4specs.com    4specs.com Home Page

Should the CSI Strategic Plan Be Chan... Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

4specs Discussion Forum » Institute Discussions » Should the CSI Strategic Plan Be Changed? « Previous Next »

Author Message
Colin Gilboy
Senior Member
Username: colin

Post Number: 41
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 06:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Should the CSI Strategic Plan Be Changed?

I propose that with the new fiscal year, a new President, new President-Elect and half new Executive Committee and Board of Directors, there should be discussion between the membership and the elected officers about the strategic plan for CSI - before starting the search for a new Executive Director.

My simplistic perspective defines two radically different paths. Which should CSI follow?

The current CSI Strategic Plan (as defined on www.csinet.org) is dated April 2004. I call the current Strategic Plan - Plan E - and stands for CSI being Everything to Everyone in the construction industry.

In my experience, being Everything for Everyone is a fast path for failure. If I look back over the past 6 years I see little measurable progress towards the Big Hairy Audacious Goals defined in 1999, combined with a drop in CSI membership.

I believe a much different approach is needed for the future success of CSI. I propose that the better plan would be to focus on the specifier and related people - construction administration, product reps and the contractors, code officials and other related to specifications and contract admin.

I call this Plan S - for Specifier. I think the successful Chapters understand this - focus on the specifier and the rest will follow. CSI needs to focus on their core member - the specifier -and serve them, and not to try to be the integrating force in the entire construction industry.

Expanding this a bit.

1. Focus on technical products that serve specifiers - like telling the manufacturers most of their websites do not work and then providing guidance in developing more useful websites. If 25% of the CSI professional members each lost 1 hour per week at $50 per hour due to poor website design, this would represent over $3 million in lost time CSI could save for our professional members.

Does the current CSI strategic plan have a bigger result than $3 million saved for its members - or less overtime to meet deadlines and more time for their families?

Have an Industry track at the CSI Convention to teach reps and sales managers more about the construction process. Rather than 100 people attending the Product Rep Academy, get 500 people to attend at Convention and get better trained. Train the sales and marketing managers manning their booth. Now that will really support the specifiers.

2. More professional development of new specifiers (and existing ones). Focus on developing new specifiers and technical design professionals by educating project architects and project managers in specification writing and construction administration.

3. Building alliances and partnerships with other industry organizations to leverage the strength that lies in the expertise of the CSI members (industry and professional) to impact the industry. This is different than trying to be everything to everyone. For example, focus on AIA to help the principals of large firms understand the specification role and how to develop new specifiers. How many principals of larger firms really understand the importance of Division 1 specs?

I suggest Plan E and Plan S be discussed here in the 4specs forum, at your Chapter meeting and with your Region Directors.

I invite Mike Owen, Edd Soenke and the Executive Committee to present their views so we can see who stands where - and why. Let's hear from the Region Directors on their views. Let's hear why they think one plan is better than the other for the specifier members and CSI in the long run.

The search for a new Executive Director should not start until discussions about Plan E and Plan S have been presented to the membership - here or on the CSI website.

Perhaps the FY 2008 nominating committee should state their views on Plan E and Plan S before the nominating process starts.

Discussing their position should be a requirement of the nominees for FY 2008 offices. I plan to make that space available in the discussion forum for nominations this fall for FY2008, down to the Region level.

Colin Gilboy
Publisher, 4specs.com
Phil Kabza
Senior Member
Username: phil_kabza

Post Number: 177
Registered: 12-2002
Posted on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 10:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Colin,
You are once again to be commended for being clear, complete, concise, and correct about the issues facing the incoming Institute leadership and the membership of CSI.

My mentor had a card pinned to her desk that said "If you don't have an advantage, don't compete." I think about this each day as I work to offer services and value to clients: "What services? What value?" "If you don't have an advantage, ..."

MasterFormat has been realigned with the current strategic plan. The PRM contains life cycle and facility management and additional material bringing it into the fold of the current strategic plan. A proposed draft has SectionFormat expanding its role to incompass facility life cycle information, and now UniFormat is coming up for review. It's not that the current strategic plan hasn't had an impact; what needs to be assessed is whether the impact has helped CSI and the specifier.

