I will be part of the panel at the Orange County (Calif) CSI Product Show on Tuesday - topic: The Future of Specifications.
I put together my notes today and thought I would post them for discussion:
The specifier is frequently the ONLY person in the design firm with the detailed product information needed for proper product selection. Where will this knowledge come from when all the 55+ year old specifiers retire? On the job learning is the only way to acquire the required knowledge the school of hard knocks and paying attention to life.
BIM operators may be able to select BIM objects to put in the database and yet do not know the nuances and differences among the various manufacturers. While it may seem feasible to shake a spec out of the BIM object, I do not believe this is a reliable way to go. BIM Models have a tendency to be proprietary and most owners want multiple suppliers acceptable. What level (ie size) of the BIM model is expected from the manufacturer small or huge huge needed for the specs and small needed for the database models.
There has been a major change in the way specifiers think and architects think today from the days of the binder libraries:
Specifier: Problem > Manufacturer > Product > Solution
Architect: Problem > Google > Solution > Product > Manufacturer (maybe)
The long term trend without enough specifiers will be towards the European model of the architect doing what we consider 50% drawings and the contractor finishing them with his subs and suppliers. This is why BIM is used a lot more in Europe as the contractor knows the products to be used and not providing a list of 3 different suppliers that may be selected among or substituted against.
This has major implications for the architects business model (in my opinion) that have not considered. Even with a Construction Manager the architect does a fairly complete set of drawings and specs; CMs will start to do the BIM and >50% design to better coordinate. Less work = less revenues = less employees for the architect!
This also has major implications for the product manufacturers and their reps as they will no longer have to work with architects and will work with the subs and GC’s on product selection.
I met Liz for the first time at CSI / Construct in Phoenix. A CCS and SCIP member from Denver, she sent me a link to her blog in a parallel discussion:
Quote:
Architects, get, and keep, a technically-minded architect on your team. In house, out-of-house, wherever, but keep this person under your umbrella. Pay this person fairly. You know you need him or her under design-bid-build, to reduce change orders and to preserve your reputation. CMc can be a better value for the owner if the architect has this technical person on the design team. Architects, if you want less erosion of architect fees under IPD, you need a technically-minded architect on your team. If you dont have people like this, and you want to start developing some, a good place to start is by getting some of your team members involved in CSI, the Construction Specifications Institute.
Your assumption seems to be that specifiers are a dying breed because of the current average age of 55. I think that is very questionable. What was the average of specifiers 20 years ago? 40 years ago? I don’t think anyone knows (at least I could not find any factual data) so we don’t know if the current average age is an indication of a dying breed or not.
My recent survey of specifiers indicates they didn’t become full-time specifiers until about an average age of 40. That would indicate that the average specifier is older probably because it takes some time to gain the experience that you rightfully talk about and that they move into the field at an older age rather than as a young person.
I would also say that the needed expertise is not just the selection of products but also how assemblies go together - how materials and products are assembled into an assembly that meets required performance requirements.
I totally agree with you that the expertise that usually resides with the specifier is an important need in the BIM world if the architect is to provide a complete design and documents for construction.
Robert, that assumption (aging pool of specifiers) is the result of my input. This year’s panel discussion is the direct result of the experiences and perception of four large architectural firms in the SoCal area, as well as dialog here on 4specs that I have been monitoring.
I think the core issue is that fewer people are going into the specifications profession, so as spec writers retire, they are not being replaced. This is one contributing factor towards firms looking more closely at “automated” spec systems like BSD SpecLink and others. And it’s that change in the creation/maintainence of specifications that our panel discussion is going to examine.
Contractors on IPD projects have no problem with the idea of delegating detailed design to trade partners. This is particularly the case with HVAC since many HVAC consultants appear to leave a lot for the contractor.
Similarly when architects are not in a position to deal with the detailed specification of products the contractor will step in and over time the Architects scope and hence fees and control will be reduced.
