I really believe this is a self weeding process. Here’s my example, from 25 years ago. I worked at a large firm in Seattle and at the time there was a project manager who really felt that the specs should be written by someone on the team, so on one medium sized project, he had his technical architect write the specs. The result? it took twice as long in hours, and they had more problems during construction – because while the technical architect knew the project very well, he didn’t know how to write specs. (and this is when they realized that you need both knowledge banks).
I think if you offer a service, and back it up, and stay current, you’ll always have work to do. I don’t think the issues with BIM (or E-specs, SpecLink, Linx2, or whatever you have) are any different than the issues before. Back when a lot of offices had their own masters, specifications writers were nervous about the growth of “automated specs” – and they were talking about Masterspec and SpecText.
Let’s face it…most architects don’t really like to do specs, and if they have the fee, they are usually willing to hand over that portion of the work.
John- the bigger issue for you might be if your computer is fast enough to open and read a Revit model.
The choir knows the words and the tune (i.e., how to write specs and how important it is that they be well-crafted).
What I’m trying to encourage is a process directed at project leaders to raise their awareness and understanding of what are construction specifications and how specifications are derived, produced and implemented. You know, all that stuff that is in CSI’s CDT, CCS and CCCA programs.
I naively hope that by making decision-makers better informed of the issues, they will be prepared to listen, understand and invite what we have been discussing here. From that, I hope we will have the chance to evolve as necessary into valued roles in the Brave New World of BIM and “buildingSMART.”
What I have begun to suspect is that those who don’t understand the value of a good set of specifications don’t really understand how to use them. These people tend to put a lot of stuff on the Drawings (specific product requirements along with a long list of general notes) and try to ignore any specifications that may be required (by the Owner, the bank, the AHJ, or even the Contractor). Alternatively, there are those designers who will want to maintain “design flexibility” until Substantial Completion. These “professionals” want to pick a carpet with a custom design and then have the Contractor rip it out once they can see it installed because…
BIM is attractive to the first type because it seems to reinforce the notion that one really doesn’t need anything but the Drawings/BIM file. BIM is anathema to the second because it tends to force decisions, and force the project team to make them earlier in the design process.
I’ve found that a couple of spectacular failures usually even pulls the designers in line – if the failure is public enough, expensive enough and embarassing enough.
Look… even the people who run the “coordinated revit type spec programs” will admit (if you skewer them enough) that their software produces AT BEST a 65% set of documents. if you skewer them more, they admit to 50%. The software compiles the sections, makes preliminary edits and that’s about it. If used properly it will continue to receive feedback based on drawing changes.
Well, any almost anyone can compile a 50% spec just buy looking at schedules and, elevations and floor plans. That’s a start, but no one is claiming that’s a final bidding document. its not even sufficient for a preliminary bidding document.
Vis a vis our clients, I don’t think we need to do anything more. if they have enough problems with their software,they will seek out consultants. If they are out of time, they will seek out consultants; if they have too much trouble on the jobsite, they will find a way to mitigate that.
What I do see from our standpoint, if we are to be included in this brave new world, we need to be ready and willing to review drawings downloaded from FTP sites or project management sites such as NewForma; we need to be ready and willing to review comments and post sections to these sites; we need to have the computer capability to use these sites, and to be willing to not only receive information digitally but collaboratively edit digitally. I seldom get drawing “sets” anymore – I get a link to a web site so that I can open up drawings and view them there. This is going to make for a much cleaner office…
Off topic, but, Mr Regener, I sadly, gave up my WP DOS program about 2 years ago when I was unable to find a Windows system that would allow, or I could figure out, full screen use of DOS programs. I did however, stay with WP (X4) and while not as flexible or complete as WP 3.1, it is far better than MS Word. Even at my age, I have managed to adjust.
This thread has been very helpful and interesting. Much better than complaining about Institute. Thank you all.
Well, here’s what I am planning. I have decided to learn Revit. I want to learn how it works so I can think, like an Architect and a Specifier, about what type of Information would be most helpful in the model. Revit is the BIM program most used by firms in the Boston area, where we are located.
Recently I was chatting with a BIM manager at a large local firm. He tells me the only “I” they put into BIM is door information, because creating the door schedule in the model saves so much time, they couldn’t afford not to do it.
There must be other BIM efficiencies that I just don’t know about yet. I think if I learn Revit, then I will discover what is easy and what can be manipulated for better coordination between drawings and specifications and even LEED documentation. Isn’t that what my job is all about?
We plan to continue preparing specifications in MS Word, because the electronic programs just don’t make our jobs better yet. As independent specifications consultants, we run several different masters for a wide variety of clients. I can still get to 85% in 3-4 hours with MS Word. That’s the easy part of writing specifications.
The hardest part of my job is getting information from the Architects who see me as a foreigner. If I learn more of their new language and insert myself further into the process, maybe I can have more of an impact on quality. My main goal is to make someone’s design vision into Architecture, if they let me.
