The Role of Specifications Writers in Automated Spec Programs

Archive of Older Topics Archive Coffee Pot and Water Cooler
1

I think there are opportunities for construction specifications writers in computer-assisted specifications programs, such as Linx, eSPECS, PerSpective and SpecLink. My understanding is that knowledge of construction technology and specifications writing principles and practices are helpful, if not essential, to realizing the potential of these sophisticated programs.

Does anyone have constructive comments about the role of trained and experienced specifiers in the customization and project-specific use of these programs?

2

I honestly believe that many architectural firms are trying to replace professional specifiers with automatic specification processing systems. This is just like how CAD has replaced the drafter. The dream of BIM is to design a building, then push a button and out spits a project manual.

3

John – what is it you are trying to say here. Any architect who has never written a spec before and thinks that because they have Linx they can write a spec is delusional, and works only on warehouses that are negotiated. An “automated” system doesn’t replace good judgement and project knowledge and I don’t know anyone who uses SpecLink who doesn’t edit it and make selections. Linx is just an editing tool (and I use it all the time) but if I were to publish a section right out of Linx it would unbiddable.
Can you define your question?

4

Last night I watched a PBS NOVA special on The Crash of Flight 447. As you may recall a fully loaded Airbus A330-200 crashed in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean in June 2009 on route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris. Since the black boxes were never found the team of investigators surmised that weather conditions knocked out the automatic pilot. The pilots then had to manually fly this extremely sophisticated airplane. Since this airplane was designed to basically fly itself, the pilots probably had problems and unintentionally put the aircraft into a stall.

My point being that though technology can be good, sometimes we trust it more than we should. Now amount of automation will ever replace experience and professional judgment.

5

Anne:

I am involved … becoming less involved by their initiation … with firms who have bought into computer-assisted specifications programs, primarily encouraged by their commitment to 3D CAD. To them, eSPECS for Revit is a natural extension of their 3D CAD program. (I won’t say BIM because I don’t think what they are doing is truly BIM).

They are challenged to produce information during the Design Development phase of the project regarding building products. Since they traditionally have not had a specifications writer involved during DD, they wish to avoid adding this person. Yet, the magnitude of information now required at this phase and its impact on the budget of the project is neither understood or appreciated.

I have a sophisticated, design award-winning client who is functioning this way. They regularly prepare “preliminary” specifications themselves, consisting of bound catalog cuts and disjointed notes for the Design Develpment phase submission. Needless to say, there are shortcomings when the project moves on to the Contract Documents phase and the spec writer enters the picture (and “gold plates” the project with missing information and quality considerations).

Two of my clients have tried to produce Construction Contract phase specifications using eSPECS and SpecLink, with their project team members using the programs. The team members ranged in seniority from job captain up to project manager and principal. At least they haven’t tried to use a CAD drafter or clerical person to prepare the specs. They blamed the resulting failures on the senior persons not having time to (a) learn the program and (b) actually going step-by-step through the required, detailed decisions, confronting unfamiliar reference standards and products. I think the issues of regional construction products and practices also come into play but there is no time for user-revised or -added text in this process that seemed so nifty when they saw the demonstration.

With the extreme pressure presently on design firms to be expedient and hold expenses down, excluding a spec writer by using a computer-assisted spec production seems like a low-risk, cost saving idea. I’m sure that the marketer said nothing about the value of a competent specifications writer using the program. I believe the strategic decision to rely solely on a computer-assisted spec program and an overworked staff member has been made without any consultation with a competent spec writer. The only input has been from the computer-assisted s
pec program’s marketers and the decisions has been made by managers who lack understanding and appreciation of what it takes to produce professional-grade construction specifications.

My response to this situation has been twofold: (1) let them do what they want and hope they learn from the consequences and (2) encourage them to get the full picture of what it takes to make the most of the computer-assisted spec program. That is, realize that the spec program must be tailored for the types of projects they design, for their office’s design standards and for the building code and construction practices of their region of the country in order to achieve the results they expect.

