| Author |
Message |
John Regener
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2000 - 02:36 pm: |    |
Has anyone thought about adding a Division 17 and, if so, what for? |
wpegues
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2000 - 11:36 am: | |
John,
Not sure that an answer of 'no, I have not
thought about it' is correct since you ask only if
anyone has thought about it.
I do commercial, high-rise residential, hotel,
confernce center and corporate headquarters
type work. I have had no need for it. There
was a time back in the mid 80's that some
mechanical/electrical engineers wanted to put
the buidling automation systems into a
separate division of its own. Their rationale
was only that it was going to be a separate
subcontract not in electrical. To which the
response is that the divisions are not based
on trades anyway...and that they could easily
put it in Division 13 where it is actually a topic.
I have heard that those that really want to
consider a 17th division are more in the
process engineering and other specialized
construction (refineries) where they feel that
the breakdown of topics in 15 and 16 does not
work for them very well. But I have not had any
detailed discussions with any about this.
William |
John Regener
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2000 - 02:49 pm: | |
You bit!
Remember when the discussion on the specifications section of the LEAP forum would get dormant. I found that asking about "Division 17" would start some heated discussions.
And there's a serious side to the question.
Having 16 Divisions under Masterformat is arbitrary. Going outside of the 16 Divisions, as door hardware people would like to do for access control systems and building automation systems, might be justifiable. (I think it can be handled now in Division 13 ... but that's another discussion topic). Personally, I'd like to see Division 15 split (plumbing + hvac) and Division 16 moved to Division 17. But, most mechanical and electrical I am in contact with are still using Masterform numbers and titles from some time in the early '80's, so I doubt it would work. |
Tom Heineman
| | Posted on Monday, May 15, 2000 - 02:28 pm: | |
Division 17 is coming up again for the 17th time in south Florida. Some folks at Miami Intl Airport wanted to use it for Commisssioning, in spite of that topic's presence in Division 1 under 1995 MasterFormat.
Just as patriotism is said to be the last refuge of the scoundrel, Division 17 may be the last refuge of the lazy - or the chronically out-of-touch.
I have no trouble fitting everything into the 16. |
Anne Whitacre
| | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2000 - 06:42 pm: | |
We also periodically get someone who wants Commissioning to be Division 17, and if they are a consultant hired by the Owner (not by us) I just go ahead and put it in the book. Owner doesn't care, and arguing with their consultant about it never accomplishes anything. However, in general, I agree with Tom about "the 16".
Anne Whitacre |
Keith Lowell
| | Posted on Saturday, June 03, 2000 - 07:03 am: | |
I have used a Division 17 before. We created it for "Building Infrastructure". As I read the other comments, it looks like Div. 17 might be used for anything. In general I think that is not in keeping with the CSI MasterFormat guidelines and neither is "Building Infrastructure". We used a separate section mainly to separate a particular work area that was deing funded separately on a school project. If I had to do it over again I would not use a separate Div. 17. There was a great effort in trying to separate the infrastructure (data cabling, sound system, clock system, etc.) from Division 16. We had several significant change orders from items that did not get coordinating properly. We also had a filed sub bid process which made matters worse. So in hind-sight I would recommend staying within the MasterFormat guidelines, say it once, and say it in the right place.
Keith Lowell |
David E Lorenzini (Deloren)
| | Posted on Saturday, June 03, 2000 - 10:39 pm: | |
I think the simple answer to Division 17 usage is that it is a departure from the standard of the industry. If the project should get into trouble and there is litigation, the specifier would make an easy target for producing a poor quality project manual based on its departure from CSI practice. The whole spec would be suspect. If you are thinking about Division 17, write down the reason, mail it to yourself, and put it in your administrative file just in case. |
Harold J. Rosen
| | Posted on Monday, August 27, 2001 - 11:38 am: | |
A History of CSI Masterformat
In 1961 the CSI Technical Committe T3 under the
Chairmanship of Rolf Retz presented the CSI Format
at the CSI Convention in NY. A good deal of
discussion ensued throughout CSI.
