way to use as much paper as possible?)
I have been using spec database software from Speclink’s developers since the early 1990’s – back in the days of SpecSystem, their first, DOS-based spec database software, and now through the two generations of SpecLink. BSD is a first-class organization, with great people, software based on the right technological foundation (a database, not just editable text), and very helpful toll-free support when needed.
I look forward to the fourth generation, “SpecLink-E”, due out soon in Beta, with a host of further innovations.
I have often heard that BSD does not have as complete of section text, but I can not say that first hand as I am not a BSD user. Arcom has partnered with Interspec to offer the e-SPECS system with MASTERSPEC content. It looks like a best of both worlds approach - the content of MASTERSPEC, should you ever WANT to have all those sealants or field QC and testing etc etc, and the database driven checkbox and smart editing features. I have only pilot tested so far and seen a few demos. If you get their e-SPECS Designer program, you can even write the checkboxes and define the relationships for complete master customization. Also the full version of e-SPECS can be told to go out and read what is in AutoCAD/ADT dwg files or a Revit model and give you a jumpstart - of course this means working with the design teams early so they select materials appropriately.
Yes and close to 6000 dollars per year later you STILL have to write specs. If you own masterspec you STILL have to buy another copy (in a database format) to run e-specs. All that money for some pre-editing. Whoop-te-do as my sainted mother used to say. As you can tell I’m not yet ready to subscribe to e-specs.
E-Specs came along awhile back, just as I faced a seemingly impossible deadline (which included a requirement to use MasterSpec, the massiveness of which I felt would only make it harder to meet the deadline). I thought maybe E-Specs would be the best of both worlds. Tried the demo. Great demo. If anything, I liked it’s “look” even better than SpecLink. So we got the program. Big difference. I don’t know why, but I could not make it work for me; I found it utterly unusable. But, hey – great demo. Surely by now it has been fixed, but somehow I’m not interested anymore.
I’m speculating, but SpecLink-E will likely have many of the the same new features (such as checklists, and linking to AutoCad and Revit) – and, without the coordination problems inherent in joint-venture-produced software, they may well be better executed.
SpecLink has worked well for my firm. Our work includes multi-family residential, from stick built houses to concrete frame high-rises, usually for Owner/Developers, and we need a highly customized spec to respond to our project types and Owner types. I’ve been using SpecLink for 10 years, since I inherited Bob Johnsons masters in Word Perfect for Mac. At that time we were transitioning from Mac to PC, and Word came bundled with Windows. Unless you manipulate macros like Dave Lorenzini, Word is very difficult to use for specs. SpecLink easily allowed me to import Bobs language into our masters, although I often kept SpecLinks language when appropriate.
I saw the e-specs presentation at my local Revit Users Group meeting. It looks a lot more like SpecLink now. Like Marc, I wasnt impressed. Because you edit SpecLink by selection, not deletion, you always see the entire master even if you start with a previous similar project. We keep our master pre-edited to our defaults and can get where e-specs gets with their $6k/year system by just opening the app and selecting the sections we need. The fine-tuning is made easier with the intuitive link system.
We maintain a subscription to Masterspec and use their text occasionally, but Masterspecs real value is the evaluations.
SpecLink certainly has unique features and benefits. The edit-by-selection feature, automatic generation of tables (contents, submittals, and others), and automatic section-to-section coordination are fun to work with.
However, in the end, the text - which is what we are all about - needs a lot of work. There are many work results classifications in SpecLink for which no text is provided. The classifications are listed, but you have to write and import the text. And there is a generous amount of strange grammar and syntax that need fixing.
Yes, you can add your own text and you can modify the script provided to suit your needs; yes, you can import entire sections. This is good. But you have to manually update the stuff you import.
Language is our currency, and MASTERSPEC leads that race. Arcom’s quarterly review process by a diverse and evolving group of design professionals is exemplary. And MASTERWORKS has developed to the point that SpecLink no longer has the market cornered on convenience. Of course, the Evaluations provide a great knowledge resource, as has been mentioned.
There is no magic dust - no system that is a panacea for all of our problems. But I urge you to look past the conveniences and read the text before subscribing to a system. The text is where the knowledge, research, and commitment to the profession is evident.