It is in this latter scenario where I believe opportunities are offered for spec writers to utilize their talents and experience and contribute in a positive way to the Brave New orld of BIM. At lease I’m hoping it will work out positively for me.

6

It is really hard to save someone who is drowning when they are firmly convinced that they know how to swim.

7

And yet these same firms will hire BIM managers to help their staff get up to speed on this new software that creates a design with the push of a button.

8

Way back when AutoCAD on an IBM PC was little more than a toy, the firm I was working for was interested in getting into CAD so that they would get more organized. I listened to this for a little while while thinking GIGO (Garbage In; Garbage Out). The corollary that I finally shared with the firm was: “If you automate a mess, you will just get a faster mess.” The computer doesn’t organize an organization that doesn’t have well organized systmes in place. It can streamline an already efficient organization.

Specifiers are usually pretty streamlined already; it’s in their DNA. Firms that are really interested in making good use of “automated specifications” will usually have a good spec writer around. If they don’t, they will get poor specifications that are confusing and unenforceable, but they will get them faster.

9

I use Linx and have found it to be a very useful tool, but it is far from a total spec solution. It primarily does a rough edit. The more difficult or experienced based eiting or application of firm “standards” still need to be made after creating the initial spec document. I usually find that it is best that I review the total spec because sometimes I do not agree with all that has been stuck out - especially if there is some adjustments to how the “interactive questions” are responded to (atlhough I have found that the system has been improved in following through on adjustments when they are made). Overall, it does seem to speed the process significantly. I have seen some “ugly” results when someone inexperienced with specs places too much faith in the initial edit received via this system.

10

John-
I get what you are trying to say now. Back when I started consulting (the first time) 20 years ago, I had several clients who were overwhelmed by Masterspec and I offered a “preliminary edit” service for them. I did a rough edit of 80 sections that they would be most likely to use so that it would be easier for their project managers to do project edits from. It was profitable, and it also demonstrated that someone experienced with specs could make sense of those (then) 10 volumes of paper and condense them into one volume.
It was Mr. Jordan who stated at some Arcom meeting that this isn’t “specs for dummies”. (and I like his “faster mess” comment). I am old enough to remember when keynotes were going to make every job perfectly coordinated until people realized that you still need a senior, experienced person to edit and supervise the keynotes. the use of Linx or any other coordinated program is not going to turn a person two years out of college into an experienced, capable spec writer. I generally figure that firms can do one or two projects, realize that the software will not do their thinking for them, and eventually they come back to a specialist again.
of course, it has to be a firm that does actually look at the spec during construction..

11

As I understand it, tests that use multiple choices (multiple guesses?) for answers are written so that some of the possible answers are obviously incorrect while two of the possibilities could be correct. The test is for the knowledge to choose the most correct answer.

I think the tutorials and other information provided in the computer-assisted specifications programs are very helpful (if the spec editor has time to go through the process). And I freely admit that I don’t know everything about everything (maybe a little bit more than just enough to get by).

Potentially, computer-assisted specifications programs can enhance the performance of a competent specifications writer. I’ve followed computer-assisted specifications programs since the late 1980’s and even subscribed to a couple. My dissatisfaction has been with the amount of time necessary to customize the specifications with user-added text and additional Sections for uncommon products.

I’m not speaking against the computer-assisted specifications programs. I’m just trying to bring awareness and understanding of what it takes to use the programs satisfactorily, especially the skill level of persons interfacing with the programs and the time that should be invested to make the resulting specifications fully clear, correct, complete and concise.

I think opportunities are present for trained construction specifiers to assist in the development and use of computer-assisted specifications programs.

12

Some of the confusion is so basic. I have clients who really don’t know the difference between dampproofing, waterproofing, and vapor retarders. Or between ceiling panels and ceiling tiles in a suspended acoustical ceiling. I have to watch for people who want a single-ply mod-bit roof when what they want is a multi-ply (usually 2-ply, sometimes 3-ply) system or maybe what they want is a TPO or PVC roof.

