Workmanship and its brothers

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

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message Lynn Javoroski New member Username: Lynn_javoroski Post Number: 2 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, July 30, 2002 - 06:05 pm:    Does anybody have a good alternative for "Install in neat and workmanlike manner..."? Michael D. Chambers FAIA FCSI CCS New member Username: Mcaspecs Post Number: 6 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 31, 2002 - 10:14 am:    Lynn: Workmanship, workmanlike, etc. are undefinable terms for which everyone in the industry has a very clear intuitive sense but no common set of definitions. They are verbal short cuts that no longer have any useful meaning or place in construction documents. I substitute the terms "fabrication and installation" anytime I come across the term "workmanship". Hopefully, I have defined or discussed fabrication and installation in enough detail to be enforceable. Interms of your phrase, I suggest that there is no need for a substitute, just delete the phrase. "Neat and workmanlike" is meaningless, unenforceable, and not critical to any aspect of product installation. Installation "quality" should be tied to an industry standard, manufacturer's installation instructions, or a detailed discussion in the specification. Hope this helps, it should be interesting to see what our colleagues have to say. Regards, Michael David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Junior Member Username: David_axt Post Number: 32 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 31, 2002 - 05:01 pm:    Not only is workmanship undefinable, but it is also unmeasurable. What tool do you use to measure workmanship? Tape measure? Level? Plumb bob? I prefer to specify tolerances and measurable results. I agree with Michael about specifying industry standards. I guess that "workmanship" is like "art", that is I know it when I see it. I imagine that you could have wood framing that is plumb, level, straight, and have the appropriate kind and number of nails yet look like hell because the framing contractor beat it all up. This would be hard to reject on workmanship if it met all the structural and code criteria. Plus the contractor would probably say, "That's the way I have been doing for twenty years!" John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA New member Username: Bunzick Post Number: 13 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 31, 2002 - 05:33 pm:    I agree with the comments of M. Chambers and D. Axt regarding the use of industry standards. However, there are times when there really aren't any that are applicable for a particular situation. This is more often true for field installation standards (as opposed to manufacturing). (Now don't ask me for examples because I can't think of any right now.) In those circumstances, I try to specify specific, objective criteria - but stay focussed on the things that matter for the work in question. That's to avoid specifying requirements not germane to the project. (I guess that's good specifying practice anyway, isn't it!) I might specify particular installation tolerances, visual characteristics, or other meaningful measures. In David's example, I might say "no hammer marks visible at a distance of 5 feet." The caveat here is that you really do need to know a lot about the trade in question to avoid unreasonable requirements. (I have many years of contracting and C/A experince, which is a big help.) If you have contacts in the trade, use them to help. If you have a chance to get in the field, ask the mechanics. Most are very willing to help an architect, providing you don't act like you know more than they do. This can be a lot of work, so unless I know what I want off the top of my head, I would reserve the research for the more important elements in a project. Dave Metzger New member Username: Davemetzger Post Number: 17 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Wednesday, July 31, 2002 - 09:09 pm:    This is where mockups are really of value, where "workmanship" is intangible, ie cannot be readily defined by objective tolerances or descriptions in words or on drawings. Having a mockup built built by the crafters (that's PC for craftsmen) who will do the actual work can be a great benefit. Once accepted, the mockup becomes the standard by which subsequent work is judged. Of course, the mockups themselves have to be properly specified (and drawn, if necessary)-- how many, what size, where located, for what purpose, what comprises them, etc. This can be complex when work of different sections needs to be included in a single mockup-- eg unit masonry, precast trim, window frame and glass, sealant, etc. It takes careful coordination between specification sections. John Regener, AIA, CCS Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, August 05, 2002 - 12:23 pm:    >>a good alternative for "Install in neat and workmanlike manner..."?<< How about, "do a really, really good job." Or, "to the satisfaction of the architect (and any of his friends who might be hanging around)" Or, "in full compliance with the usual and customary practices of the trade in the locale of the project." Don't dismiss the last one too quickly. It seems to be the basis for settling claims even more so than reading the specs and identifying standards of quality and work{person}ship. Subjective and undefined/undefinable terms are useless. I believe that mock-ups or review of the first increment of work are effective ways of establishing quality. Jo Drummond New member Username: Jo_drummond Post Number: 19 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, September 09, 2002 - 06:22 pm:    Besides, it ought to be "workpersonship"! C. R. Mudgeon New member Username: C_r_mudgeon Post Number: 1 Registered: 08-2002 Posted on Wednesday, September 11, 2002 - 05:28 pm:    Or "work-per-offspring-ship"