I’d like to hear from some of our in-house specifiers on this list to see how you work with your BIM people.
And if you have some good leads on learning Revit, whether I should take a class or subscribe to an online tutorial service, please let me know.
"… and I’ll even upgrade from my IBM AT clone and DOS 3.2 / WordPerfect 5.1 "…is that the model with the 40MB or 80MB model? And did you really splurge and go with 1MB of RAM or stick with the standard 512KB??
You should see the looks I get from some co-op students when I tell them about the specs of the first CAD stations I installed in my first job out of school back in 1990…386 processors with 80MB HDD, 1 MB RAM, 3.5" FDD and the HUGE 17" monitors we had…all for the low cost of $15,000.00…they look at me with this blank look and ask me who fast the CD drive was!! LOL
OK; I installed my first CAD system in Honolulu; it was UNIX based and ran on a Sun with high resolution color displays. The initial seat was about $125K (we had 2 seats). We were not only able to run a quite capable drafting system, but we could do 3D surface modeling with shading and shadows.
I had to buy a new computer recently and asked the salesman to guess when I bought my first computer. He looked at me an guessed early 1990s. It was 1979, an Apple ][+ with 48K (yes K) of RAM with I later upgraded to 64K for around $65. I bought my first laptop in 1986 (a 286 CPU with a dual floppy drive). My current computer probably has more memory on the CPU cache than my first 4 computers put together.
I’m looking forward to your success. The first step is to work with eSpecs for Revit on a stand alone basis. Then get into the linking to Revit. None of my clients have given me access to the drawing database yet, and I don’t think it would do much good, since the properties were not fully developed at the time. I did attend some Revit User Group meetings in our area to get a better handle on the Revit-eSpec process. It was interesting, but not of much value to a specifier.
However, being able to assist a client in updating the properties in real time would be a big contribution to the design/specification process. I’m not sure how much knowledge of the drawing process you would need. If specifications emanating from BIM are to rise to the level produced by specifiers, than they should be the ones to input the data into the objects. (My terminology may not be Revit-accurate, but I think the intent is understandable.)
Prehaps the authorized Revit dealers should establish training programs for customizing the property tables, accesing the specifier’s interface to the model, and extracting that data for specification preparation. The rest of the process is just the editing the text, although it would be nice if eSpecs were outfitted with better word processing tools (based on my experience with one eSpecs project).
Since the use of Revit among design firms is growing, and since it is generally in the hands and control of those design firms, and since they do not seem to be proactive in inviting specifiers to participate, perhaps the specifier communities should organize the training to bring everyone up to speed. Perhaps some enterprising Revit dealers would be interested in presenting training just for specifiers, and perhaps even including educational sessions or workshops at our CSI and AIA conventions and conferences. I’m sure they would be well attended.
for individual item by item things (such as in a door schedule, or very particular exterior panels) having all the information on the drawings is a pretty good idea. The contractor has all his piece counts in that location, and quantities (in two dimensions and three) for the items listed.
My thinking though is that by learning Revit, a specifier is sort of turning themselves into someone who produces a document rather than someone who reviews and provides oversight to the entire team. In offices, I can view a Revit model to see what is occuring but the detailed item information from Revit model needs to be addressed more globally in the specs. As a specifier, you’re probably more experienced than the person producing the model and I’m not going to say you want to maintain “some distance” but think of it comparable to CAD, where you want oversight,not one more thing to natter about.
the Revit training the David suggests is also applicable to senior project managers – these people want oversight and review capability of the revit model – few project managers in a large office will actually be producing the model. We used to call the one-day overview "Revit for project managers " in one of the firms I worked for. No firm wants someone with a spec writer’s hourly rate messing around with the model, just as I do not want people manipulating my specs – I want them to review and comment, but not change settings or content.
Paul, As I recall back in the mid-to-late 80’s the fastest CD I knew of was a 6 month note with a minimum $1000 balance but you had to know to ask; most banks didn’t post that type of information in their windows. It was probably more sensible to just keep your money in Money Market accounts at the time.
Musically speaking, cassettes had unfortunately already replaced 8-tracks but at least we still had turntables for our records, er, vinyls.
In terms of digital media I worked off floppy disks so as to not overwork the 20 MB hard drive that kept crashing; that was as big an option that Compaq offered back then. The 3.5" disc wasn’t out yet and the hottest item on the market was the 286 processor. A year later came the 286 upgrade and then the 386 came late in the 1980’s. The concept of 1 MB RAM was a dream not-yet-come-true but my dot-matrix printer could print out a Project Manual overnight, as long as I stayed up with it.