And these are the guys who fill out the checklist.

13

What do “professional grade” specifiers do to rectify this situation?

It seems to me that promoting the value of well-prepared construction specifications can be beneficial to everyone: design professionals, specifiers, building product manufacturers, publishers of computer-assisted specifications programs and maybe even construction managers.

I just don’t know how, from my position as a mere construction specifications writer for hire, I can change the way the windmills are tilting.

14

Before individuals will value good specifications they either need to see the problems caused by poor specifications or they need to become aware of the potential problems in their existing specifications.

15

I believe that many architectural firms will be short sighted and only view the specifier as first initial cost. The firms will look at automated specification programs, tied into the drawings, and mistakenly believe the firm can save money by eliminating the specifier.

What many architectural firms don’t see is the long term value of the specifier as a resource person, technical problem solver, etc. not just an overpaid word processor.

16

I keenly understand the problem, from the specifications writer’s point-of-view.

What actions would move toward resolving the problem?

17

John,

I really don’t know. It may be too late.

I see that CSI has joined the spec-o-matic bandwagon which does not give me confidence that CSI perceives specifications writers as a growing profession…or the future.

There will always be a few shrewd firms out there that see the value in our profession. Most won’t.

I guess that if we can’t beat 'em, we should join 'em. Automated specification processing program companies will need good technical people to help write the program so that the intern architect can go through a menu of choices (with automated guidance) and write a decent workable spec.

18

I dont think there is much you can do to resolve the problem. For the firms that have this mistaken concept of what these programs can do for them, it isnt a problem until they try to use them without a trained technically knowledgeable person. In an earlier posting, John described the unsuccessful results for two firms. Those results would parallel a similar situation in my personal experience.

My past history includes being with a firm that had a long tradition of maintaining a master specification for the firms staff that included extensive notes to allow project teams to properly edit the master. That master was intended to be used by the project teams to edit their own project specs off the master. The technical education program also included education on how to do this. One of the major benefits envisioned was building the project teams intimate knowledge of the project into the specifications. The firm also had a fully developed keynoting system coordinated with the master specification to facilitate drawing/specification coordination. This is the sort of program that sounds good when you talk about it, but it is a different story to actually carry it off.

That program was not very successful for the same reasons that John described. In this case they had some learning to do to use the macros included with the master (learn the program) to save some manual editing. They also did not have time towards the end of a project to devote the time to go thru the all the research and detail decision making of editing the specification. I remember one project manager (PM) confessing that he just included all the base choices and deleted all the alternate choices that makes you feel real good! This was not true for all the PMs, there were a few older more-experienced PMs who did their own project specs successfully they had a pretty good technical knowledge, learned how to do it, and included enough time in their project schedules to accomplish the task. There were also a few that really used the keynoting system. Since the firm did not have a mandate from the leadership for project teams to write their own specs, the vast majority were not up to it and probably not interested in doing it either so they used specification consultants to edit the firms master for their projects.

That situation is actually quite similar to the current availability of the current computer-assisted specifications. It sounds good to some firms that they will be able to prepare projects specs without a specification expert. I am confident that the majority of those firms will have a different view after they have actually tried to do it on a project or two. Some firms may pull it off it they take enough time for training, only use people with a deep technical knowledge, and allow enough time in the project schedule that would include extra time on the early projects as people become accustomed to a new task. You have to make an investment to take on a new task successfully. They will also learn as Dale commented above that the automatically produced rough draft still leaves a lot of research and detailed decision making work still to be accomplished by someone with a deep technical knowledge.

