Having tried to use Word instead of WordPerfect to write in the highly formatted CSI style, I find it hard to hold Word still while I think. It is always slipping out from under me, and doing what IT wants.
Needless to say, it cuts productivity 50%.
Has anyone in Microsoft or CSI or SCIP ever come up with a guide to settings that make MS Word efficient for composing specs?
Tom:
Our office standardized on Word when the version was Word 5 and we had no choice but to convert from WordPerfect at that time. We are currently using Word 2000. When converting from WordPerfect to Word 5, one of our admin people created a “spec” toolbar with a series of macros based on “styles” to format text into the different levels of formatting (Part 1, 1.1, A, 1, a, etc.), as well as a macro for creating a “blank” line. The toolbar and its macros then become part of our “normal.dot” file. The spec formatting macros work well for us, but we have found that when Word was upgraded to 97 and especially when the 2000 update occurred, the macros created in a previous Word version had to be revised.
Hope this helps.
Tracy Van Niel
Tracy:
We’ve been struggling with the conversion. We’ve graduated to WordPerfect 9.0 and Word 2000. To your knowledge is there a firm that creates macros similar to (Arcom) MasterWorks for the conversion in the US or Canada? It’d save us a lot of time.
Gerard Sanchis
I am seriously considering upgrading to WordPerfect 9.0 and trying the voice control features. Has anyone had experience with file conversions between WordPerfect 9.0 and MS Word 2000? How do they work, from and to each other?
/John Regener
I suggest you ask David Stutzman to comment on this. He prepares the SpecText documents in WP and Word. He writes the macros for Word Perfect and uses a consultant for Word. I am sending him a copy of this URL for his input.
Gerard:
When we converted from WordPerfect it was a DOS version, so not only did we have a learning curve of WordPerfect to Word, but we also had a learning curve of just going from a DOS environment to a Windows environment!!
I am not aware of a company that markets itself as being capable of creating the macros that you need. Our computer consultant at the time couldn’t figure out how to get “Part” in front of the 1, 2, and 3 and one of our admin people who was a whiz at Word was the one to figure that out.
It is very true that conversion from one program to the other is very time consuming. We usually have at least one co-workers high school offspring working at our office over the summer, and the year we converted from WordPerfect to Word, that was one of the “jobs” assigned to them.
Has any of this group tried using outline levels with linked styles in Word 97? I’ve been using this relatively simple non-macro process to some degree of success. It just requires some formatting of the multi-level outline system. Any thoughts?
Richard:
I think the macros I’m talking about and the outline levels with linked styles you refer to are the same. Our macros are based on styles that have been modified for the specific article headings that we want to use. We then created a “spec” toolbar that contains all of the formatting macros. Previously, the biggest problem was getting the “Part” in front of the 1, 2, and 3.
I suppose for my firm it’s probably a “moot” point because we are in the process of converting to SpecLink and will not be using Word for specifications once that process is complete!
Tracy Van Niel
Tracy:
I’ve been very interested in this SpecLink. Could you share your thoughts on it’s application? Are you using the new 32-bit version?
One of the weaknesses I’ve seen is doing schedules. The other is the lack of graphic capability. (We are collectively going in that direction whether we want to or not.) What of hyper-linking with referred to manufacturers?
Richard:
The 32-bit version won’t be released until sometime this Fall so we are using the original version at the present time.
Some of the questions you have raised, I can’t really answer. We do not incorporate graphics into our specification sections so if the program is lacking in being able to support graphics, then it doesn’t have much meaning to us. If we need to incorporate graphics at all in the project manual, they are usually generated in a program other than Word and the sheets are inserted in the correct place.
Regarding schedules, we currently have not been having problems with incorporating schedules because the way we do it so to have a series of paragraphs. If your schedule is set up as a table, then I can see how that might be a problem. I would suggest contacting BSD’s support to ask that question because I have found them to be extremely helpful and always available!
The sections currently do not have hyperlinking with manufacturers (I assume you are referring to a link to the manufacturer’s website?).
Before we made the switch to SpecLink, I called several companies who were using it and almost every one of them said that they used it as it came “out of the box”. Our firm has been going through a conversion process, which has been a very prolonged (and sometimes painful) process because it’s being fit in around project deadlines. But, because we want to incorporate our “isms” into the SpecLink text (and in some cases prepare brand new sections due to our markets served), our conversion has been taking a long time to do.
I have found SpecLink to be easy to use and have been able to learn the basics of functioning within the program on my own without attending one of the training sessions. Attending a training session would probably be good though to learn all of the nuances involved.
If you’re going to the CSI convention, you might want to stop by BSD’s booth (they typically exhibit)and ask some of the questions you posed. I would be interested in hearing their solution to a table type schedule.
Tracy Van Niel
For an example of using Word outline feature with linked styles check out the sample sections from SPECTEXT at www.spectext.com. You can download the samples and try them.
We are faced with conversions between WordPerfect and Word all the time. We find that moving from WordPerfect to Word is the easier of the two. However, converting styles into Word requires cleanup to correct and reapply the styles so the auto numbering works right.
It seems from what has been said that “PART” is an obstacle. I never write “section” in front of the 5-digit number referring to a section any more. So why are we still writing “PART” after 30 years?