As to the discussion, I’ve been working with e-SPECS for quite some time now and while I like it I can say without pause that there is no difference between using this and using the spec master you’re already using. The ‘enhanced’ communication is based on providing the specifier with a list of Revit Families, based on UniFormat Classifications. The editor still needs to go in and manually bind the individual spec sections to each Assembly. Because it’s a database we are able to manually edit the checklist to perform our initial edit, just like BSD, but that requires knowledge of the spec content. Since you’re editing the actual spec, you really need to know what is in each Section. Granted you can always undo the edit once you open each Section since it is a database, but there is no button to push that automatically syncs your drawings and specs. In fact there is a significant amount of communication required just to get the Revit users to understand how to properly use the UniFormat Classifications, otherwise the information the specifier sees is wrong. Anything that is mis-labeled in the model comes to me as if it is right as rain. I can’t tell the difference until I see the drawings, which might not happen until much later. Another thing is that the document that is suggested for use as an ‘Outline Spec’ at this point is truly lacking; I prefer to just issue a draft copy of the long form spec with the caveat that it is a DD Phase document. It might look finished but it is not to be used for anything other than a chance to see what I’ve assumed will be needed down the road as the project progresses. More often than not I am told to delete substantial amounts of information just to add it all back in later. At least that’s easily done in a database.
Bottom line, this system requires experienced specifiers more than the old way of doing things. Anyone who thinks that they’re going to be able to crank out a spec in a day is in for a very bad day, and night, and week. As was noted earlier in this thread, GIGO, just like the model.
A yes, I remember the 286 as well as the 5.25" floppy…but that first system was on the “cutting edge”!! I think there were still a few older AT’s or XT’s at college when we first started learning AutoCAD v. 2.5.
And I also remember playing 8-track tapes at home and in my older brother’s car (although I was only a passenger). I wish he still had that car though…1970 (I think) AMC Javelin! I still have all of my old vinyl from the 70’s & 80’s in a box in the basement.
Oh, how I long for the good ol’ days. But, nostalgia isn’t what it used to be.
We’ve gone through huge transitions in technologies that have become so essentially integrated into our everyday lives. My wife took over my car for calling on clients during the day. It has a GPS. Now she can’t drive without GPS. We all adapt to new technologies.
How do we take our knowledge and experience as design professionals (specifically, specifications writers) and find our place in the Brave New World of computer-assisted specifications production? Must we each cough up $3,700 to subscribe to BSD’s SpecLink-E, plus the investment in learning to use the program plus time to develop “user modified text” and custom Sections?
Is there a tangible and timely payback in terms of greater productivity from doing that? I’ve tried and I haven’t found it.
Things change. To freak out the younger people at my firm I keep on my desk the May, 1974 issue of Scientific American with the cover story “Computer Graphics in Architecture” and an image with resolution similar to an LED "Walk/Don’t Walk sign. After they finish marveling at this historic document I show them my slide rule.
And yes, I was in Architecture school when I bought that issue at the student bookstore.
I am less concerned with the idea of paying for a subscription (unless it is for a one-time deal and I can’t charge it to the client). What I am concerned with is the possibility that an “efficient” system actually causes more work because it causes me to be less efficient. A computerized system which generates stuff that I need more time to “finalize” is not on the top of my Christmas wish list.
I’m with Peter on this one – in order for a product that makes connections between the revit model and the specs to work, you have to either have access to the model so that your computer can “read” it, or you need to be working in tandem with the architect. While my large firm clients are using modeling programs, I doubt if any of them would allow me to install something that would interface with their documents – they typically send out a non-live model for viewing. My smaller clients are using Autocad or other 2-D software, and I can view their documents just fine – and they don’t have interlinks in them. I think its going to be a while before being able to link to a client document is really in the works.
I have to “fess up” here. While Anne gave me credit for the “specs for dummies” observation, I first heard this observation from ARCOM personnel at one of the first MasterSpec review meetings I attended in about 2005. I was struck at how appropos that comment was about almost any “expert system.” I have used SpecLink, and although many people will find it easier to use, it is also not “specs for dummies.”
We can remove some of the “craft” expertise from architectural production (both graphic and text) with computer applications. The time I took to perfect my drafting skills in the '60s and '70s are much less relevant in an AutoCAD/Revit age (note that I say “less relevant” not “irrelevant”). Likewise, the skills of a highly skilled typist to “crank type” specs are of less use. I will have to admit that the legal typist I knew who could do 180 WPM might be useful, but almost any word processing software can make a marginal typist acceptable.
It’s the “expertise” that grows with experience that tell you when to use the low-e coating on the 3rd surface or when it might be better to use a vapor-retarding air barrier or that you might want to use barrel hinges instead of “European” hinges on educational casework in a 3rd grade class room or that maybe you shouldn’t copy those details from a pro football goal post to a middle school football field.
Even if you could externalize all the rules, it is “expertise” that tells you when the rules can be or should be broken. I used to think that there were only two rules that Architects needed to obey: (1) Gravity and (2) Good buildings don’t leak. Then I visited the Pantheon in Rome. Nuff said.