mindfulMATERIALS content working group

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 371 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, February 24, 2020 - 09:31 am:    Looking for new volunteers. IMHO, mindfulMATERIALS has grown into the most powerful search engine for sustainability attributes in building materials. It's a live search, pulling data directly from manufacturer's websites and third party certifiers. I joined this group a few years ago, because I wanted to be sure it was searchable by CSI numbers and made sense to specifiers (especially me). We're currently working on adding embodied carbon and social justice attributes to the searchable options. If you would like to help shape the content, I'd be happy to connect you to our group coordinator. Let me know. - Colin Gilboy Senior Member Username: colin Post Number: 469 Registered: 09-2005 Posted on Monday, February 24, 2020 - 09:54 am:    https://www.mindfulmaterials.com/ Colin Gilboy Publisher, 4specs.com 702-505-9119 - Las Vegas Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 923 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Monday, February 24, 2020 - 03:44 pm:    Let us consider a scenario where the design professional believes that he or she must personally do something to address climate change and to promote sustainability but the consequences of the resulting design decisions are contrary to the desires of the client. What are the professional consequences when for example the project is more expensive than the Client expected to pay. On a related topic while recognizing that climate change is real and that we need to take major steps to address the problem can there be discussion whether some of the proposed solutions are possibly not the most effective strategies? Marc Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 569 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, February 24, 2020 - 03:58 pm:    wait! are you telling me that it's the OWNER's money and the owner's building. I thought as an architect, I AM THE ULTIMATE arbiter of what is right and wrong! I'm shocked! I've worn nothing but black all these years, and soon as I reach the "final master level" I will receive my Philip Johnson (ar approved alternate) funny glasses. as for climate change. it is real and we should do something about it...refuse commissions from owners who don't want to help solve this problem....but if the design professional takes their money....they have a duty to them. Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, February 24, 2020 - 06:42 pm:    Setting aside the Mar(k/c)s' comments for a moment, how do most of you see a tool like this library being useful to you as a specifier? I'm genuinely curious because I can't seem to think of a situation, that I would typically find myself in, where something like this would be useful to me as a specifier. The closest scenario where something like this might have been useful, and it doesn't happen that frequently (maybe once every 18-24 months), is where I'm following up on some research and comments by a "green consultant." The most recent example of this was when they were researching a bunch of products from the project manual and they claimed they couldn't verify compliance with low-emitting emissions criteria for LEED. Well, a few hours later I was able to find maybe 75 percent of the information they said didn't exist to either confirm compliance or confirm non-compliance. This was by simply going to the products' data sheets or technical information available on the manufacturers' website. If this tool is searching that information from the manufacturers' websites and third-party certifiers themselves, are we confident that it can find the information that a "green consultant" couldn't find ... and I could? I don't know how the consultant was searching for the information, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were using some type of tool like this. It was shocking how apparent some of this information was without having to dig around. Also, thanks to no compulsory registration with any of the manufacturers (in part thanks to Colin and 4specs), I didn't have to create a login like I would with mindfulMATERIALS to get to the information. My email inbox, and junk mail filter appreciate this. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 1045 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, February 26, 2020 - 12:08 pm:    Does anyone use GreenFormat? Marc Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 570 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, February 26, 2020 - 01:49 pm:    hahaha....it was too little too late in many respects and too early web-wise in others. and no; it has no utility Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, February 26, 2020 - 03:44 pm:    I obviously don't know how mindfulMATERIALS is gathering the information from manufacturers, but I think if manufacturers used GreenFormat it would be extremely helpful in finding and parsing the information. We've discussed many times in my office that we should come up with some type of database or library of green materials searchable by their salient characteristics, and we always decide it's too much effort to even take on when we all acknowledge that we have to rely on manufacturers to keep the information up to date and in a format that is easily searchable/retrievable/understandable. GreenFormat would go a long way to helping bridge this gap. Unfortunately, I've never seen a manufacturer that uses it. What happened to greenformat.com? Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 372 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, February 27, 2020 - 09:49 am:    Dear Unregistered Guest, Thank you for this setup to promote mindfulMATERIALS. You're right, it is way too hard to assemble a database of green materials searchable by their salient characteristics, by yourself. The minute you were done with your spreadsheet, it would be out of date. Yet that's just what Nancy Hulsey did at HKS to launch mindfulMATERIALS as a library tagging system, in 2014. Here's the mM solution today, from the website www.mindfulmaterials.com: "The mindful MATERIALS Library is a multi-stakeholder initiative developed by the building industry for the building industry, providing a common platform to access and clearly communicate transparency and optimization information for building products. mindful MATERIALS is NOT another certification. It is a FREE, brand-agnostic product library, which allows project teams and industry professionals to search for a multitude of relevant, qualified products. Manufacturers showcasing products in the mindful MATERIALS digital Library is facilitated by GIGA’s platform Origin and a team of industry product reviewers. Manufacturers manage all product information directly in a free Origin account, connect to or upload relevant integrated certification and disclosure documents for each product, then submit for review and admission to the Library. The end result provides industry users with direct, free access to building products that meet a sustainability criteria baseline." How does mM gather data: Manufacturers opt-in to the mM database, voluntarily. Today there are over 10,000 products listed. The collaborative aspect of this search engine make it easier for manufacturers to comply and for architects/designers/specifiers to use. IMHO, GreenFormat was useless from the start because it didn't harmonize with existing sustainability certifications and didn't pay attention to where the market was going. - Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, February 27, 2020 - 12:52 pm:    Lisa, Thank you for the information about mindfulMATERIALS. It sounds like your first statement that mM is "the most powerful search engine for sustainability attributes in building materials. [Wherein users conduct] a live search, pulling data directly from manufacturer's websites and third party certifiers," isn't correct then, right? You now say mM relies on manufacturers to opt in and provide the information through a special platform that is then reviewed by a team of [volunteer?] industry product reviewers. That's a big difference to me as a specifier if I were to use the system. No longer am I using a powerful search engine that is gathering information straight from the manufacturers' websites and third-party certifiers to find products that might meet certain criteria. Instead I'm searching a database of curated products that still might not be up to date if the manufacturer's haven't paid one of their employees to update the information in the Origin platform. That could still lag behind based on the timeline of the review by one(?) or more(?) member(s) of a volunteer(?) team of reviewers. What does that review entail? You mentioned a "sustainability criteria baseline." What is that baseline? Is it something mM sets, or is it something I input as a parameter during my search? In other words, is the baseline arbitrarily set by someone with let's assume good intentions but who doesn't know what my clients want, or do I get to change and adapt the baseline to meet my clients' needs? Also, sorry to harp on this, but "direct, free access" to those products would not require compulsory registration with the mM site. Yes it may be free, but I wouldn't consider it direct. --- Finally, how did GreenFormat not harmonize with existing sustainability certifications? What existing sustainability certification information does not have a place in GreenFormat? 2.1 Sustainable Standards and Certifications has a place to put information about any sustainability certification, existing or otherwise. 2.2 Sustainable Features has a place to put relevant rating system credits as well. Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 373 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, February 27, 2020 - 04:56 pm:    Dear Unregistered Guest, mM works just like a google search, the user does a search which is a direct request to live information at the manufacturer's website. Manufacturer's opt-in to allow the information to flow through to the mM interface. Some information in my previous post was in quotes, where I copied it directly from the website. The mM interface is curated, but not the information from the manufacturers or third party certification systems. The curating is to organize the information into buckets that can be categorized and compared in a meaningful way. The manufacturer keeps their own website information up to date. There is no additional step of being sure mM is up-to-date. That part happens automatically each time you do a new search and product information pops up in the right place. You get to choose whatever criteria you want to search by, based on your client's requirements, each time you search. If you have this many questions, you should go do a demo. Would you like a personal introduction so you don't need to give up your name and email address? - Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, February 28, 2020 - 05:33 pm:    Lisa, I'm not sure I can agree with your description based on information easily found on mM's website. Your first claim above is that the search is like a google