No one says you have to use only “narrowscope” section titles, even if they are listed in MF04. You can still back up a level or two if you prefer, in authoring or organizing sections. For example, all the types of toilet compartments can be specified together in level 3 section 10 21 13 Toilet Compartments, instead of using separate level 4 sections 10 21 13.13 Metal, 10 21 13.16 Plastic-Laminate, etc. Or if you feel like it, you could go back even another level and specify all compartments and cubicles together as a level 2 section: 10 21 00 (though it may not make sense to do so in this case).
Some have sworn never to use level 4 numbers (i.e. xx xx xx.xx). No problem. See the table on pg 16 in the MF04 book: level 4 is an “Option for detailed titles”. The MasterFormat police do not require you to use the most detailed level listed in the book.
Sounds like the MFETT could have benefited from your input on organization of some of the technical sections. Hopefully the subscription service will be available sometime soon making it possible once again for new and improved ideas to be considered and incorporated. If anyone has heard news on that, please add to the thread at 4specs Discussion Forum: MasterFormat subscription service?
No one has yet commented from the bidder’s point of view. Sure, “work results” can be specified in “broadscope” sections (such as 10 21 13 Toilet Compartments) but it requires bidders who are trying to find out if their products are specified to open up and search each section rather than a quick survey of the Table of Contents. If it’s important enough to give a Level 3 section number to conductive glass tiling (a non-existent product), then is it unreasonable to expect similar treatment for toilet compartmentalizing?
The inconsistencies not only make MF04 difficult to use but the credibility of the format becomes questionable. I’m supposed to convince mechanical and electrical engineers of the merits of MF04 when it doesn’t solve the shortage of numbers problem (toilet compartments), doesn’t accommodate all common construction (cold-applied membrane roofing) and has redundancy and needless repetition (tiling).
OK, I’ll use the prescribed Level 3 number and title for all types of toilet compartments. End of discussion. But I still don’t know where to specify cold-applied non-bituminous roofing and I am completely baffled by the requirement to segregate tiling by material and installation method.
I did comment during the review period about the technical inadequacies of MF04. But the roar about how many divisions was apparently too loud for the comments to be heard.
I wanted to comment in the official MF04 website that was announced at the 2006 CSI Show & Convention but I can’t find it. Apparently the urgency I feel to resolve these MF04 matters is not shared. There must be more pressing issues going on at the Institute level than construction specifications.