The Attack is on - Specifications are no good, they say - oops, we are they?

Archive of Older Topics Archive - Specifications Discussions #2
21

‘Control Book’ Yeah now that sounds good! Architects don’t ‘approve’ submittals but we do have ‘control’!

Control book sounds too much like an HVAC operations and maintenance manual. The maintenance people may get confused.

The ‘specifications’ or ‘spec book’ is actually called a ‘project manual’. Those words have been used for what thousands or maybe millions of projects? No problem so far. What is there problem?

Jerome, tell you clients to quit muddling and let you do your job!

BTW, If you do change the word ‘specifications’ to ‘control’ then you will have to reprint your business cards to read ‘control book writer’ instead of ‘specifications writer’ or ‘controller’ instead of ‘specifier’.

22

If “Specifications” are written by “Specifiers,” are “Project Manuals” written by “Project Manualiers”?

23

You know if we go back to Mr. Lazar’s original problem, we might apply some code administration techniques [used when dealing with a code offical making seemingly unfounded demands]–

Ask those “suggesting” the need for the change in name, to offer/present/give-over some solid substaniating information, case law or other documentation that addresses the issue, or presents the issue. If, however, they are playing out a “fad”, the pox on them for alarmism-- and the answer to that is simply, “NO”!

24

Ralph, that is an excellent suggestion!

25

This is an interesting thread.

I recently came across The Performance Based Studies Research Group (PBSRG)developed by Dr. Dean Kashiwagi in 1994 at Arizona State University’s Del E. Webb School of Construction. The PBSRG is a non-profit research group that has done extensive research on:

Best-value procurement and performance contracting
Decision-making support systems using artificial intelligence models
Risk management / risk minimization processes
Information-based systems
Collecting and implementing Past Performance Information (PPI)
Supply Chain management
Increasing company efficiency /productivity

URL: www.pbsrg.com
Also http://www.eas.asu.edu/pbsrg/overview/overview.htm

There is a book in the subject titled:
Best Value Procurement by Dean T. Kashiwagi

Best Value Procurement focuses on the source of poor performance in the construction industry, and how the Information Measurement Theory (IMT) and the Performance Information Procurement System (PIPS) can help minimize and solve these problems.

I quote the following from the web site:
"This book answers many industry questions, including:

How to identify the best value
How to compare price and performance
How to collect, store, and use past performance information
How to implement the PIPS process
How to sustain a best-value process in the construction industry
How to increase performance by minimizing management
How to increase quality without spending more
How to minimize litigation and increase partnering with very little management

Assisted by case studies, Best Value Procurement presents more than fifteen years of research results on how to maximize performance in a seemingly unstable industry."

What does all this have to do with Jerome’s comments? The University of Hawaii tested this procurement process on a variety of painting projects using minimum documentation. The results are encouraging.
After recognizing the increase in performance that the State of Hawaii PWD was procuring, the University of Hawaii (UH) decided to implement PIPS in 2000. The university wanted to increase the quality of painting and roofing projects, shift construction risk to contractors, and make the UH more efficient.

Current users are: City of Peoria, FAA, Harvard University, International Rectifier, Raytheon Missles Systems, US Army MEDCOM, US Coast Guard. Past users are: Dallas Independent School District, State of HI, U of Hawaii, State of Utah, and United Airlines.

I am currently working on a specification that, at our clients request, has morphed from a CSI 3-part section format into a CSI outline specification format (Figure FF/OS-4). Our client is the developer and the GC/CM. Our spec sections have become a “Record Document” section of the products agreed to between GC/CM and subtrade. Our original specificaitons where basis-of-design with a list of approved comparables. The final sections are proprietary product heavy and reference standards light. Also light in what would be Parts 1 and 3. The chosen product is not always our product of choice. That said, one of our “Guiding Attitudes” is Understand the Clients Perspective.

Wayne

26

This is interesting about “minimum documentation” – I’d like to hear more.

But your example seems to be different – the “audience” and purpose of the document are completely different. As you say, it’s to record what the two parties have agreed upon, rather than for one party to instruct the other. This concept of “audience” is, in my opinion, the driving one in all our documentation. Who are we speaking to and why? Put another way, the documents could be considered primarily to forestall mistakes and cheating. If the contractor knows enough to guess right and is ethical enough to do that, then you don’t have to tell him anything (see: 1867 spec in related thread called “Specs Book”). I’m mystified by Jerome’s architect clients who don’t seem to understand that all they have to do is ask their client “do you trust this guy to do it right without a contract describing exactly what he’s supposed to do?” or “how will you feel when you find out that you paid more than what you got is worth because you didn’t tell him what to do?” Obviously, it’s more complicated when the owner is the constructor or the owner really doesn’t care about quality or even complying with codes. And who is telling them that specifications are bad, and why?

27

To me, the suggestions [???] to Mr. Lazar are symptomcatic of professionals undereducated about practice, and the instruments of practice-- bet their great designers! It shows, clearly, not only their lack of the courage of their convictions, but understanding and strength of their convictions [if indeed, there are convictions].