Have building owners and their representatives flocked to CSI, joining chapters, and using CSI resources in their work?

Have construction professionals sought CSI involvement as a means of furthering their careers?

While the Institute has worked very hard and very consistently to pursue Plan E, the chapters, the certification instructors, and the specifier members have largely been working hard on Plan S. Plan S works for chapters. Get specifiers to come to the meeting, and the product reps will follow. Members may join CSI because of the Institute, but they renew because of the chapters.

If Plan E is the way to go, the Institute will need to convince the chapters that it is in their best interest. They'll also need to get the message to the engineers, contractors, and building owners, who for the most part are still distant from CSI involvement, despite the value that they could obtain there. They've had a number of years to accomplish this, and haven't done so yet.

Curiously, the product representatives are the ones finding the most value in CSI these days. We should be talking to them about what's drawing them in. I don't think it's Plan E. I think it's Plan S.

"If you don't have an advantage, don't compete." If you do have an advantage, use it in concert with your values to achieve your larger goals.

Best of success to our incoming leadership!
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: bunzick

Post Number: 531
Registered: 03-2002
Posted on Thursday, June 08, 2006 - 10:02 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Much discussion has taken place on 4specs.com about the goals and mission of the Institute, with some implication that it is trying too hard to be "everything to everybody." Colin suggested that perhaps the strategic plan of the Institute needs to be changed. Of course, the first step in trying to decide if that's the case in to actually read the current strategic plan, which I have done this morning. I was surprised to find that the plan is not as expansive in scope as some may believe. The plan aligns reasonably well with what I see the role of CSI to be. I would propose that much is a matter of what to emphasize, and the elevating or expanding of some of the stated goals and objectives may be enough.

I'll comment on some specific item in the plan by their number. (It has a nice, hierarchically-number structure!) Find the plan here because you won't be able to follow without it: CSI Strategic Plan Update

1) a) "Advance the tools and practices of specifying and documenting design and construction information." This goal should include emphasizing the CCS and CCCA programs to the structural and MEP engineers that are so crucial to our work. Since engineers are specifiers, too, and since most spec writers I know grouse about the specs engineers produce, let's do a better job. In addition, we could do a better job of bringing the construction community to the table. They use these documents. In fact, it's my belief that on a major project the contractor's superintendent and project manager probably know the documents better than the architect by the end of the project. A mutual conversation between the constructors and the specifiers can only help both parties. Also included in this goal is development of a standard for coordinating drawings and specs, and a uniform terminology. These are good goals, but the process used should be broader and more inclusive (to members) than that used for MasterFormat and SectionFormat updates.

1) b) "Expand the diversity of CSI membership and participation at all levels." This touches upon my comments above. Note that the Institute is listing the same entities it always has: contractors, owners, design/engineering professionals, suppliers, product representatives. No big expansion here.

1) c) "Establish cooperative alliances/liaisons with related construction science organizations and government agencies in the U.S. and internationally," and 1) d) "Develop an academic relations network with programs, institutions, faculty and students." These are fine objectives, but should play a more minor role given that resources are not infinite.

2) a) "Improve and expand Institute education programs." Included in this is the CCS, CCCA and CCPR programs, and I'd raise that to the top of the list of items, above expanding education programs into new areas. Do what we are currently doing, but better.

2) b) "Identify needs and improve or develop new programs for certification." Let's put the emphasis on "improve." I have no major issues with the current certification programs, but question whether we need new ones.

2) c) "Establish CSI as an information resource for products, materials and practices related to creating and sustaining the built environment." One item on this list is improving Specifier magazine by adding peer review. The magazine getting better, and I'd like to see it be better still. Whether peer review is the best way to do this I'm not sure, but improvements to this journal would be good.
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre

Post Number: 348
Registered: 07-2002
Posted on Thursday, June 08, 2006 - 04:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I think CSI needs to come to the table with the Federal Government. the organizations that are growing successfully have sold the value of their services to the Feds (USGBC, AIA, etc) and I think part of CSI's mission should be to not only raise the standard of specifications for federal projects, but the requirements for those people who prepare them. I've been in multiple discussions with other specifiers and no one can find any metrics that demonstrate the cost/benefit analysis of good specs on a project, or of using a CCS on a project. I see cost data on LEED buildings all the time (which makes it easy to sell the certification) but no one has said "gee if you use a CCS on your job, we can reduce your liability insurance" or "you use a CCS to prepare your documents and it should reduce your change orders and RFIs by 22%. "
right now, CSI is in the position of saying "we think being a CCS is a really good thing" and if you ask why, the answer is "because we said so". the answer should be "its required for federal work"; "it reduces liability by 18% and here's the data" or "it will reduce construction cost by 3% because the documents are better".
Hans W. Meier, FCSI
Senior Member
Username: hans_w_meier

Post Number: 13
Registered: 07-2005
Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 05:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Colin, three weeks ago you presented one of the most important questions facing the future and success of CSI: should CSI's strategic plan be "E" (for existing) or "S" (for more specifier related interests). It is interesting to me that there have been such good responses -- but so few.

I could be wrong but I think if one should ask the question of most rank-and-file members, one would receive a rather blank look and "Uh-h-h, Du-h-h." They know there exists a "strategic plan" and they are comfortable that CSI is in good hands with their interests covered, but they are not sufficiently concerned to look it up in detail. But give us a really important issue, like the need for "professional" and "industry" members, now there is a juicy topic we can really get our teeth into. Let's go, gang!

John Bunzick has very kindly given us the detail to read. Thank you, John. And Anne Whitacre has made an excellent suggestion we should also look at.

We all automatically condemn the "everything to everybody" approach. Yet we allow ourselves to assume a broad mantle such as shown in Bunzick's post. I don't know the precise route by which those goals were monumentalized, but I smell just a touch of politics where "you go along with my wording and I'll go along with yours." It seems we are committed to biting off a tremendous mouth full at one time.

I first joined CSI some forty years ago because I was attracted by its simple motto: "Improvement of
Construction Specifications." Honestly, I didn't realize how far we've strayed. Our "strategic plan" then was equally simple: bring architects and product reps together around a dinner table and let 'em get to know one another. It worked!

I'll be brutally frank with another personal opinion. To me, the "E" plan (and the stated strategic plan) sound too much like posturing. It is so easy to make plans and so difficult to actually mount and carry on a campaign to accomplish what the plans called for. We are eager to say "CSI should do this or that," but we leave it undone. Perhaps that is a self-fulfilling step because it gives us something to complain about when CSI does'nt do it.

To be positive, rather than overly critical, I for one whole heartedly support your concept "S," if we could narrow our thrust to the basic "improvement of construction specifications."

There are numerous paths to be followed. Most CSI chapters have some sort of continuing education program. Keep 'em up. Most chapters have sufficiently interesting dinner programs to attract both professional and industry people. Keep 'em up. Anne Whitacre suggested a possible evaluation of benefits accrued by employers who use Certified Specifiers. I don't know how you go about that, but I'll bet she does.

And for publicity on what CSI is all about, maybe Edd Soenke or someone could invite Architect Emilie Sommerhoff to lunch; she's editor-in-chief of Architecture magazine. Maybe get her to let the Institute prepare an article in one issue. Maybe get her to give CSI a professional courtesy for a series of ads of the quality now appearing in Specifier.

But, please, let's try to get back to the basics and stop strutting about what we are "going" to do.

Hans
Robert W. Johnson
Senior Member
Username: bob_johnson

Post Number: 93
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 06:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Hans

Your support for narrowing our thrust to “improvement of construction specifications” leads me to ask the following questions:
• Do you think we should abandon the Construction Documents Technologist (CDT) program because it deals with all the construction documents and the total design and construction process instead of just specifications?
• Do you think we should abandon the Construction Contract Administration (CCCA) program because it deals with the enforcement of contract documents and not just specifications?
• Do you think we should abandon the Uniform Drawing System (UDS) and participation with AIA, federal agencies, and NIBS in the National CAD Standard (NCS) because drawings are the graphic elements of contract documents rather than specifications?
• Do you think the Project Resource Manual (PRM) should be edited to eliminate such subjects as following because they are beyond specifications:
o the project team and project life cycle,
o project conception,
o project delivery,
o drawings,
o coordinating drawings and specifications,
o bidding/negotiating/purchasing,
o construction,
o facility management.
• Do you think we should only allow those who prepare specifications and represent products to be members of CSI?