There are some lessons that are very hard to teach ahead of time. Some lessons are usually learned by the school of hard knocks. I think that this is one of those cases; if a firm has bought into the hype about computer-assisted specifications and have not thought it through thoroughly, they are probably going to have some frustrating project learning experiences. I doubt if anyone would be able to convince them of this ahead of time they will actually have to experience it. This could result in considerable work for spec consultants to rescue the specifications on these projects.

One thing to remember is that computer-aided specification systems are not the enemy. They are a tool they can improve efficiency of producing specifications and improve the coordination between drawings and specs, sort of an automated keynoting system. What may take some time is for some firms to realize that you still need experienced knowledgeable people to operate them.

I certainly do not share David pessimism that only a few firms realize the value of technical and specification expertise. My experience, and the experience of many others who participate in this forum would not support that opinion. Many of us have had long successful careers providing that knowledge and service to the many firms who value our expertise that leads to successful projects with fewer problems. I remember a firm leader saying to me We never have any problems on the projects you work on! There are a lot of firms out there who know that they need a good technical expertise resource to be successful, whether it is in-house or out-house.

19

I agree with many of the comments made. I will also admit that I don’t know much about these “BIM Specs” programs (I edit my specs using MS-Word).

Maybe my next comments will come across as jaded, but the firm I am working for has recently gotten into the BIM world. I got my first set of drawings (partial set) for a larger project a few weeks back from a Project Architect. I wasn’t sure at first the reasons for the results I was seeing…whether it was limited Canadian experience, limited experience with the software, not enough time to produce the drawings…or a combination of all of the above. My first thought was I would have been embarrassed to hand in drawings of that quality in third semester at college 23 years ago (I had to correct that…I graduated 20 years ago, so I had to add more time on)!

What I am amazed at is the fact that it seems that a lot of the same issues I experienced over the years when the mouse in my hand was drawing lines and not highlighting sentences and paragraphs were still painfully obvious in the drawings I was looking at now…anywhere between 10 and almost 20 years after the “breakthrough” of 3-D CADD! (yes I know, the D for Design has been dropped from the acronym…or has it with BIM?)

But there is a common thread. Conversion. And I will qualify an earlier statement about my firms first foray into BIM…in the CAD stone ages (AutoCAD Release 9 or earlier) they actually used ArchiCAD or Architrion on Mac for design and then DXF’d the drawings into AutoCAD for Mac for the working drawings. I know 2 firms that did this, but the other further complicated it by using AutoCAD on PC…which 20 years ago was nowhere close to being as easy today as it was then (the only networks back then were “Sneakernet” where you copied files onto a floppy disk and ran it over to another computer across the office…but I digress).

Where the whole BIM concept falls off the rails is when not all of the Project Team are using the same software. With these recent projects, the BIM software spits out AutoCAD files for the Structural & MEP (hey I’m getting some of the US acronyms)consultants. I am getting PDF files of progress drawings that are 12MB because of the way the translating happens. The one project it took me the better part of a morning to print the M&E drawings! Something that should have taken me 20 mins worth of actual paying attention computer time.

As I have said in the past, and I will say again and again…we should really learn how to draw well in 2-D before we think about drawing in 3-D!! Of course I say the same thing about 2-D CAD drafting…it’s not hard to understand why computer generated drawings of today don’t look anything as good as they did of old when a CAD drafting monkey has never held (or had to clean) a technical pen!!

Understanding the spec writing process, and the intrinsic complexity of it; combined with my past experience with CAD(D) I can’t help but ask myself one question…if computer-assisted drawing has taken this long in it’s infancy, how long will “intelligent, automated” (BIM-driven) computer-aided specification writing take to successfully come into it’s own?

Call me a pessimist if you will, but I think I will be retired before that day comes!! (and I am not as long in the tooth as some members here)

(and yes I agree with Anne…I liked John’s “faster mess” comment too…maybe because I have seen it first hand…over and over and over again)

20

Who are the decision-makers in this BIM / spec issue and how do they become informed about what a competent specifier (full-time or collateral duty) can provide to make the situation more successful?