Correspondingly there are opportunities for Architects who will be able to provide expanded services that are currently delegated to the contractor.
“I think the core issue is that fewer people are going into the specifications profession, so as spec writers retire, they are not being replaced.”
It would be nice if there was some evidence to back up what you are thinking. Four firms in SoCal is not much of broad view of the profession.
If people don’t become full-time specifiers on average until they are 40, 55 is not a very old average age. That was an informal survey, but 82 specifiers from around the country responded.
You might be right, but I have not seen any evidence to support it.
With the help of 35 years to reference, it is my impression that in-house, full-time specifiers have suffered layoffs disproportionately in each economic cycle. This being a deep and long down cycle, the numbers affected this time have been particularly high. With a job function that is at least partly overhead, the position is an easy target when a firm’s revenues dip and utilization (percent chargeable time) drops. The outlook for independent specifiers surely follows the market turns as well, but as self-employed, you can’t count them in the unemployment lines. It is hard enough to survive and prosper in the design professions without being the first fired and last hired. Is it any wonder that young people, seeing the older, technically-experienced spec writers treated this way, would not want to choose that career path.
I think you guys are right on the money to look at the “big excuse” for doing away with those expensive spec writers - automation. What seems to get overlooked by the people doing the automating is that it isn’t simply the output of specs that makes these older and wiser folks valuable; it’s their experience and knowledge. When design firms can’t provide that to their clients, the clients will simply go where it is still available - the local builder.
I believe there is a big difference between large firms (who often have full time spec writers) and smaller firms who have someone who writes all of the specs but is not a full time spec writer. Specialization in any proffession can lead to unstability in terms of job security.
I can only speak from the smaller firm (5-10 employees) side of the conversation so I may be wrong but I believe that not being specialized helps make me a more valuable employee. I am the guy who writes the specs but also the guy who: walks the job site, reviews shops, approves and resolves change orders, prepares working drawings and a host of other things on a daily basis. I believe this “jack of all trades master of none” approach also makes me a better spec writer because I can see how it is done in the field and realize where I might need to adjust my way of thinking. I also find many instances where I find circumstances where I need to stand my ground and demand strict adherence to the CDs. It is hard to have the “we don’t build it that way” conversation with a tradesman if I haven’t seen the situation from multiple angles.
I realize it is probably not practical or finacialy feasible but I believe the future of the quality spec writer lies not in additional specialization, accredidation, education, etc. but rather a return to a multi-tasking professional.
The problem with IDP Project Managers (who I believe are generally “contractor-types”) delegating to “trade parteners” is that they may be “solution driven” in their particular domain of expertise. Over the last 50 or 60 years, it has been the architect who has had the ability to integrate solutions among the varous disciplines. I believe that specifiers have often contributed to this process.
Most solutions work fine in the “field” of the set of issues, but may fail at the margins where the solution must integrate with a different system. Glass is a good example. A pane of glass does not leak; the “integrated solution” (a pane of glass installed in a frame which is installed in a wall), is more vulnerable to water infiltration where the glass must be installed in a frame. At the margin of this solution, there are 3 different materials: glass, glazing gasket, and frame. There is an opportunity for failure where each of the materials touch each other (and I am only talking about one mode of failure: water infiltration). The manufacturers of each material often are expert in their own systems, but may be less knowledgable about interactions between their materials and other materials in the system.
At the other end of the scale, consider the design of a mechanical system and a potential failure to fully integrte the building envelope assembly into design considerations. One sub decides to save some money by substituting dampproofing instead of a high performance air barrier (remember air barriers are not yet required in many parts of the country). People see the $$$ but don’t consider how the mechanical system may be affected.
I would suggest that IPD may bring a raft of litigation when a failure to properly integrate discrete solutions results in serious problems. I believe this will come despite the indemnifications that are being cited as a strength of IPD.
As Peter points out, the interfaces between systems and/or assemblies are “no man’s land” (terminology suggested by one of the speakers at CONSTRUCT last week). The best person to deal with these interfaces is a technically-minded architect, who often is the specifier on the team.
