Now we am being told by several architect clients that the word ‘specifications’ is bad and they would like us to find another way to label our work - ‘Specifications are bad they say, what else can we call them?’ let’s change the name ‘Project Manual’to "Control Book’, they say, it is getting ridiculous, specifications are being attacked, at least in private sector work - so anyone else having this problem, lessons learned, strategies to combat this attack would be appreciated - architects it seems support specifications, but it is their clients instigated by lawyers and contractors who seem to be priming the cannons for this new attack, and some architects are giving in - will specifications and specwriters survive?
Jeez, Jerome, you sure do get some of the most bizzare situations.
I have never heard of this.
You need to move your place of business and let that area just drift away in a big storm or continental drift or something appropriate to the geography. Move first though!
William
This in my view, Mr. Lazar, is an attempt at a major cultural change, for very minimal and questionable reasons. Specifications are deeply engrained in the entire documentation process, including the widely used AIA and NSPE documents, among others. There seems to be a weird need [???] for change, mainly for some unspokeb agenda.
We had one client who wanted to discard specs entirely in favor of their corporate standards. My hunch is this is all part of a “reduce the bottom line” syndrome, pursued with little knowledge and less wisdom-- they simply don’t understand!
A good healthy, nasty, massive award lawsuit may be of help in “orienting them”!!! Just take care you’re not involved!
Seems like a GREAT place for CSI to get involved, supporting the professionals, and “educating” clients.
I agree with william.
I used to give specification presentations. One of my slides had a quotation on it: “Who makes the decision and when?” Detailed decisions regarding products, materials, and systems are best made as early on in the process as reasonable, thus, detailed specifications.
My list of “who” might make these decisions and when, includes: The Owner, before design (program); Design professional, during design phases; Bidders during bidding; Contractor/subcontractor during construction. Last on the list is Mother Nature during occupancy. (Example: Not enough control joints specified/detailed?; OK Mother will supply them where they are needed post construction. Owner still pays.) Please note, it gets more expensive down the decision road. Without going into a great deal of detail here, there are many interests served by delaying the specification of products and materials. I maintain the underlying philosophy that design is best made, in the interest of the Owner and general public, early and during design phases to thoroughly resolve the design. Those who wish to delay detailed decision making have something to gain. I even hold the “extreme” position that performance specifying is too much abused. Move away from there!
Well William
what fun would I have if I did not have these idiot clients - still have not heard back from the one who wanted us to rewrite the specs to eliminate all standards - we answered with a simple NO, 4 months later, they have yet to respond - this board helped in my decision on that one - just looking for more perspectives - but whoa there, you are attacking my beloved Florida - where the sun is always shining, and it is always way too hot, where we fear for our lives 4 months of the year during hurricane season - up goes the shutters, down comes the shutters, where the humidity is always high and uncomfortable - why would I ever consider working in DC - ya do get snow and it does get cold - not my favorite, not to mention George Bush - also not a favorite, but I am working on several projects in your neck of the woods, so we will see how those jobs go - me thinks this attack is not just Florida based, we’ll see.
Jerome - Are all these attacks on specs coming from your multi-family residential market that I think you specialize in or are other project types/clients involved?
PS - We have a lot of sun and warmth in sunny New Mexico without the humidity or the huricanes!
Jerome,
That’s it, its way to much sun - tell those guys to start wearing hats and quit drinking out in the sun and they will start to see your point of view.
Seriously though, even in the hot multi-family residential market here in the DC area, I have not heard of these kinds of requests.
I still think its drinking in the sun without a hat.
William
Well William, you may be on to something as I just returned from 8 days in St John VI - lots of sun and a little drinking too - but seriously upon my return, not one, but three architect clients asking about eliminating, or renaming, or reinventing specifications - not just on multi-family residential but also on hospitality and commercial projects - hmmm, I still think we are being attacked…on a pleasant note, had a great vacation.
Why don’t we just call them “Installation Instructions” like they give you when you buy a bike at Toy-R-Us. We could buy buildings there too! Jeezle-peets.