The above questions are not intended to be a complete endorsement of the current strategic plan – I too think the current plan is too broad, but I would seriously question limiting the organization to the extent you seem to be advocating. I would be a stronger supporter of the previous long range plan which I believe said the primary goal of the Institute was to” improve design and construction communications” or something close to that (I am going by memory which doing any research).

My membership in CSI does not go quite a far back as yours, but it does goes back about 37 years. I attended my first CSI functions to learn more about how to prepare specifications but I have stayed very active in the organization all these years because everyone in the design and construction process is represented in one organization. This fact provides the unusual opportunity to work in a cooperative manner with all the participants to improve the total process and has provided a resource to me during my varied career. During those 37 years I have been an project architect in a small firm; a university’s representative for design and construction; a state government employee for planning and budgeting of design and construction; responsible for a school district’s design and construction program; responsible for a general contractor’s office; specification consultant; responsible for specifications in a national firm; principal of a regional firm; technical resource director for an international firm including responsibility for specifications, reference details, project management, quality assurance, and technical education; and finally back to being a consultant dealing with several of the above subject areas with an emphasis on specifications. I seriously doubt if I would have maintained by involvement with CSI through all of the above roles if the thrust of the organization was limited strictly to specifications.
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre

Post Number: 357
Registered: 07-2002
Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 07:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I think we can look at "improvement of construction specifications" as a goal but not keep it quite as narrow as to embrace only the verbal part of the documents. To my mind, that goal encompasses not only the written documents, but the coordination with the graphic documents, and continues to the administration of them in the field.
when I first started with this group, the distinction that seemed very clear to me then was that AIA seemed to think of architecture in two dimensions -- the "product" was a pretty set of drawings -- and CSI seemed to think of architecture in 3 dimensions. that may be simplistic, but I know that because I joined at the start of my career, my understanding of the construction process was very different from that of my peers who were attending gallery openings every week while I was at some job trailer.

I, too, think that this past decades of silly-named "goals" was a huge diversion from what we do. there was a goal about being the construction education resource for the whole industry -- but we're not educators. we were going to be the collection of trade shows -- but we're not trade show executives. there was the "leadership training authority" but again, we're not trainers or educators.
we do have expertise, but its in discrete areas of construction communications and we keep trying to say that isn't enough.

we all know from various legal reporting that most lawsuits are really about communicating: misunderstandings, mis-interpretations, lack of communications, lack of definition. Now those are things that we do pretty well. Both types of membership bring specific skills to this communication, and we're in this because we want to talk to each other.
I'm with Bob-- the strength of the group is the horizontal membership and the variety of viewpoints all in one place.
Hans W. Meier, FCSI
Senior Member
Username: hans_w_meier

Post Number: 14
Registered: 07-2005
Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 01:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Bob Johnson, I've known and respected you for a lot of years, long enough to think it's a bit uncharateristic for you to respond with such a bag of hogwash. You know just as well as I do that most of the topics you list are essential to improvement of construction specifying. And you know as well as I do that there have been a few efforts which drain our manpower without keeping us on the main track. Perhaps there is a beltway mindset about expanding our scope so we can justify a larger staff, but that mindset is not universal among us.

I think our main track should be "improving construction specifying," with no holds barred in how we go about it. I sense that you and most others agree. Where we seem to differ is what is the perimeter we should observe. Drawings are most certainly important, and closely connected. But in the Institute's uncontrolled zeal we have begun to spend effort on Drafting Standards and certifying CAD operators; important fields in themselves but -- in my opinion -- outside the limits when there are so many more important.

Anne points out the immediacy and importance of securing better understanding and relations with Federal agencies. That's positively a path to the improvement of construction specifying. But let's not be so quick to reject the cloak of trying to be everything to everybody while there are still so many avenues left upon which we are invited to wander.

Hans
Robert W. Johnson
Senior Member
Username: bob_johnson

Post Number: 94
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 03:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Hans

As you well know the respect is mutual. You have been instrumental in the accomplishment many great things for the industry.