Finally in 1962 a 3 man Committee was established
to finalize the CSI Format. Rolf Retz, Bernard
Rothschild of Atlanta and Frank Frybergh of NY
constituted the committee.
In 1963 the CSI Format (now the CSI MasterFormat)
was officially approved.
You must remember that Masterformat was not
handed
down from Mt. Sinai along with the 10
commandments. It was a document created by
architectural specifiers with very little input
from mechanical and electrical engineers.
It is an empirical solution to a problem that
faced specifiers at that point in time - no
organization of specs whatsoever, in the same
office and across the land.
Changing the first 14 Divisions would be foolhardy
at this time just to make cosmetic changes.
Mechanical and electrical engineers should be
encouraged to take Divisions 15 and 16 and revamp
them any way they choose to suit their interests,
giving them the latitude to come up with Divisions
that they can be comfortable with including 17, 18
0r 19 if necessary.
This is not rocket science. Any empirical system
that works for them should be encouraged.
If there any other aspects to specifying that are
not addresssed in the current MasterFormat they
should be submitted to a blue ribbon panel made up
of our current crop of outstanding specifiers for
study and recommendations.
Harold J. Ro |
richard saxton
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2001 - 04:48 pm: | |
I am currently hearing rumblings (even thunder) regarding Div 17 being developed for Electrical Special Systems. Some scuttlebutt has it originating with NASA.
I am fully in favor of using the current 16 division MasterFormat as published by CSI, but if CSI doesn't get on the bandwagon and start addressing very real concerns, CSI's leadership is going to be run over in the ensuing parade.
Specification users (not just arch and eng specifiers, but also including contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, owners, building inspectors, and facilities managers to name the most prevalent) have very real problems that CSI is ignoring.
There is neither a CSI 'blue ribbon panel' in place to study this issue, nor a CSI venue to receive concerns, complaints, and suggestions (other than 'Forum' at csiNET.org).
Mr. Rosen's historical perspective is very informative. The forward thinking that occurred in 1961 needs to be regained. |
Lynn
| | Posted on Monday, October 22, 2001 - 12:26 pm: | |
I can think of no good reason for blindingly adhering to 16 Divisions (16 is a square number?). And I have no problem with a 17th Division - or whatever number works. But additions must be carefully thought through by those who would develop and use them. Just as changes to Divisions 15 and 16 should be carefully addressed by the engineers who use them. Systems that evolve and change are alive; those that don't are dead. |
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2001 - 10:37 am: | |
Response to Lynn:
But who gets Division 17?
Access control people want to separate their stuff from Division 8 and have Division 17 for their highly complex and specialized technology that can't fit anywhere else (and it shouldn't be associated with mere door hardware).
Others want it for commissioning ... if "commissioning" can get concisely defined, that is. The best I can tell, it will take around 10 Divisions to contain commissioning in its most sophisticated form.
Audio-visual people want Division 17 for their stuff. Again, because they don't want to be a part of the "electrical engineer's" specs in Division 16.
And Division 15 is too crowded and some want to move plumbing, fire protection and hvac to separate divisions.
Since McGraw-Hill will be rewriting the CSI Manual of Practice (with a little help from CSI), why not let the $$$$ decide what should be done? |
Lynn
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2001 - 11:43 am: | |
In my humble opinion, there is adequate room in Division 8 for access control because it IS associated with door hardware. Commissioning is correctly dealt with in Division 1, no matter how many sections of minutiae it takes. If it's electric, it should be in Division 16. And Division 15 wouldn't be so crowded if the engineers would quit writing one page sections for things that could be covered together. Additional divisions - 17, 18 or whatever - should be for the stuff we hadn't thought of back in 1961 - the plethora of electronic stuff, for instance - and not just for reorganization. I believe there is room within the existing divisions for expansion and clarification.
I DO think that people with expertise in different areas should be consulted in the re-write. Get people who rep door hardware and access systems manufacturers to make suggestions, for example. |
David Lorenzini
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2001 - 10:25 am: | |
I have always maintained there is an easy solution for Division 17. In fact, you don't have to even call it a "Division" to make it work.