We could just hire Korea to write them for us, since they do so well on the bikes. “Insert Tab A into Slot B”, or better, “Insert Screw A into left brain, turn clockwise til colors appear”, etc. What a drag! If buildings were so easy to build, everyone would be doing it.
Is it possible your clients are talking to each other, and concluding that if someone else likes the idea it must be a good one? then trying it out on you to see what will happen?
Brett, that reminds me of one of the more memorable lines from the novel “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance”: One of the characters, asked to assemble a Japanese bicycle for a young relative’s Christmas present, starts by reading the instructions(!), which begin with the admonition, “Assembly of Japanese bicycle require great peace of mind…”
Hmmm - Susan might be on target. This does make one wonder if the people who brought you the con-struction risk mitigation service (or whatever they called themselves) are now out on the Florida seminar circuit trying to make a living that way.
Renaming the Specifications / Project Manual: How about;
“Work Results Book”?
“Manual of Work Results”?
“An Instruction Manual to Ensure the Results of the Work are as Intended”?
“The big book that holds drawings down in the wind”?
seems like “A rose by any other name” applies here.
How about “Supplementary Notes to the Drawings” or simply “Supplementary Plan Notes”? These would position the text as part of the drawings (or better yet, “the plans”) – back where it started. Full circle.
Is there something in the water? Too much flouride? Too much 'gator droppings? Seriously; no, I can’t be too serious-- it’s just way too ludicrous!
It’s not just tradition and custom; it’s not just standard forms’ it’s not just a good idea; it’s a matter of more than 100 years of case law that recognizes Drawings and Specifications as an integral part of the construction contract with all the responsibilities, duties, and rights that go along with contract law. Although torts and fraud do enter occassionally into the discussion, it is common and case law on contracts that is applicable to the interpretation of the Specifications and Drawings.
It really seems like these parties want to take the Specifications out of the contract without understanding what that means. In “A Man For All Seasons”, a young man declares to Sir Thomas More that he would tear down all the laws in England to get at the Devil. Thomas then asks what he would then hide behind when the Devil turned on him.
Contracts (especially construction contracts) are like that. They (including the specifications) tend to get in the way of getting what you want; but they also can protect you when someone comes looking for you (not in a good way). In my view, this also applies to the myriad of other ancillary subcontracts, material contracts, and purchase orders that are generated by the general construction contract.
Drawings and Specifications document a “virtual” object (the vision of a physical object). They document a set of decisions and commitments made not only by a team design professionals, but also by a client team. A good set of Drawings and Specifications in the hands of a good Contractor will still contain a few inconsistencies, errors, and conflicts, and will still generate a number of RFIs. These are the inherent nature of a human team attempting to describe in detail a virtual object so that another human team can construct a phisical object that is reasonably close to the virtual object. When the virtual object is incompletely conceived and poorly planned and described, the descriptions (Drawings and Specifications) will get in the way–“No, we wanted a 5-story building 214 feet long, not a 214 story building 5 feet long! I know that’s what we said we wanted, but you should have known better!”
In my experience, people who avoid the committment of executing a contract for a complex undertaking are generally going to avoid making decisions and committments (and signing checks) throughout the life of the project. They are generally lacking experience in the serious world of commerce. They will ultimately fail, usually in an undertaking of sufficient magnitude to adversely affect a number of people.
This seems to be the natural progression of where architects have been headed for the past 30 years - losing parts of their “traditional” services to design-builders until they are completely superfluous to the construction process. Eventually, we all will be working for builders or finding another line of work.
Absolutely bizarre!
Small ray of hope-- if specs go; and we go, so will the attorneys, who will no longer have the words to fight over!
At least they’ll have to move to other areas of law [may not be all that bad, overall]
Richard is right! so long “Master Builder.” We are SO risk averse that we are willing to let anybody have any part of the building process so long as they take the risk. BUT please leave us in charge of aesthetics only. (Oh! Stop me before I rant off topic)
Back to names for the big book, I have had several requests for specifications in lieu of “Project Manual”, based upon an assumption that if no bid instructions are included that its just a spec I refuse. Why. Because I AM the spec writer and closer to the right hand of God than any mere architect!
Although; God does like to play Architect on his day off.