| Author |
Message |
Cathy Parker
| | Posted on Thursday, January 10, 2002 - 04:35 pm: |    |
I work for an engineering consulting firm that provides engineering and technical services associated with the production of energy (steam, electricity, chilled water). Our projects range from solving simple maintenance and operations problems and updating plant control systems to preparing design-build specifications for constructing new power plants. We have mechanical, electrical, civil, structural, architectural, instrumentation, and controls engineers on staff.
We have been using an old, outdated version of SpecText as the basis of our specification standards and have modified the sections over the years to meet our needs. However, many of the codes and standards, products and their manufacturers, etc. referred to in these old sections are obsolete. We have recently purchased the MasterSpec system (our new architectural department manager prefers that system). The other discipline managers want to stick with SpecText, and we are considering ordering the updated SpecText system.
Since it doesn't make sense economically to purchase 2 specification systems and their updates each year, I was wondering if anyone had any ideas on which system would be most compatible with a multi-disciplined company such as ours. |
Richard Hird
| | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2002 - 09:52 am: | |
Been in your shoes; trying to get everyone on the same page so it appears like it is correct. Intellectually it is great idea, but I found it more often jeopardized the quality of the work rather than enhancing it. It may enhanse clerical production, but that is a case of the tail waging the dog.
Spec Text requires more cognitive effort, which allows you to make the specification do what you need to do which is very important when dealing with specfic engineering technologies. Master Spec is liked by Architects because they have the data immediately available without doing alot of data gathering. Very few mechanical or electrical Engineers I know would use MasterSpec, if given the choice.
Having used Spec Text for years you have developed alot of technology choices and drawing coordination, so why throw that away. I see no problem if the Architects use MasterSpec and the Engineers use SpecText, or any other methods or master. You have coordination problems no matter what system you use. Masters systems can not fix that problem, it requires a concerted effort by design team. Each department can buy the portions of the masters they want. The important thing is to do a job you can be proud of, because it is correct. |
David Stutzman
| | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2002 - 06:02 pm: | |
Having been a specifier for a large, international engineering company, I know your problem. I am surprised that the architects in your firm would have enough clout to influence the decision about the spec system. The architect's building usually amounts to a small fraction of an engineering project cost. The engineering systems and equipment are the reason the project exists.
I have made presentations to ASHRAE chapters and one question they ask is: How can I write specs that work with Masterspec without using Masterspec? It seems from this attitude that engineers perceive Masterspec to be written by architect for architects. So the engineers prefer not to use it themselves.
For power generation and other process engineering projects, no commercial specification will satisfy the engineers' needs. So it is really a matter of selecting the resource that will allow you to develop and maintain your in-house masters most easily. I find that it is generally easier to develop customized sections using SPECTEXT. Masterspec is written as a deductive master - everything is included and you delete what is not required for the project. SPECTEXT is additive, written as an outline to be completed with additional information to suit the project.
Engineering projects tend to have unique solutions, meaning that customized rather than off-the-shelf products are required. In my opinion, additive systems work better for this kind of customization. |
Cathy Parker
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2002 - 12:09 pm: | |
Richard and David,
Thanks for your input! It appears from your comments that the majority of us are on the same page and are in agreement with you insofar as our preference for SpecText over MasterSpec.
I guess the next question we have is, is it worth the added expense to update our SpecText master and re-vamp the sections to fit our needs, or just keep the old, modified sections we have been using and spend the hours required to update them to reflect revised codes, standards, and manufacturers? I am afraid that they have been neglected for so long that it would take days to get all of the sections completely updated.
No one has really worried about keeping the old sections current over the years until now. In fact, except for the clerical group, no one really has had any inkling (nor cared about) how the specification sections originated, why they are numbered like they are, why they are formatted like they are, etc. Some of the engineers in the past have created new section numbers and reordered numbers consecutively to fit their particular whims.
Another question I have is regarding the numbering system of our standards. We still use the old CSI section numbers (from 1985) and have added new sections pretty much willy nilly as they have been created internally. Do other companies update their section numbers every time CSI updates theirs?
Do other companies routinely keep their own standard sections once they have been developed from a master system and just update their specification sections to comply with updates they become aware of and re-purchase master systems every 5 years or so? Or is it routine practice to update master systems on an annual basis by purchasing the SpecText/MasterSpec annual updates and keep re-modifying them to reflect the company's particular needs?
I know I am full of questions, but I want to give the specification committee the most informed recommendation I can give. I really appreciate your input. Thanks! |
Richard Hird
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2002 - 04:44 pm: | |
Updating masters is a necessary process that must be done in a manner that recognizes it as a continuing process. If I were you, I would only buy a few SpecText sections at a time based on your time to update them.
Section numbers are important in General Construction only. Most ME’s are willy nilly so there are no other industry expectations. If CSI ever gets the engineering disciplines right, you may find the correct section numbers are important, but for now it just keeps you looking good. Before updating to CSI Section numbers first get your cross referencing down to only the absolutely critical ones. I do not cross reference at all A good SpecText narrow scope index is better for finding things anyway. After you got rid of as many as you have the stomach for, change the numbers.
Although I used masters for years I do not now use them. Without going into the intraasies of my reasons, I do recommend masters to others.
Constantly improve what you have. It is important that they be useful to your goals, not someone elses. Wholesale change just leads to chaos which leads to not having specs at all. |
Phil Kabza
| | Posted on Friday, January 25, 2002 - 04:42 am: | |
The cost of purchasing current subscriptions for either product is peanuts compared to the potential cost of resolving errors and omissions arising from outdated specifications. A complete M/E subscription to Masterspec is a couple of thousand dollars, and renews for less.
Obtain sample copies of several sections from either source and compare their content. Be sure to obtain their supporting documents as well, as less experienced staff members utilize these to assist with editing. Also investigate the electronic editing tools that each specification library provides. Masterspec (with which I am more familiar now) maintains several libraries: Full Language, Short Form, Small Project, and Outline - the appropriate section type depends on the size, complexity, and liability risk involved in the project.
It is a challenge for engineers working as consultants to maintain in-house masters that coordinate properly with project manuals prepared by architects. Engineers haven't been able to count on properly written Division 1 sections being included, so they tend to write their own, creating multiple conflicts with the project manual general requirements and contract requirements. Uniform use of a library such as Masterspec helps eliminate such conflicts, but a read through of the material is necessary.
The advantage to use of a current subscription library, even as a reference, is that it keeps the general specification practice closer to the national standard of practice. Always a good place to be when you're about to enter a deposition hearing . . . |
Cathy Parker
| | Posted on Monday, January 28, 2002 - 02:54 pm: | |
Our specifications committee met today and, based on the information I was able to obtain, we have decided to go forth with our plan to purchase SpecText and modify the setions we need.
I appreciate everyone's time and input. Your comments were invaluable and helped us immensely in making our decision. We can now go forth with the confidence that we are proceeding in the correct direction. Thanks again! |
|
4specs.com Home Page