I am starting on the 6th edition of Construction Specifications Writing: Principles and Procedures. Obviously, there will be revisions for the updates of Masterformat 2004 and the new SectionFormat / PageFormat. And much could be added about BIM … but I’m going to resist that and focus on the basics of specifications writing, for design-bid-build projects.
I’m asking for thoughts about what does someone need to know in order to properly prepare construction specifications? Think not only of the architect-specialist spec writer but also the consulting engineer and product rep.
Comments/criticisms are welcome either here or in email directly to me (see my email address in the CSI member directory).
It is a recently-published attempt to address some of the concerns you have. As with anything it is a snapshot that begins its journey to obsolescence the day it hits the air. For example, it was published before the appearance of the new AIA documents. Your revisions to your book could address this as well as other developments.
My 2: They need to know what they don’t know – in other words, develop a deep curiosity for why things work they way they do, or don’t. A quick look through the MF04 book ought to reveal that there are an immense number of subjects out there to know more about. Couple that with the recognition that for each one of them, there is a manufacturing or trade specialty where one could spend the majority of a life’s work. Now add to that the realization that in a short time we as specifiers must help select, collaboratively edit, and assemble a project-specific work of “literature” regarding an assortment of these subjects… those who aren’t somehow intrigued by all this might run away as fast as they can. But those of us regulars here, and other specifiers too busy to post here, find it at least a secure living, but perhaps also one of the most interesting opportunities for lifelong learning.
It is I, John Regener, who started this discussion thread. My username and log-in pasword somehow got lost, so I came up “anonymous.”
The intent of the book is to teach construction specifications at colleges and universities. Knowledge of construction technologies is minimal for these students. Plus, there is a desire to make the book relevent to many design disciplines and not just architecture. So, the content is focused on formats, language, contractual relationships and production procedures.
I’m seeking the perspective of others. Leaving technical knowledge of the subject of a specification Section aside, what does the specifier need to write or edit the content.
A few thoughts I have already:
The specifier needs to know the sources of information about the subject and how to access them.
The specifier needs to know the recognized formats standardized by The Construction Specificatoins Institute (CSI), including SectionFormat and PageFormat.
A specifier needs to know the four methods of specifying: Descriptive, Reference Standard, Proprietary (Open and Closed) and Performance.
A specifier needs to understand the Conditions of the Contract and how they govern all work under the Contract.
A specifier needs to understand and properly use Division 1 - General Requirements.
A specifier needs to know and properly use specifications language, including “streamlining.”
Practically speaking, a specifier or the specifier’s clerical support needs to know how to use a word processing program to create and edit construction specification Sections.
Practically speaking, a specifier needs an editing draft for each specification Section, usually in the form of a commercial guide specification or a manufacturer-produced specification. Often, an office master or prototype specification has been developed and is used as the basis of project-specific specifications.
Please — I know there is more than just this. What else does the specifier need? An inquisitive mind that is capable of sifting and organizing information?
A specifier needs to know a good doctor for the mental breakdowns!
A specifier needs a good family who understands that you will be working long hours for a FAT paycheck. Hmmmm..well..maybe just an understanding family is what you need.
Oh Damn! Patience! Not one of my strengths. Tongue holding? Eeeeoooouuuu its slimy! I cant do that either, as you can tell from this e-mail. Sentance fragments - those I’m good at!
A specifier needs muddy boots (in the words of one of my mentors)
He was suggesting that specifiers need the practical experience of having seen construction in the field, and that specifiers need to “keep their boots muddy” by staying in touch with the construction administrators who witness the results of the specifications.
John, my class this semester wraps up the first week of December, and I plan to spend some time during the last class discussing with my students how they reacted to your book. I’ll send you an email with their comments, and probably do a short summary here.
For now, I can give you one quick opinion, and that is that your book would probably work better with a two-semester specification course (if there is such an animal out there). I find it very difficult to cover what needs to be covered in one semester, whether or not your textbook is used. That is an issue that has less to do with what is covered in a text book, and more to do with how schools view the importance of specifications in the curriculum.
