| Author |
Message |
Nathan Woods, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: nwoods
Post Number: 35
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 12:19 pm: |    |
Okay all you practicing construction contract administrators....what's your real position on adopting MF04?
Personally, I am for it. The reasons behind it are fathomable, and the "effort" involved in changing my documentation filing and archiving systems is fairly minor. However, (and this is a big however), I have recommended to my firm that we do not adopt it until the construction project management software implements it.
Does anyone know how the major construction management systems are doing in this regard? I confess, I have not done much research on the topic, and am hoping to hear first hand accounts from those of you out there.
My reasons for holding off on MF04 (until the CM packages are ready) are as follows:
1. Payment applications currently follow the 16 division format. All the cost codes are scheduled accordingly.
2. Materials are contracted off the 16 division format. Submittals are generated and prepared accordingly. More significantly, the submittal tracking systems are configured on the 16 division format. To deviate from this will lead to confusion between the architect and contractor.
So that's my take on it. What are your thoughts?
Regards,
Nathan Woods, CCCA |
David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI
Senior Member
Username: davidcombs
Post Number: 87
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 11:40 am: | |
I was wondering the same thing back in June / July when we were undergoing the implementation, so I asked a buddy of mine over at Manhattan Construction, one of the largest in the south-central region. The response I got was rather interesting:
First off, they use ProLog project management software, so their IT guy checked with the folks at ProLog to see what their take on MF '04 was. ProLog was in fact already aware of the change in numbers, and in the change from 5 digits to 6, and were working on an update to their software. The release date was not yet known, but suspected to be somewhwere around 4th quarter of '05 - first quarter of '06.
Second, Manhattan doesn't use ProLog for tracking of submittals - they use Excel. The other point they made was that they were already so used to such inconsistencies in the numbering already - due to architects still using outdated '88, '83, and older numbers - and invented numbers - that they are forced to manually enter them anyway. So entering in the MF '04 numbers, even though they are now 6 digits was really no big deal.
For the many projects we have issued in '04 numbers, I have heard no complaints from the construction community. |
Chris Grimm, RLA, CDT, MAI, CSI
Senior Member
Username: tsugaguy
Post Number: 21
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 04:30 pm: | |
Our construction delivery team uses Constructware for web-based project info and collaboration. We have checked and the CA's tell me that Constructware is very flexible with how we enter the section numbers and division numbers for each project. There are enough digits to support anything we would want to do, even several digits for level 5 characters (xx xx xx.xx.ABCD...)
www.constructware.com |
Jo Drummond, FCSI
Senior Member
Username: jo_drummond
Post Number: 23
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 04:46 pm: | |
Just for the record, since this is a "real world" thread, I was asked by a new client, yesterday, please not to use MF 04. |
Nathan Woods, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: nwoods
Post Number: 45
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 04:49 pm: | |
Jo, I'm assuming your client was an architect. Did they state why not? |
Jo Drummond, FCSI
Senior Member
Username: jo_drummond
Post Number: 24
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 01:35 pm: | |
Too complex. Architects know some of the existing numbers, actually they condense them to 4 digits, e.g. "In Section 5500 it says". Six digits, putting the sitework in the back of the book even though it happens first, more complications for engineers who have to make vast changes. The attitude of the person I spoke with was: the system is OK, why change it. |
Phil Kabza
Senior Member
Username: phil_kabza
Post Number: 146
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 06:43 pm: | |
We've had some initial stumbling. After letting a new corporate client team know we were changing and putting together a DD package, we heard back from them that they could not change due to their established accounting audit system that was already in place. So we translated backwards to MF95 - not fun, and a little disappointing, but not a big deal.
I've been helping some engineering consultants make the changeover, and they are not having problems with it. FP, P, and HVAC make much more sense now; the section filenames are easier to manage, and its clearer what design professional is responsible for what. Same can be said for the EEs and the Comm people.
Civil folks are still a little behind, but the breaking out of the utility sections into their own division should help us with some confusion there.
I share Jo's intuitive discomfort with losing the linear sense that came from sitework being in Division 2. But we didn't leave the MF team much choice when we insisted on their not tampering with 3 - 14. |
Sheldon Wolfe
Senior Member
Username: sheldon_wolfe
Post Number: 172
Registered: 01-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 02:01 am: | |
Civil folks I have talked to aren't too excited, as they already have to deal with the different requirements of the various architects they work for, as well as the differences between DOT and MasterFormat-based specs.
In our firm, I find that we have moved to expressing section numbers by the last four digits. For example, if we're talking about doors, the "08" part is implicit, and we express only "1416" for flush wood doors.
Incidentally, we are using the xx-xxxx format suggested by Colin some time ago. It works for both filenames and section numbers (we shouldn't need one format for each). |
Tracy Van Niel (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 03:16 pm: | |
But, it also depends on who your owner is to begin with.
Any project going through the Department of Administrative Services in Ohio is required to use MF2004 starting on January 1, 2006. The OSFC (state school funding group) is requiring it when their new update comes out next April.
A large construction management group contacted us at the end of last year to ask when we were planning on switching to MF2004. I asked them what their poll was finding out as far as architectural firms in Columbus, Ohio goes and was told that most firms plan to switch over January 1, 2006, which is also when we plan to do it.
I actually prefer the XX XX XX numbering format, it seems to be easier for my brain to process somehow. Might make for an interesting study someday ... |
Chris Grimm, RLA, CDT, MAI, CSI
Senior Member
Username: tsugaguy
Post Number: 22
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 08:30 pm: | |
When we are talking to Owners or FMs we should also be prepared to adivse them on the long term potential savings of using MF04.
MF04 "...Could Cut Building Costs 5 to 10 Percent While Reducing Changes and Delays During Construction..."