The architect is probably always going to carry the professional liability for these transitions, no matter what the project delivery method is, and no matter who the architect’s agreement is with. Having a person under the architect’s umbrella who understands, and can detail and specify these transitions, is crucial to the architect’s risk management.
Sadly, architects are often not in a position to hold risk management as a top priority.
I suspect that the people who are preparing specifications today will be part of the growing body of building envelope consultants in 10 or 20 years. I just hope that project teams use them DURING construction documentation (or the “Detailed Design” and “Implementation Documents” phases, as AIA’s IPD documents call CD’s), instead of AFTER occupancy, when the buildings start to leak at those interfaces.
I think perhaps the responses to Colin’s question has drifted off topic. Here is the synopsis of the Seminar:
“In an era of reduced fees, accelerated deadlines, increased liability, and an aging workforce, many design firms across the nation are struggling
to find ways to update and maintain their master specifications, as well as find ever more efficient ways of producing project specifications. In
today’s world there are a number of technology based automated specification production systems promising to solve all these issues, and more!
Are these systems right for your firm? How do they compare to the traditional method of producing specifications, based on the specialized
knowledge and expertise of dedicated construction specifiers? How can firms future proof their specifications as the field of available
specification writers age and retire? How do local manufactures succeed when design firms use nationally produced spec databases? Join us for
what promises to be an invigorating panel discussion on this hot topic impacting so many members of our local industry.”
It does not need to be tied to “an aging workforce” or “as the field of available specification writers age and retire?” There is no evidence to support this - that the average age of specifiers is increasing - and that specifiers are about to disappear with the current generation.
The discussion is about the need to have technically savvy professionals (which are often the specifiers) on board even in the face of automation. Liz says it well. Unless the architectural registration laws are revised, the architect is liable for the total design of the project. The goal should be to make “design oriented architects” realize that they will always need people with a high degree of building technical knowledge that know how to put buildings together.
Colin, if I was to follow the thread here, I would change the title to the future of specifiers. The title implies specifications and what changes to expect with the specifications. That is a discussion that many discuss (Sheldon jump in here) and really very little happens.
As far as CMs doing design and drawings, well, that is something I do not see in the cards without major law changes. CMs typically avoid risk and for them to become an Architect of Record (required by law) would carry them into the world of risk. The Euro model works well for them due to the lesser amount of legalities that they have in their construction practices. What you discribe would be the actual death of architects and in turn, specifiers. Liz, architects that do not hold risk management as a priority are the ones that end up in expensive litigation sometime in their careers. Having the stamp and being an architect means risk. Designers do not have either of those. Anyone can be a designer.
Several years ago the St. Louis CSI and AIA chapters combined to sponsor a presentation by the late Ken Crocco FAIA FCSI on the future of specifications in the field of architecture. In his introductory remarks, he commented that in the 1970’s, there was one specifier for approximately 20 others in the architectural profession. By 2000, that number had dropped to one specifier for approximately 100 others. I don’t remember where the statistic came from or the methodology for obtaining it, but the magnitude of the numbers seemed (and still seems) fairly accurate. It points out the impact that automated specification programs had on this subspecialty initially in the 1970s, coupled with the increasing access to product information from the internet and other technologies later in the millennium.
It also illustrates cyclical trends in the industry among larger firms (those that can justify a full time specifier) where specification knowledge is either centralized in a full time specifier who is responsible for all the firms specs, or it is diffused among project architects and project managers each of whom is responsible for the specification on his or her project. As an example, in the early 1980s I was employed as project representative here in St. Louis for a project designed by a large out of town architectural firm. When touring their office for my job interview, I asked about specifiers. They had none, they told me, because their project architects and project managers all used an automated software program and specifiers were not needed. By the 1990s that same firm had gone back to dedicated full-time specifiers (A couple of them frequent this board…you know who you are)
I think we are seeing the same thing with eSpecs and similar that we saw with Masterspec and similar, a first push towards lets get rid of the specifiers followed by a realization that automation does not negate the need for the basic knowledge base that the professional specifier brings to a project and to an office. Two things I think will NOT change regardless of how much we tinker with delivery methods and how much evolving technology improves the way we run our production:
The basic things that specifications do best (quality, procedures, product information, installation) will always be basic things in designing and building stuff, and somebody on the team needs to understand and define those basic things.
