THE GIFT OF FLEXIBILITY
by Ralph W. Liebing, RA, CSI
Cincinnati, OH
It was five after eleven when the phone rang. “Mom”, came the teenage voice, “Julie’s aunt just got here with the food and her birthday cake. She had a flat getting here. I know I got an 11:30 limit, but can I stay a little longer, to eat and see Julie’s presents?”
How do answer that? Does it deserve the “gift of flexibility”?
The facts show, 1] a deadline has been set for certain action; 2] that limit is observed, and permission is asked to a change in it;, 3] it is obvious that circumstances have occurred that prompted the request for a change; 4] there is responsible action and respect involved.
OK, enough for domestic situations, but how does this translate into business operations?
In many situations limits are set, regulations listed, or programs created that provide certain parameters for the users involved. Doesn’t this same thing hold true for those programs that are developed for a common good?
Being created by well-intentioned, respectable, and highly expert humans, any such program still can fall short of “perfection”. In construction we all know that even the courts have recognized that "perfection’ in documents or projects is not required, unless made part of a contract. So we all operate in the “best we can do” mode of operations. But we should also recognize that other situations circumstances may well cause others to re-think any program.
Flexibility is required! This is not something to be forestalled, pooh-poohed or frowned upon. Rather, many programs for action, professional and otherwise, are really matrices or guides that should allow others to use them, within the context of what those people are engaged in. No program founded on strong professional fundamentals, and newly exposed technology can be ignored, but at the same time these should not be “one size fits all”.
If the base information or tasks are sound, then the use of them should be encouraged and aided by the person or organization that set up the program in the first place. For it is that initial expertise that has the strongest understanding of the reasons for the program, and how it direction was aimed and resolved. In that, even if a single solution was proposed and enacted, there are many other possibilities that can be utilized at least portions of the program.
Those portions that are used must, of course, fit the circumstances in which they must function. So here there can, and should be a lock-step, mutual aid wherein user and originator understand each other, respect each other, and work together to the users best end. The originator, of course, will set the program functions conceived in the vast majority of cases, but certainly should not turn away from mutations of the program that still retain much of the program but in slightly different aspects.
One prime example of this is the building code situation, both under the three-model-code system and still under the International system. The code groups provided sound, well-founded instruction, primarily at the fundamental level, in support of their family of code documents. And of course, they widely avowed the use of the" pure" unaltered codes. But reality and local law provided that the codes, in many cases, had to be modified to meet the added requirements of the jurisdiction-- hence the variety of code documents.
Many complained of this scenario, and with some good reason. Certainly practice over a wide region was impaired by slightly different control of the same work. BUT it was not eh code’s fault, nor that of the writing agency-- it was the local law that caused the differences. And it needs to be said, the revised codes function very much as anticipated and intended by the writing organizations.
To the point. MasterFormat 2004 is the result of a massive, expert, excruciating effort by a well respected and most intelligent Task Force. The program, direction and documents are admirable sound, far sighted and conceived. BUT what about flexibility?
It is suggested that variation in content-be it numbering or titling of Sections, use of different Division titles, or use of reserved Division-is not detrimental to the basic program! It is a mark of the gift of flexibility! CSI should, it is suggested, encourage flexibility-and assist it. CSI does not need to “require the preaching of a single or corporate line or direction”-its program is marvelous, so why not recognize that in the thousands of professional offices and practices, there are variations in circumstances that necessitate changes in the basic MasterFormat 2004 program.
God bless them-- everyone!