Seriously, I feel that the need to ask why and have a detail oriented (or trained) mind
If someone asks a why question about building practices and your response is something like Whatever then you should not be doing this.
Also, I was trained as a scientist, systematic detailed investigation is a big part of it.
What do you need to KNOW? You need to know what you dont know AND have the courage to ask others or go digging to find the answer.
Frankly, John, I think the whole formats “importance” is just crap. that’s the presentation of the information and we all know that the actual information is what’s really important. the fact that there is a “standard” way of presenting information is probably the last thing a specifier needs to know.
the “deep curiosity” is the big thing. A specifier needs to be able to recognize why “this instance” is different – or not different – from every other instance. why is a system or product working on THIS job? and not THAT job? What is the Contractor’s motivation for this price and not that price? what are the advantages of this contract and not that contract? how do things fit together and what would happen if one of them changes? why does the installer do it this way and not that way? Who can give you an accurate read on the construction market in New York or Kansas City or … wherever your project is?
A specifier has to know how to make distinctions. we all know specifiers who are so tracked into their way of doing things that they get stuck if their tracks… get blocked.
you have to not be embarassed to ask what may be a “silly question”. and then you may have to ask it again. You have to be able to understand that the sealant you specified in 2003 isn’t the same sealant that is showing up on your project today.. and why that matters (or if it does). You have to have some basic understanding of chemistry, physics, labor law, cost estimating, biology, and human behavior. And you have to be willing to check your work and check it again after the drawings are revised.
I think the formats and systems is the least important, and the easiest to learn. its the mind-set that takes time to develop.
Reading skills that allow you to take in whole paragraphs at a time so that you can meet the irrational deadlines thrown at you at the last minute.
Divining skills that allow you to differentiate between what product reps tells you and what is most likely the truth.
Visual skills that allow you to compare a spec to the master spec documents and find the information that has to be re-inserted into the spec because someone told you to take it out.
A vast collection of resources (books and web-based). I always tell people that it isnt that I know so much. It is just that I know where to find most things.
An ability to see things from different levels of understanding. You have to be able to state what the contractor needs to know to bid the work, what the Owner needs specified to ensure that their best interests are served, and what the architect needs specified if they are to have any force behind their demands for quality workmanship.
Humility that can allow you to remain cheerful when you hear an architect tell you, for the thousandth time, that no one reads the specs.
I have developed a model that divides the domains of knowledge for a specifier into 3 areas: forms and formats (includes not only CSI stuffs, but basic writing organization and grammar), legal issues (most specifically contract issues), and construction technology (code issues tend to be some blending of mostly technology with a little legal stuff thrown in). Where I find some specifiers stronger (and more interested in) certain of domains that they are in other, but mostly a lot of what you need to know to be a good specifier lies in one or more of these domains. Someone who has strengths in only one of these domains will be helpful to a specifier, but not really ready to be an independent specification writer.
What people are also addressing in the postings above is what you need in order to master enough of these three domains to be a good specifier.
A good 3-part (or trinitarian) diagram is always a good theological approach.
Knowing the appropriate level of detail for (a) the specification Section (Level 3 vs Level 4) and (b) the text within the Section (broadscope, mediumscope and narrowscope).
Know proper terminology for construction products and processes. (Is it “sheetrock”, “gypsum wallboard” or simply “gypsum board”? Is concrete “poured” or “placed”? What are “poured-in-place concrete” and “g.i. flashing”?)
I think formats are fundamentally important to what we do in this sense: the formats are the alphabet and the rules of spelling for the language of specification writing. For all of us here, this is so fundamental that it doesnt need much, if any, emphasis. But for the beginning student who knows nothing about specifications, I find it essential to teach the alphabet, the rules of spelling. And you are right, it doesnt take them long to learn it, like you are right that it probably is the least important skill. Still, for the beginners, I would argue formats are the first thing to learn, so that they understand how things are organized, then let them move on to the thought process of specifying once they know the alphabet.