CSI revisers of the MoP and SectionFormat take note.
I see some specs that just number 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, etc. It’s perfectly clear. If morons are permitted to read your spec, I suggest a simple statement up in Division 1 that 1, 2 and 3 refer to GENERAL, PRODUCTS and EXECUTION as described in CSI SectionFormat.
Afterthought:
Another way is to just type in PRODUCTS on a line of its own when starting the 2.1, 2.2 series. And the same for the other two PARTS.
When writng shortform for printing directly on the drawings I find the 1.1, 1.2, 2.1 etc. sufficient. Space is at a premium there.
Since there are 50,000 preparers of specs in the US, and probably 450,000 readers, why doesn’t SCIP suggest to Microsoft that the CSI format be included on the MS formats menu along with the 5th Grade/college stylebook, legal, legislative, US govt, and other outlining methods?
Too many people are spinning too many wheels on a format that was Sliced Bread 30 years ago, but that is due to be streamlined just a little to work well with Word and WordPerfect, and possibly minimize conversion problems in the bargain.
6 moths later and we’ve finished the conversion to Word. It’s not perfect yet but getting close. We’ve created a series of templates that automatically format a spec section based on our own format or any of our client’s format.
The conversion was helped by the fact that we all took classes at a local college, and that we are lucky to have hired a word fearless word processor. She made it easy on all of us after a few tries. We’re now up and running and it’s made our work easier with our client who are all using Word, with few exceptions.
You might want to follow the same approach, that is to use custom templates to format your documents.
Gerard:
Let me get this conversion thing straight. You converted from a word processing program that did everything that you wanted it to do? Or, are there distinct advantages (such as “templates” or “styles”) that make the conversion an enhancement to your productivity?
You and your staff invested in a very substantial learning process to make a word processing program, that some say is difficult to use in the outline format that we write in, work for specifications production.
Besides the ability to exchange files with your clients and project Owners and Construction Managers, in the native format of MS Word, what is the advantage? Do mechanical and electrical engineers now provide you with better specs that you can readily reformat for project-specific headers and footers?
Why should a specifier give a client specifications files in a word processing format (Word or WordPerfect) rather than Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)? Is it to make it easier for the Owner or Construction Manager to modify the specs?
What if there is no word processing program involved with production of the specs? That would be the case if BSD SpecLink is used.
But you don’t have to take me seriously. Afterall, I’m still driving an '83 Volvo with 271,000 miles that I bought new. … and I’m still not convinced that indoor plumbing is more than a passing fad ;-).
I have quit buying updates to programs when the only evident purpose of the program updates is the publisher’s bottom line. MS Word 2000 is clearly in that category.
In my work as a general contractor, many years ago, I found I spent considerable time and money photocopying specification sections for subcontractors in bidding projects. The photocopies often came out unclear because they were copies of copies ofcopies of…from the architects. I asked two architects if they would provide disks instead of books. They both said they were SURE I would edit their specs in order to cheat the owners on materials or methods. Is that really done?
Alan, I have not heard of it. In read-only there would be no problem. Come back to the same architects in 2 years and you will find that they have joined their colleagues in isuing everything electronically - without fear of moonlight editing.
The only people I’ve heard talking about the specs being altered if on a disc are those generating the specs. Burn a CD instead. At least then you’d have proof of the original. Bottom line, of course, is that anything can be altered if someone wants to bad enough. Just as it could be changed 50 years, 100 years ago, if someone wanted to bad enough. Maintaining a “permanent” original would seem to be the answer.
Having applied several wordprocessing programs over the past 20 plus years in order to obtain automatic alpha-numeric outlining in the CSI 3-part format, I have recently been faced with having to do so using WORD 2000. Learning the program by osmosis and with reference to a Sybex-published manual, with great effort I was able in late spring to produce my first set of specs with fully automated CSI outline sections in WORD 2000. Now my challenge is develop a set of masters from this project and others, but in order to do so, I will want to establish a master style format which can be applied directly to new projects or easily modified to suit the preferences of various public sector owners. My solution to this problem, using WORD 2000, has been, section by section, to redefine a style associated with a particular outline level, rename that style using WORD’s “Organizer”, and then save the redefined and renamed style under a new template name. While this procedure avoids reformating a section paragraph by paragraph by using WORD’s “paint brush”, it does require modifying the outline styles in each section. Can anyone suggest a better method or does anyone have an idea what would be required to develop a macro or wizard within WORD to perform such conversions? I assume this is not a problem for those whose masters derive from SpecText, MasterSpec, or SpecLink, and, given their editing tools, I am tempted to recommend acquisition of one of those systems, but not yet.
Reid:
I work with MasterSpec and they have an excellent paragraph numbering and style setup.
To save some trouble, obtain any MasterSpec document which has their paragraph styles. Delete the contents and save the document as a template.
The next time you want to create a new section, open a new document using the template. All the paragraph styles will be there. To even simplify things further, you can save in the template file the Section Title, footers, PARTS, and even a paragraph in each PART. You can use the “increase indent” and “decrease indent” toolbar buttons to apply paragraph numbering levels.