I didn’t think your viewpoint was as narrow as could be interpreted from your first posting, but us specifier types we are known for using words pretty carefully and accurately and I thought maybe my comments would help start a discussion of the issues. It appears that we do have some issues to discuss.

You obviously see specifications in a broader perspective and see related documents and activities as part of the CSI picture. I think where we differ is that I see CSI directly involved in all the construction documents and in general our communication methods in the design and construction process rather than just from the viewpoint of the relationship to specifications. I was interpreting your use of the word “specifications” in a strict sense in order to bring out the distinction between it and the broader subject of construction or contract documents.

I have a hard time trying to look at one part of that broader picture in isolation. All the parts of the construction documents are closely related and interdependent. You cannot look at any one element in isolation from the others. Anything you do to the drawings has repercussions on the specifications and vice versa. We are also moving to a new era where what we have known as two separate and distinct documents may be in fact be integrated into one collection of data – how or when that might happen is still to be determined.

As I have said and written in multiple places, I think one of our problems in today’s world is that we have more and more specialists and we have fewer people who look at the bigger picture to improve the total process. CSI is one organization that I think is in a position to deal with the bigger picture because of the horizontal membership. In fact, we have been involving ourselves in the area of drawings for over 15 years and have made some significant progress in the establishment and updating of the National CAD Standard in conjunction with other organizations. I would hope that we add a certification program in this area in the future.

We have also had a successful program concerning the enforcement of contract documents (CCCA) program for about the same amount of time. There are about 670 CSI members with CCCA certification from the time the program was available about 10 years ago versus about 1,120 CSI members with CCS certification from a much older program. Both of these programs are obviously important to CSI members.

I don’t think either of these endeavors is the cause of any neglect of specifications within CSI. (That is not to say however that we couldn’t do better, that some mistakes haven’t been made, or that there isn’t areas of importance to act on.) In fact, I think they enhance the image of the Institute in terms of tackling closely related problem areas that no one else was willing to take on. I think areas of this type are within a reasonable scope for CSI and certainly not as expansive as I evaluate the current overreaching mission statement of “The mission of CSI is to advance the process of creating and sustaining the built environment.” I would agree with some of Anne’s statements about some over broad objectives but I think John has made some good observations that the objectives in the current strategic plan are not as expansive as some would portray them.

I don’t know how much I am ready for CSI to go into the facility management areas big time at this point – I need to learn more before having a definitive position in that area. At this point, I am open to consider it but am not ready to jump on the bandwagon yet.

Hans, maybe we are saying the same thing and just using different words in expressing it, but you comment about drafting standards being outside the proper purview of CSI would indicate otherwise. I am not for CSI trying to be all things to all people, but I am for CSI being involved in the improvement of all the construction documents and the improvement in the ways we communicate within the design and construction industry. I think we have demonstrated in the last 15 years that we are capable of contributing to the improvement of those areas and that it is not just “strutting about what we are going to do.”

Bob
Hans W. Meier, FCSI
Senior Member
Username: hans_w_meier

Post Number: 15
Registered: 07-2005
Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 04:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Bob Johnson:

A statesmanlike and objective response. Indeed, you have stated the issue: "While specifications are a highly important part of the construction process, and their continuing improvement should be a mission of CSI, where are the boundaries within which we should limit ourselves?"

Let the arguments begin. Sorry, Anne, we just don't have the resources to pursue your ideas of Federal relationships; we're too busy thinking about expanding.

Hans
Robert W. Johnson
Senior Member
Username: bob_johnson

Post Number: 95
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 05:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Not trying to be picky, but I was not providing support for expansion. I was describing some of the historic productive CSI programs of the last 15 or so years. Some of those programs, including the UDS/NCS and CCCA, have been beyond the subject of specifications. I was arguing against a change in our stragetic plan that would abandon those programs because they are beyond the narrow scope of specifications to include all the construction documents and the enforcement of the contract documents.

I don't know why the continuance of programs such as these would limit the pursue other ideas such as Anne's. Anne is now on the board and in a position to present her ideas directly to the leadership for their consideration.
David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: davidcombs

Post Number: 150
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 09:05 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Personally, I would like to see CSI expand, broaden, and IMPROVE SIGNIFICANTLY their outreach into the specifications and written construction documents arena, more so than increase the number of design disciplines in which to gain or increase their presence.