...$16 billion per year lost due to lack of building industry interoperability... (NIST, August 2004) -- I believe MF04 can play a valuable part in reducing this and becoming part of the BIM movement.
More at http://www.geocities.com/tsugaguy/TechnicalResources-MF04.htm
Copy this URL and paste into your browser for a collection of helpful links on the responses of the major groups in the industry to MF04. I hope this will help others be prepared when Owners balk at conversion issues. They are the ones who will ultimately benefit the most! |
Robin E. Snyder
Senior Member
Username: robin
Post Number: 33
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 12:38 pm: | |
I've encoutered my first resistance, as I have been informing clients of the change,especially now that they are telling me about projects that will start after my Jan 1, 2006 conversion date. Are any of you stating a "drop dead" cut off - when you no longer will provide MF95? |
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 262
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 12:49 pm: | |
We started with all new projects after August 1, 2005. The only exceptions were projects issued after that date that were additions to or related [another building same campus]to projects issued just prior and where many contractors would perform on both. Have had no problems. |
Bill Morley
New member
Username: billm
Post Number: 1
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 03:50 pm: | |
I was in a "Specs for Small Projects" session at the CSI National Convention this year. The moderator's first question was "How many of you write specifications?" Almost everyone in the room raised a hand (I'd guess 150 to 200 people). The next question - "How many are using MF 04?" Exactly two people raised a hand. I wonder if the response would have been different in a "Specs for Larger Projects" session. |
David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: davidcombs
Post Number: 140
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 06:07 pm: | |
We've been using MasterFormat 2004 since August 2005, for about 15 or so projects so far, and counting.
Projects range in size from about $2,000,000 to about $120,000,000, with no known problems or complaints.
I did get one call from a mechanical equipment supplier indicating that he could not locate our Division 15 specifications, and was wondering if we had accidentally left them out. I politely pointed him to Division 23. |
(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 07, 2006 - 09:35 am: | |
Another stumbling block to adopting MF 2004. I was told yesterday afternoon that we could not adopt MF 2004 because our project management software doesn't support the 50 divisions nor the six-digit (7 in our case - using the 2 and 4 section numbers) numbering to log in submittals. We have a call into the software vendor to try and resolve this issue. I was also told that Contractor's software is not capable of handling the new format. Just starting my research, but I was wondering if anyone else has experienced this problem with Autodesk Constructware, Meirian Systems Prolog, Projectmates, or other construction management software. |
David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: davidcombs
Post Number: 163
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 07, 2006 - 03:48 pm: | |
A contractor I spoke with about two weeks ago uses Timberline project management software, and they have no problems or issues with acommodating the 6-digit numbering. |
Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, MAI, RLA
Senior Member
Username: tsugaguy
Post Number: 39
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 07, 2006 - 09:50 pm: | |
See my 11/10/05 post above for Constructware status - should be no problem there.
Which PM system are you using the does not support it? And which software is the Contractor using? Just curious. Thanks for the heads up. |
(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 08, 2006 - 03:33 pm: | |
Projectmates for our architectural office and I believe the contractor is using Meirian Systems Prolog. |
Philip R. Carpenter AIA
Member
Username: philip_carpenter
Post Number: 3
Registered: 08-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 04:57 pm: | |
Upon discovering this cool discussion forum, I have been reading many of the older posts. Forgive me for joining this a few years LATE, but better ‘nate then lever’ as the joke goes. In our office we finally (after much discussion) settled upon the “XX XXXX” format with a space between the 2nd and 3rd digits. The trick here is to make Word employ a non-breaking space character instead of a normal space bar – this keeps the entire number together without a return where you least desire it. To do this you hold down the control AND the shift key while hitting the spacebar – this little ploy allows the space but keeps all 6 characters together. Admittedly this is much more work but for any of you piano players out there it shouldn’t be hard! |
Wayne Yancey
Senior Member
Username: wayne_yancey
Post Number: 83
Registered: 01-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 05:34 pm: | |
Welcome Phil, but your tip is old news. |
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: john_regener
Post Number: 409
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 12:12 pm: | |
Going all the way back to the beginning of this discussion, is it proposed that the specifications be organized according to the breakdown (work results?) in the software used to track construction progress and prepare payment applications? |
Philip R. Carpenter AIA
Intermediate Member
Username: philip_carpenter
Post Number: 4
Registered: 08-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 05:09 pm: | |
Sorry, was not aware that I was sharing 'old news'. Maybe someone out there didn't know about this? |
Brett M. Wilbur CSI, CCS, AIA
Senior Member
Username: brett
Post Number: 164
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 05:19 pm: | |
Don't worry, nothing to be sorry about. I knew, but had forgotten. I'm glad you refreshed my memory. There is a lot of information embedded in these discussion forums, especially in the archives. Some people have lots of time on their hands to read it all, I guess. |
Wayne Yancey
Senior Member
Username: wayne_yancey
Post Number: 84
Registered: 01-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 05:45 pm: | |
Excuse me Phil, I thought everyone knew that function. No malice intended. |
Robert W. Johnson
Senior Member
Username: bob_johnson
Post Number: 170
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 07:54 pm: | |
Actually that function is written up in the MasterFormat document in the Introduction and Applications Guide, page 9. |
Kenneth C. Crocco
Senior Member
Username: kcrocco
Post Number: 141
Registered: 04-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 15, 2008 - 02:54 pm: | |
Phil, are you the one and only world famous Phil Carpenter from Chicago? |
Philip R. Carpenter AIA
Advanced Member
Username: philip_carpenter
Post Number: 5
Registered: 08-2008
| | Posted on Friday, August 15, 2008 - 07:32 pm: | |
No sorry to say i am neither famous nor from Chicago. been thru there tho......
just a plain old architect. |
4specs.com Home Page