Specification Writing Tools

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 David Cline New member Username: Dcline Post Number: 6 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 12:47 pm:    What do people think of the new Spec Wizard tool offered by Arcat. I don't work for Arcat, but I am curious to know what others think of the tool. What other specification writing tools do you use/prefer? David Cline Junior Member Username: Dcline Post Number: 7 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 12:59 pm:    I just read some of the comments from the previous thread: How do you use MasterSpec? That was helpful. Seems the Arcom tools are widely used. David Cline Member Username: Dcline Post Number: 8 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 01:02 pm:    Now I dug way back to: Specifications Production - Software. More helpful information. Still wonder about the Arcat tool. Alan Mays, AIA Junior Member Username: Amays Post Number: 9 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 01:07 pm:    David, What I would like to see or know is how people are using AIA Masterspec, BSD Speclink+ and SpecText. A comparision of each with their pluses and minuses. Do they recommend a mix, etc. I guess what I was looking for is an objective product review for them. Heather Huisinga, CSI, CDT, LEED AP New member Username: Huisinga Post Number: 19 Registered: 05-2002 Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 02:16 pm:    Alan, My firm uses AIA Masterspec. We feel that Masterpec is a good starting point, and then we add our own firm nuances. Over the last year we have been trying to just use Masterspec as a template to write office masters. Largely due to our client specific needs and our sustainable efforts. We'll continue our subscription to Masterspec, but only to double check our masters to make sure they are up to date with things like codes, manufacturers and such. At my previous firm the architects exclusively used Masterspec while the MEPs used SpecText. However, that firm used in-house masters and rarely looked at SpecText unless they were looking for an "unusual" spec. Marc C Chavez New member Username: Mchavez Post Number: 12 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 03:16 pm:    I now work for a 50-person firm in Seattle. I have used Speclink for over 4 years now. It's a DATABASE (FULL STOP) Just think about that for a minute. A RELATIONAL database. Although not perfect, it's the best general spec I have found. If you want to change your mind you haven’t “erased” the product or procedure you did not select. It’s still there you can change selections and hide the unselected choices etc. Perfect for those project architects you work with who edit their own (and make a mess for you to clean up) Yes, I know you can use the reviewing toolbar provided with Word but how much of that do you want to fish through when proofing a document. Masterspec is a good document but it's huge and the initial editing down to a real "master" will eat you alive (the first time only) also when an ASTM is updated you have to wait for Mspecs 3 to 5 year review cycle to pick it up. Perhaps I'm wrong about the last item but the ability to update ALL references to a product or standard THROUGHOUT the spec every QUARTER is great. I don't want old standards or minor publishing errors in my spec for three years. I’ve used it on complex jobs up to 26 million with NO problems. In Mspecs defense they have GREAT “evaluation” documents full of info. They also have a large and knowledgeable review committee made up of seasoned pros. Spec text is still out there but I haven’t used it in a long time. I’m sure that it has progressed as well. It also has great people working on it. Speclink is at http://speclink.com/bsdhome.htm masterspec is at http://www.masterspec.com spec text is at http://www.spectext.com/ Anne Whitacre Junior Member Username: Awhitacre Post Number: 54 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 03:36 pm:    ZGF has used Masterspec for their firm master for the past several years, and we use LINX as the editing tool for it, which takes care of many of the objections Mr. Chavez has to the document. When using LINX there are ways to also keep the changes until they can be reviewed by a more experienced spec writer... or I use them and make the changes directly. Since I am on the review committee, I am somewhat biased, but what Masterspec does have that the others do not is a review committee made up of 5 full time specifiers from all over the country, and often as many as 20 other specifiers who review specific documents and send in changes. We meet in person quarterly, and the intent is that the documents reflect construction practices from all over the country, including products that are available nationwide. I usually add local products as well when needed. The update period is now 3 years, not 5, for all sections except some of the supplemental ones; and we get around the "current ASTM standard" issue by not putting dates in the specs themselves, but using "date current as of the publication of the specification". (the "Reference Document section" is updated yearly. ) As an aside, since Masterspec is issued on CD-Rom and not as much on hard copy anymore, more extensive changes are made as they are found, instead of issuing errata sheets like they used to do - which takes care of the "minor publishing errors" comment. The Masterspec people are quite responsive to comments and queries as well. Masterspec is written as a "deletion" master so the text is quite voluminous, but the tools are available to allow someone to help make their editing decisions. The on-screen version provides (now) active links back to reference documents and this will soon include an active link back to ASTM and other documents. Spectext is a fill-in-the blank spec type, which assumes more knowledge on the part of the specifier. If you are looking at Masterspec, be sure and look at LINX as well, because the editing tool will make your work much easier and overcome some objections to the length. Eventually, the editing choices made on the short form (outline specs) will transfer over to the full length sections so the decisions made at early phases of the project can be carried over into the later phases without repeating work. I have been told that this will happen this year. I have had some objections that LINX is "too hard to use" but the software is easy --- making the choices does require the specifier (project manager or project architect) to know enough about the systems and materials to make the choices. Its not the software that is hard -- really -- it is the background knowledge. However, that is the same for every master system. Keep in mind also that Masterspec provides Division 15 and 16 documents, as well as a coordinated Division 1, and there is extensive cross referencing between documents for coordination purposes. They also issue "Drawing Coordination" and "Spec Coordination" Sheets that can be printed and distributed to the drafting staff for their use. If you have any questions about Masterspec, you can contact me directly. Anne John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Junior Member Username: Bunzick Post Number: 91 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 05:34 pm:    We use Masterspec, but have evaluated Speclink. I think that both Marc and Anne are correct in their assesment of the two tools. Linx is similar to Speclink in its operation and usage, but I think that Speclink has done a bit better job of turning the information into a database, including their ability to update ASTM-type data as Marc points out, without having to specifically re-edit. However, Speclink does not have anywhere near the depth in their evaluations (called "notes" in Speclink.) I find that the Masterworks tools supplied with Masterspec are very useful, and help with many of the chores of editing. I do believe that Masterspec has suffered from "verbosity", or shall I say, lack of brevity, in its grammatical style and sometimes in content. Some of the sections that I created for our office masters are only loosely based on Masterspec because I had "issues" with the structure of the Masterspec section. I realize that this may make my updating more time consuming, but it makes my usage easier. It would probably be harder for me to do that with Speclink. I think the choice of which system has a lot to do with your business model for spec production, who's producing project specs, size of firm, and professional preferences.