There are numerous posts and threads - both constructive and complaints - in this very Discussion Forum about . . .

"where are the next generation of specifiers,"

"where are the young people,"

"better specifications writing for engineers,"

"improving the quality of consultants' specifications,"

"why isn't there a greater specifications presence / curriculum is secondary schools,"

"why isn't there a greater specifications presence on the Architectural Exam,"

"what is CSI doing to petition NCARB and Academia to give some equal billing to the written construction documents process, rather than letting them continue to sweep it under the rug,"

"why isn't there more respect and recognition for specifications, specifiers, and the overall specifications process,"

"what is CSI doing to regain the respect and prominence that the national convention once had"

When Institute excells at these issues, and PROVES to its membership and the design community in general that it can successfully tackle their CORE issues, maybe then will I be more on board with pursuing facilities management and CAD certification.

All Institute needs to do is read this Discussion Forum, and LISTEN to the cry; the aspects that need to addressed in the Strategic Plan are all here, in black and white.
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rliebing

Post Number: 419
Registered: 02-2003
Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 10:34 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Wow! From the perspective of the new kid on the block, these look very much like very full plates!!

Can't do much to aasess values of each, but there are very strong cases. Mr. Combs'is strong, narrow and deep. The others too run very profoundly.

I think between Mr. Gilboy's Plan E and Plan S, and the others there is need for some hard, tough and insightful PRIORITY SETTING.

Certainly it is worth trying to do more [wider purview and scope of programs] but not before "paying attention to our knitting" by stregthening/improving/expanding our present efforts.
Hans W. Meier, FCSI
Senior Member
Username: hans_w_meier

Post Number: 16
Registered: 07-2005
Posted on Saturday, July 01, 2006 - 07:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

The Army Corps of Engineers has a saying, "Don't start vast projects with only half-vast concepts." Another little yarn I like is about when all the mice held a town meeting: they decided the only way to assure their safety was to hang a bell around the cat's neck. They adjourned and congratulated each other on the brilliant decision. Then one cynic (probably named Hans) asked, "OK Guys, now which one of you is going to volunteer to hang the bell on the cat's neck?"

I think we've been having a good and profitable discussion. Colin started this by asking which direction the membership thought CSI should go: continue trying to expand its area of activity -- regardless of resources -- or limit its area of activity (at least, for the time being) to that directly -- and I mean directly -- connected to preparation and use of construction specs. The CCCA level, I think, is as far as we should go in that direction. As much as we might like it, we don't need "Certified Architectural Project Managers" or "Certified Word Processors", they are involved but beyond where we should be working in detail.

Please don't misunderstand me. In no way am I intimating that CSI's stated missions and goals are half-vast concepts. It's really a question of who's going to hang the bell on the cat's neck? A logical reply is, "The Institute, of course." Well, the "Institute" is a legal paper filed somewhere in the annals of history. So we say, "CSI's staff, of course." But the last time I looked, CSI's staff was a very small group of understaffed, underpaid, and over-worked yet willing and conscientous people who are hired to keep CSI's machinery oiled and working. They are busy collecting dues and issuing certificates and quite a few other minutae. To expect them to by themselves bring our stated goals and missions to reality is just a notch above their pay grade. That leaves only the rank-and-file membership and its elected leaders.

To criticize what CSI has chosen as its goals and mission is not being disloyal; we are all loyal to CSI. It's more like, "Mother, we love you but you really are drinking a bit too much these days." Some of us think the answer is to hide the bottle and give Mother other things to think about for a while.

New CSI leadership has taken over, volunteers everyone of them. They will have their hands full for the next twelve months. I'm sure that everyone of us wishes them the greatest good luck and success. Inevitably, they (or successors) will have to grapple with discussions we've had here in our little reality show on 4specs.com. It is not necessary that they agree with Colin or with Bob Johnson, but it is absolutely essential they address the matter and issue a decision.

Hans
Robert W. Johnson
Senior Member
Username: bob_johnson

Post Number: 96
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Saturday, July 01, 2006 - 10:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

If we are going to discuss the strategic plan, I would suggest that we discuss elements from the actual CSI strategic plan rather than factitious ones:

Hans Meir: “As much as we might like it, we don't need "Certified Architectural Project Managers" or "Certified Word Processors", they are involved but beyond where we should be working in detail.”

