“WAG”?
Altogether too many people have gotten on an ever enlarging acronym bandwagon (EEAB). This acronym-bandwagon mentality (ABM) assumes that acronym creation (AC) is vitally important to save space in printed matter (SPM) and space in digital imaging (SDI), and that these savings are attended with little or no loss of comprehension (LOC) and are important to world survival (ITWS), perhaps because fewer words means less electric-power generation for lighting (EPGL) and less wood consumption for paper (WCP). That is not the case.
The LOC is greater than recognized (GTR) by acronym pundits (APs). Confusion over an acronym’s meaning is often generated by readers who have their own menu of acronyms (MOA) that they feel compelled to use for their own, favorite fields of interest (FFOI). They may be APs themselves. The military has perhaps the greatest ABM and has for very long been the leader in AC. This can only function well within a single field, and functions poorly for widely read or a well informed public (WIP).
As an acronym impaired person (AIP), and I am not alone, the time required to reread text, send requests for clarifications (RFC), or proceed erroneously due to misunderstandings is enormous. My FFOI and MOA certainly may not correspond with yours and my LOC is often a product of the similarity of acronyms (SOA) proffered by various APs. An AIP, and there are an ever increasing number among WIP, is more aware of LOC created by SOA than most casual readers. It is better to communicate completely and clearly, in essence, to be proactive against LOC and its accompanying waste of resources so evident in the large number of RFC.
Consequently, the EEAB is counterproductive and results in ever increasing LOC. The LOC and increased need for SPM and SDI for clarifications is GTR by society and APs themselves. The control of ABM must be understood by society as ITWS, wasteful of EPGL, and contrary to reducing WCP.
SLFN
So, does SLFN mean “Sure love full names”?
I’m reminded of an acronym that baffled me once. It was in a military project context; something–some problem or situation–was, or had been, “OBE”. I searched the web and asked everyone I could except the original author (not wanting to reveal my ignorance), but finally gave up and called him. He told me it stood for “overcome by events”–meaning it had either resolved itself, or it was too late to do anything about it anyway. Useful concept…
SLFN = So long for now
I had once received this in an email.
This is a really interesting topic, but I dont agree with the premise that younger architects dont want to
Maybe Im the exception to the rule, but when I was a young apprentice (we weren’t interns back then,) I wanted to write specs. Back then, I didn’t have the knowledge base to be fully trusted writing specs, although I did manage to edit a few drywall and vinyl tile sections from time to time. (Although I still dream of being a specifier when I grow up, Im just a project manager now.)
Back in those youthful days, there were two keys to the practice of architecture shrouded in mystery; specifying and detailing. While they are no longer mysteries to me, they are still mysteries to young architects. Our job is to de-mystify these critical tasks.
In our small office, weve started a series of monthly lunches for the young professionals, and our summer and fall plans include discussions of specifications, the construction contract, and bidding.
Wow, Randy, are you up for GOS (god of specs)? It’s wonderful what you’re doing and encouraging to others. Kudos!
I can’t even get our 35 yr old Archs to assist with writing (fill in the blanks) Div 0 & 1 for their own projects. They see this as beneath them…I see it as they don’t have a clue.
At the risk of beating a dead horse…
My original posting was based on a group of “perceptions” which may approximate reality in some practices, but certainly are not true in others. The issue is not really to change the reality, but to change the perception(s). The efforts of many such as Randy and Vivian (especially the efforts of the younger ones in our ranks) do chip away at these perceptions, but they are generally not really addressed by “dee-signers” (generally, not always).
I am also well aware of the thin line between constructive introspection and corrosive wallowing I do believe if we are aware of the misperceptions, we can be proactive in addressing them in a constructive manner.
Nothing worse than an ol’ f**t sitting in the “back room” grousing about architectural interns without a clue and then being unwilling to assist in their further education.
I have read many of the posts regarding this “hot” topic and have had this conversation several times with my mentor over the years. I myself am a young specifier. I was turned onto specifying during my first year of college. I realize this could be a lucrative business if we sell our value appropriately. I make a habit of doing things that others do not desire to do. My hope is that other young specifiers continue in this profession as it evolves into an information management type of role (for example with BIM technologies) because it is essential to design and construction. My determination is continuing down this path as “ungrateful” or “undesirable” it may be (in the eyes of others).