There will always be, as an architect a half-generation older than me told me once, a place for old gray haired guys like us who know how to put buildings together.
So my take on it is that the job title specifier may become obsolete in the future, but the skills, talents, and passion we who are now specifiers bring to our profession those things will always be needed. And whether we keep those skills, talents, and passion centralized in one place, or whether we diffuse them among many in the firm will continue to vary cyclically, and by firm. But it won’t go away.
Regarding the perceived problems with IPD’s. When implemented properly in the context of Lean Construction (ref www.leanconstruction.org/) these projects have been shown to dramatically reduce problems and litigation.
In this context the question is does the architect continue to reduce market share and control or does he use this opportunity to expand the services he provides thus giving himself more control and higher fees. In order to do this the architect must embrace the technical aspects of the design.
For example why should the Architect create complex BIM models, for minimal increase in fee, that the contractor then uses to finish the design when he could use the model to produce shop drawings and obtain a significantly higher fee. For example some structural engineers are sucessfully producting structural steel shop drawings.
Nathan, you are correct. So I ask the question, why haven’t Arcom, BSD or eSpec working on new ways to transform specifications? Where is CSI on this?
Transformation and the newer technology is what people (clients) are screaming for. They see everything else in their world change with the technology, but not architects and specifiers. Have you ever heard the term, “WordPerfect”? Transformation means uncomfort and new ways of doing things. Go beyond word processors and see where we go?
What about specification delivery? Do we always have to have volumes of specs or can they reside on the drawings? What is in the BIM model? How is that delivered? Who delivers them? Who has the liability?
Nathan, have you considered filming this panel discussion and putting it on YouTube or something? I’m sure it’ll be very popular.
I think that more firms will have to rely on in-house master specifications that project managers will have to edit, or will have to rely on model objects that Reviteers will have to define, but in both cases, those masters and those object characteristics will have to be edited by knowledgeable people (specifier-types) who will have to configure them specifically for that firm.
As always, it’s garbage-in-garbage-out. It won’t take too long for people to realize that they can’t do without technically-knowledgeable people for each firm, if not for each specific project.
I think that in the future, more specifier-types will be working on more projects, or on more office masters for other firms, or something like that. I suspect that there are going to be more technical people out-of-house instead of in-house.
Nathan mentioned the “automated” spec system in comparision to traditional construction specifier. I apologize if I am misreading this statement but it appears to imply that the two are mutually exclusive. The thing that makes a quality spec is the attention to the project particulars regardless of the delivery method. While I will admit that an “automated” system does pose the potential for a spec to be poorly constructed but so does the process of simply changing the header and footer on a Word document spec. The human element is what determines the end result and it’s effectiveness, quality, value, etc.
Disclaimer: We use BSD products (but I am by no means pushing BSD, it just works for our firm and our clients)
I put “Automated Specs” in quotes because I think it is a huge misnomer, but that their are many firm principles and architects who are drinking the Koolaide
Thank you, Colin, and thank you to all the contributors to this discussion.
I will represent the “past” on this panel next Tuesday. I started writing specs about 45 years ago, and have been doing it ever since. So I saw the introduction of the 16 divisions, the 5 digit numbering system (what a help that was!), Masterspec, etc.,and all subsequent changes, additions and improvements.
It amazes me to think about the magnitude of change that has taken place.
Because change has been exponential rather than linear, and i assume it will continue that way, what will the future bring? I can’t imagine it. I look forward to this discussion.