VERY ANGRY!!! ARGHHHHHH! MANF WEBSITE

[tony_wolf]

Ron: It sounds like no staff at the Institute can have an idea for improving service? Of course staff can’t implement without approval, but I hope that someone there is concerned with improving service, and can develop new proposals for the Board. My thought is that by offering benefits that make our work easier, maybe there would not need to be annual membership drives, because the value of membership would be self-evident. I don’t mind being part of the brain trust, but paying membership fees and then needing to do the legwork seems wrong.

It seems clear that every contributor to this discussion feels that many manufacturer websites waste our time. I offered 2 quick ideas because it’s a problem/need that should be addressed, not by an ad hoc campaign of a group of specifiers, but by the organization we have in place. It’s not the only problem that we share. Hopefully, the Institute wants to continually improve member service, and is searching for ideas to do this.

But, how long have we made these same futile complaints?

[specman]

Bob:

Did you mean March 2012 or 2011? I just went back through all the recommendations and Board action items from March 2012 to present, and I did not see where your idea was mentioned or discussed (as a current director, I don’t recall ever hearing about your suggestion). If it was 2011, then I wasn’t on the board at that time, but I’ll look into it if you want me to.

Like any suggestion to a upper level of management or governance, you have to be the champion for that idea. Don’t rely on the individual to whom you passed on the idea to be the sole supporter of your suggestion–stay actively connected to the process and lobby other board members about your suggestion to broaden the support.

From the title of your program I think I know what you’re suggesting and I think it would be a good idea. Building technology is a subject that is seriously lacking in other organizations…notably, the AIA.

---

Tony:

Staff has ideas and they do present them to the board, but just waiting around for someone else to recognize the problem and act on it is assuming way too much.

Right now, the main problem for CSI is member retention; thus, the member value proposition is important. However, only 6% of CSI’s membership identify themselves as a specifier (though those who identify themselves as architects–about 20%–may also be specifiers, but that subset number is not known).

Although the group of specifiers on this discussion forum have complained about the manufacturer website registration issue, it may not be as significant a problem that requires a solution that would appeal to the majority of the membership–at least from the staff’s point of view. However, if you can generate enough interest in the problem and offer a viable solution (that doesn’t cost a lot to create and maintain, I should add), then, by all means, present your recommendation.

You state, “how long have we made these same futile complaints?” Where or to whom have you made the complaints? Although I fully support and promote 4specs.com, it is not an official CSI platform; therefore, it isn’t officially monitored by the Board or CSI staff.

To quote a cliche, “the squeaky wheel gets the grease”; but, if the squeaky wheel isn’t heard by those who care, then the grease will never come.

To all:

If you are genuinely concerned about how CSI functions, then either get actively involved yourself, or identify, nominate, and vote for officers and directors who will make a difference for the organization.

Bystanders don’t lead.

[robert_w_johnson]

Ron

It was March 2012. It was emailed by me to all board members and the education committee.

Since the response from the Board was very limited with no response from education committee members, I started promoting in on various forums including CSI LinkedIn since then. The response there has been very positive over the past several months but with no board member participation.

One chapter (Willamette Valley) has taken the idea and started to offer a Building Technology Education program. Two other chapters (Albuquerque and Denver) are considering starting such a program. Those three chapters have jointly submitted a resolution for the annual meeting for the Board to appoint a R&D task team.

I don’t feel that I have to lobby board members of an organization like CSI. They all received by two-page description of the concept several months ago. They all should be paying attention to discussions on CSI related forums. I assume that they will now pay some attention since a resolution has been submitted.

By the way, one of side benefits of such a program is to introduce CSI to a lot of potential new members - especially emerging professionals. Beneficial programs attract new members!

[specman]

Bob:

Although we’ve exchanged emails since my last post, I’ll respond here as well.

I did receive an email back on 3/26/12 with your proposal, and I apologize for not responding–I can’t explain why I missed it.

Sometimes personal contact generates more response that a blast email to to the entire board–thus my “lobby” response earlier.

As I mentioned in our email conversation, I will make sure it is a topic of discussion at next week’s CSI board meeting.

[awhitacre]

I"ve had this happen a few times and where the manufacturers mess up is that they do not have a line for “where is the project located?”. They still (many of them) seem to assume that we all work sort of locally, and that the architect locaiton is reasonably close (like - no more than a state away) to the project location.
This really is a manufacturer/vendor education opportunity. I’ve been told that the architect location is important for the allocation of “sales credit” to the theoretical sales rep.
So, Colin – here’s the issue in a nut-shell: if product sales are dependent on deciding who gets the sales commission, that firm will never expand their business outside of their immediate geographic area – which sort of defeats some of the idea of having a web site. In Melissa’s case, they should have had a box at the very beginning that said “if you are in these zip codes, please contact our competitor and no, we don’t care where your project is”.

[jpjordan]

I have always tried to be aware of the relationship between compensation and project location for the reps that I deal with. I have nearly always found that “my” local rep is willing to help regardless of who gets credit. I sometime need to get handed off to a rep in the area where the project is located because they will know more about local conditions (codes, installers, differences in products, etc.). I find that if I am up front with them, I get more help.

In Melissa’s case, the website prevented a helpful rep from becoming aware of her project. In a 24/7 world the website needs to get smarter or reps (or their bosses) need to be “on call” 24/7.

[lynn_javoroski]

I just got off the phone with a gentleman from Milgard; in the upper right hand corner of the website www.milgard.com there’s a place to click Technical Resources and it takes you to http://pro.milgard.com/ where there is technical information and no registration.

They are working to improve the visibility of this link.