Do these folks also tell their attorneys that what they produce cannot be “briefs” but should be called “limited fantasies”, or maybe “underwear”.

28

I’m fairly certain that I met Dr. Dean Kashiwagi at CSI Convention some years ago. He may have been a presenter.

29

A little over 10 years ago, there was a PBS television series called “Skyscraper.” I never say the televised series, but it received excellent reviews from a number of sources (both personal and public). I did, however, read the book. In the author’s Forward, he talked about the real heroes being those people who actually constructed the building and stated that anyone could design a building. He went on to suggest that his 8-year child’s drawing of a building would almost be enough to get that building constructed (it indicated proportions, openings, and even, to a limited extent, style).

Later on the in book, however, he talks about the wind testing of the curtain wall. Many of you know the drill; a full-size mockup built at a lab site in Florida, an aircraft engine to blow rain onto it, an all-hands meeting over several days to see how it performed and what needed to be changed. The Architects couldn’t make it until the very end of the first day. That day had been spent in a series of tests which had resulted in failure and a great deal of finger-pointing among consultants and specialty subcontractors (it’s not the frame, it’s the sealant; it’s not the sealant, it’s the stone; it’s not … you’ve heard the conversation). The Architects were briefed after his arrival and every one retired to their respective corners at the end of the day. After a brief discussion among themselves, one of the Architects suggested what the problem might be and how it might be resolved. After reconvening the next morning, the Architects’ suggested some changes which resulted in the mockup passing the test.

I took this as a very interesting parable about (1) the perceived value of architectural design and (2) the real value of architects. Architects tend to take a more general and integrative view of such issues. PE consultants, subcontractors, and manufacturers tend to be highly focused and specialized. (Contractors should be more general, but many of them tend to be brokers, not integrative problem-solvers; their “big-picture” view is usually limited to cost and schedule issues.) In my experience it is the Architect who are better at resolving problems where different products and systems must interface than any other member of the building procurement team; better at integrating a variety of products and systems not only into a coherent visual whole, but, functionally into a whole system instead of a pile of systems.

It is interesting that in the UofHawaii’s experience cited above, the emphasis is on single specialized systems, not on whole buildings. In my experience, Contractors who make the attempt to “design” major portions of a building wind up failing to properly integrate all of the components required, or fail to integrate major building systems with each other.

30

Skyscraper! A NOVA Special

This 80-minute NOVA pledge special chronicles the building of the Worldwide Plaza, 47-story office tower in midtown Manhattan, from a hole in the ground to a 770-foot skyscraper.
Original broadcast date: 12/10/91
Topic: technology/engineering

PBS Building Big: Skyscrapers

This PBS Web site explores the world’s greatest skyscrapers. The interactive Loads Lab provides hands-on explanations of how big buildings withstand the forces that act on them.

Related NOVA Resources
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/teachers/overviews/0000_bbskyscr.html

31

Skyscraper! A NOVA Special
The complete series is available on Ebay’s Half.com for $250:

http://half.ebay.com/cat/buy/prod.cgi?cpid=1972768&pr=3169392

32

when I consulted, I used to remind my clients that I was not writing specifications as a hobby and that if they were not going to open the project manual during construction, that we could put a cover on a ream of paper and I could send them a bill. That usually got their attention.

However, in Jerome’s current issue, what I would do is make a sealed record copy of the project manual prepared the way he thinks he should be prepared, and then give an editable copy to his client, and invite them to make any and all changes that they see fit, including taking out the word “specifications”. He is providing a document as an instrument of their service, after all. I would also decline any interpretive responsibility during construction, and send them a bill immediately. Some clients will do any fool thing to the documents, and that is their privilege; but a disclaimer and hold harmless would be in order.

33

“Sealed”-- as enclosed in a wrapper or locked into a read-only file?
or
“Sealed”-- as in having a professional registration seal impression applied?

Advise strongly against the latter! Cost a bundle just to achieve a demurr out of the lawsuit! [and one is almost guarnteed]

34

On first glance, I read “an editable copy” as “an edible copy!”

35

We use Adobe PDFs to provide record copies of our documents (unofficially known around the office as the “I told you so” set). Our public sector clients want to make their own edits.

We set up Acrobat to print to a file, then “print” each section and write to a CD.

36

To Susan McClendon,

Please foward your e-mail address and I will send you the newsletters I have on file talking about “Best Value Procurement”

My e-mail address is wyancey@morrisonhershfield.com

Wayne

37

by “sealed” I used to actually get a set of diskettes sealed into air-tight bags with a date marker on the seal – it became a record set that I kept in case the client did something weird to the content, so that I could demonstrate what the document was when it left my office. That set got me out of a bunch of potential problems. I’m not an architect, so I can’t professionally seal them.

38

If you send them an edible copy, be sure to mark it prominently with a “Best if used by” date…