Andrea, I am interested to learn how you came by specs information so early in your academics; what information you got; and from whom.
Yours is a rather unique situation and may not be often repeated-- it is important, though, so others [many others!!!] may benefit from the same type of input.
Thank you
Good for you, Andrea. I think you have identified a critical future area of required expertise.
Andrea,
Your story is encouraging. I started writing specs in 1973. In 1989 I won a Merit Award from CSI for a project manual with complex bidding requirements for a complex healthcare project in Canada. A CSI Merit Award for a Canadian project using nonCSI formats was a coup.
My advise to you is do not be a one trick pony. In 1967 I started in a technical role, but over the intervening years I have done CA, QA, project coordinator, specifier, manual and CAD drafting, edited internal and external newsletters. Many times I have been the grunt drafter, the job captain, the project coordinator, and the specifier-simultaneously.
Specifers are much like contractors when reviewing drawings. Generaly speaking specifiers are concerned with quality, while contractors are concerned with quantity. However, we review drawings with the same critical eye. Specifiers provide a unique QA service on the drawings provided. My QA review includes the usual suspects and because I was a skilled manual and CAD draftsman, I review drawings for BAD fundamental drafting. As a drafter, I try to do more with less. As a specifier, I try to say it once in the most logical location and cross reference to that location.
Set yourself apart from the crowd by adding value beyond specifying and information management. Never stop reading and researching. Seak out the better mousetrap and ways to work smarter and faster.
Wayne
I am waiting to see Mike Rowe take on spec writing on Discovery Channel’s “Dirty Jobs.”
The show I want to see is a specification version of the Amazing Race, where teams of specifiers race to complete a project manual, almost like real life. Each session/episode would probably cover one discreet section. The sequence of episodes would move from division to division (and as in real life, they might not be in order). There would be roadblocks and detours, which would be things like sections for which there is no master, or where product data is incomplete. There could be an inbox instead of the mat, and someone representing the tested aspect of that division. For example if the div 9 covered a series of drywall related sections, someone from the GA could be there to welcome them to drywall land.
I imagine there would be almost as many viewers as willing participants. Oh well.
The race might have an end reward after a long arduous stint, but how about Million Dollar Password? More immediate result.
Clues of construction/architectural/engineering items, must be matched to words of same ilk.
But then, perhaps charades or CLUE are the best overall games for us!!! Even if the reward is small or non-existent.
I think it should be a prime time drama show called ‘CLAIRVOYANCE’ and come on after the ‘MENTALIST’ and ‘CSI’ on Thursday evenings. Lots of sloothing.
Oddly, I find specifying to be a great opportunity to be creative. Too often I select the products I include in the Project Manual because no one else will. Thankfully, my office has a number of competitive young architects who are vying for the ‘title’ of ‘Best Technical Architect’. I love working with them.
With the advent of our version of BIM (okay, I know that Revit with e-SPECS is not really BIM, but it’s about as close as Archi-torture comes to the real thing nowadays) our detailing teams cannot proceed without keynotes (MasterFormat) and assembly codes (UniFormat). They need us, really need us, and the technically minded architects and interns seem to appreciate what we offer. My big question is how to entice them into trying their hand(s) at writing, or editing, a few spec sections. It only works if they think it’s their idea. Any suggestions?
Oh, and to the anonymous poster who enjoys being abusive, you know where you can put your attitude. I don’t know many people who fit your stereotype. Maybe you’ve been spending too much time in front of the mirror.
Ask for help on a particular section or group of sections that fits with something they are good with or at. Most people enjoy helping others.
How to entice them?
I was drawn into specs as a result of being the only native, good-English speaker in a Miami, FL, office. Later, sitting with senior architects across the table from very difficult, low-bid contractors and in sight of Owners’ reps, I was able to quickly find bits and pieces of requirements that denied claims for extras.
Bingo! I was quickly indispensible at these meetings despite being bottom man on the totem pole.
This also made for more job security than senior staff.
I spoke English real goodly until I moved to Southern California where it’s, like, totally 4N to most peeple under 30 2B flewent in prpr English, especially the spelling part. In El Lay, English IS a 4n langwige.
Cud be y general conditions begin, “attenshun K-Mart shoppers.”
It didn’t help to spend a couple of years in da kine Hawaii, eitha.
And then there’s the matter of Attention Deficit Dis … oh look, a aquirrel!