Most projects considering an extra Division will probably have only one major specialized product or system, but more than one will work as well.
My suggestion is to make "Division 17" a floating topic. Call it whatever you want. Just make it official so we don't have to have to discuss this issue for another 40 years.
In my practice, I have had requests to add various topics to the project manual that were not in the preferred format, and did not fit nicely with any other Division. In most cases, the specialty consultant was contracted by the Owner separately from the architect. In cases like this, most architects are nervous about providing this material since they have little control over its content, especially if that content were asbestos removal.
In some cases this extra material contained several "Sections". The most recent case was for Methane Protection and Traffic Signalization. They could just as well been Commissioning or Wireless Eavedropping Devices.
My solution was to place an Appendix A and B at the end of the specification. It could just as well have been called Divisions 17 and 18. Each of the specialty consultant's section numbers was prefixed with a two-letter designator (MP-xxxxx and TS-xxxxx) because some of the consultant's section numbers conficted with ones that I had already used (earthwork, steel, painting, etc.).
Another reason why the Appendix concept worked well on this project was that the Methane Protection and Traffic Signalization were to be completed in Phase 1 of a multi-phase project. It thus made sense to isolate this material so it could easily be dropped from the project manual for subsequent phases without making any other adjustments.
Hope this experience will help others facing a similar situation. There is always a reasonable solution if you think about your needs. Division 17 will not solve every problem. Perhaps OCCS will provide additional solutions. |
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2001 - 11:59 am: | |
I frequently use Appendices. This is where the Geotechnical Report ("information available to Contractor", not a Contract Document) goes. This is where the signage design package that doesn't conform to SectionFormat goes. This is where the asbestos abatement spec goes (yes, I know there's a heading in Div 2 for this). This is where the Door Hardware Schedule goes (the one that's 11-teen pages long). This is where standard details go (a City project with a lot of Contract documents in 8-1/2 x 11 such as a map of the City with authorized travel routes for heavy trucks).
I don't think this resolves the issue of making a place in the specifications for new technology, however. |
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI
| | Posted on Saturday, December 01, 2001 - 01:09 pm: | |
On the CSI website, announcement has been made of a proposed change to MasterFormat that would create 40 Divisions (but only 20 would be used right now).
One of the reasons given for the expansion is to make it more clear which trade or subcontractor can do which work. This is a fundamental mis-understanding of MasterFormat. The specifications DO NOT establish trade and subcontract jurisdiction ... at least not in convention design-bid-build.
Does this mean specifications that do not establish precise trade and subcontract responsibilities will be deficient and negligently-prepared?
See http://www.csinet.org/technic/mf_release_1101.htm
for more information. |
Joe Back
| | Posted on Saturday, December 01, 2001 - 05:15 pm: | |
So far, I haven't seen any arguments for even one new division that weren't based on "trade" jurisdictions. One of the main reasons the mechanical and electrical engineers have never seemed to grasp how to prepare specifications according to CSI is that they simply have never understood that the divisions are not intended to be trade-based. That being said, I'm not violently opposed to adding a new division as long as somebody can come up with a reason other than "trade jurisdiction." |
Marvin Chew
| | Posted on Sunday, January 06, 2002 - 12:13 am: | |
Gentlemen,
I just got the lastest newsletter from Washington, and they now want to add a few new divisions to the master format. Increasing it from 16 to 40. What in hell are they thinking of? They claim that 20 would do it for now but what the 40 for future use. Why 16 to 20 or 40? If they need more they can meet again later.
New Divisions include computer and communication systems, mechanical, electrical and plumbing, heavy civil construction and process engineering. Let's see, all of these are currently in Divisions 2, 15 and 16 except for process engineering, which I don't know what it is.
IF I remember correctly, there was a vote at the last SCIP meeting in Dallas, and we voted that reworking of the Master Format was unneeded. I guess the opion of spec writers are not very important. |
|
4specs.com Home Page