search which is direct to live information at the manufacturer's website. If that was the case, why does a manufacturer need to input their products' information through Origin's platform in order to be listed in the mM library? Wouldn't the search engine be able to find that information on the manufacturer's own website like google does? Even the quoted information you posted earlier contradicts your statement, "Manufacturers manage all product information directly in a free Origin account, connect to or upload relevant integrated certification and disclosure documents for each product, then submit for review and admission to the [mM] Library." Manufacturers are tasked with providing the information directly through Origin (not their own websites) for it to be published in the mM library. If the search engine gathers information from a manufacturer's website, why do they have to manage that information for each product through the Origin account? This means that the information in the mM library can become out of date quite easily. mM's FAQ (https://www.mindfulmaterials.com/faqs) notes that it takes time for manufacturers to provide this information, "[...] There will be time needed to provide thorough and accurate product information [...]," (1st FAQ under the "Manufacturers" heading). So if a manufacturer decides that the time needed to provide that information, or to update it, is no longer worth it ... the information can become out of date and potentially inaccurate. Further down in the mM FAQ this necessity to update your own information is clearly spelled out for manufacturers, "[Q:] Who is responsible for updating the database and how often does this occur? [A:] Manufacturers are responsible for keeping their mindful MATERIALS data current. They maintain editorial access to all content they publish to the mindful MATERIALS Library" (5th FAQ under the "mindful MATERIALS Library, Powered by Origin" heading). Note that it makes no claim that a manufacturer simply needs to keep their own website up to date once they've gained access into the library. When I noted that the mM database is curated I don't mean that the interface is curated, or that the mM team is picking and choosing which data to include. Rather, mM is curating (or selecting, organizing, and presenting) which products are able to be included in the library by setting baseline criteria that each product needs to achieve. For reference, see the baseline criteria on the "mM Submission Criteria" under the "Resources" heading on the mM website, or read it here (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5750715007eaa0123e3a1c25/t/5e34482dfb38da4ec976b9c4/1580484653812/mM+Submission+Criteria_Q42019.pdf). If a manufacturer's product doesn't meet this criteria, and they don't want to pay to get one of the accepted disclosures, tests, or certifications done, they cannot get that product listed in the mM library. In this way, as a potential user of the library, I am not able to choose whatever criteria I use in searching the library based on my clients' requirements if my clients' might be less stringent than the baseline criteria that mM has established. It also means that a manufacturer might have only a portion of all their product offerings included in the library and able to show up in my search. By using the search, I'm limited in seeing information that should be available to me as I attempt to make an informed decision about which products my clients might be ok with. Even if all the information on a particular product is that it exists and has no redeeming sustainable qualities ... I would like to see it and know that it exists. In this way I can choose to filter it out based on the sustainable qualities I wish to use in my product search parameters. The difference is that they are my (clients') parameters rather than anyone else's. This last point gets to the comments that the Mar(k/c)'s made earlier. If we are not supposed to be arbitrarily deciding which products are better and worse than others, and we are not supposed to be using our client's money to further our own sustainability agenda without their informed consent ... I need to be able to get from my client what sustainable goals they wish to pursue even if it means none (assuming my firm still wants them as a client after teasing this information out of them). I then need to be able to fulfill my duty to them in finding products and materials that support their goals rather than my own, or those of the mindful MATERIALS collaborative. mM's baseline criteria establishes a minimum bar to entry that may not coordinate with my client's goals. If I were to believe what you are saying about the tool, I'm unknowingly not fulfilling my duty to my client to the best of my abilities because I would be operating from incorrect assumptions about the tool. A tool that should have been helping me, but instead might end up being a liability. So no, I don't think I'll take you up on the offer to go do a demo. I've discussed this tool with others in my office that have access to it and have tried to use it before. I'll take the descriptions of their experiences with it, and I'll take what I've been able to research about it in my efforts to respond in this thread, and I'll decide whether or not it might be worth registering for an account. For my firm and those I work with, I will be recommending that anyone using materials databases like this understands the criteria for entry, understands where it may not align with our clients' stated goals, and are judicious in their use of the database. I'd encourage others to do the same.