CSI Strategic Plan:
“Identify needs and improve or develop new programs for certification
• Develop/implement an advanced certification program for the Specification Writer beyond CCS.
• Investigate a certification program for UDS/National CAD Standards”
Robert W. Johnson
Senior Member
Username: bob_johnson

Post Number: 97
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Saturday, July 01, 2006 - 10:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Who is Doing the Work:

Hans Meir: "It's really a question of who's going to hang the bell on the cat's neck? A logical reply is, "The Institute, of course." Well, the "Institute" is a legal paper filed somewhere in the annals of history. So we say, "CSI's staff, of course." But the last time I looked, CSI's staff was a very small group of understaffed, underpaid, and over-worked yet willing and conscientous people who are hired to keep CSI's machinery oiled and working. They are busy collecting dues and issuing certificates and quite a few other minutae. To expect them to by themselves bring our stated goals and missions to reality is just a notch above their pay grade. That leaves only the rank-and-file membership and its elected leaders.”

Current Working NCS Version 4.0 Project Committee (Committee members are required to have a copy of the current version of the NCS):
Adkerson Stan Prime Engineering, Inc.
Agnew Ronald A. HDR Engineering, Inc. Folsom CA
Alderete Albert Syska Hennessy Group Los Angeles CA
Allwine Greg L.. Johnson Braund Design Group, Inc. Seattle WA
Amadio Damon A. DKA Consulting P.C. White Plains NY
Anderson Donald W. NAVFAC Atlantic Div. Norfolk VA
Anderson, AIA, CSI John H. Dietz & Company Architects Inc. Springfield MA
Anderson Timothy J. Ruekert & Mielke Inc. Waukesha WI
Ashoo Salwan Gav & Associates Farmington Hills MI
Baez Ramon V. Intel/The Cadd Lab Inc. Hudson MA
Baker Ronald E. HDR Architects, Inc. Omaha NE
Bambeck William Christian Ideas Co. Parma OH
Barber Jimmy The Haskell Company Jacksonville FL
Barisa David Anderson Brown Higley Associates Wilmington DE
Bauman Blaine Perkowitz and Ruth Architects Hermosa Beach CA
Beimers, CDT, FCSI Gary L. Grand Rapids MI
Belfour Kimberly Research Facilities Design San Diego CA
Benjamin, Sr., AIA David M. NYS OGS Design & Construction Group Albany NY
Bennett Craig D. Craig Bennett Associates Architects, P.C. McLean VA
Bentz Ken Intel Corporation Hillsboro OR
Benscoter Dave P. HDR Architecture, Inc. Omaha NE
Bhargava, CSI Umesh K. Bhargava International, Inc. Ellicott City MD
Binney Brian Andersen Engineering Perkasie PA
Binning Richard The Haskell Company Jacksonville FL
Black Kevin Simon Property Group Indianapolis IN
Blair Rhett H. IMB Real Estate and Site Operations Charlotte NC
Boggs James Hugh Intel Corporation Rio Rancho NM
Bogomolets, AIA Alex Ottolini, Booth & Associates Architects, Inc. San Francisco CA
Boyett , CSI, ASLA Kevin R. WilsonMiller, Inc. Naples FL
Bradley Stephen L. OBG Louisville KY
Brandt, PE, FCSI, CCS David F. SBC Global Milwaukee WI
Bridges Dawn Shepley Bulfinch Richardson and Abbott Boston MA
Brumley John L. General Services Administration St. Louis MO
Brunt John S. Brigham Young University - Idaho Rexburg ID
Budiyanskiy Michael Rafael Vinoly Architects, PC New York NY
Bunch Laurence W. Corley Redfoot Zack Chapel Hill NC
Burgess, P.E. Chuck F. Environmental & Civil Engineeing Services Crossville TN
Burns Kit BLRB Architects Tacoma WA
Busacker Kevin J. Leo A. Daly Company Omaha NE
Bushhouse Mark S. Williams & Associates Architects Wheaton IL
Butler R. Mark HDR Architecture Omaha NE
Butler Roderick Glover/Resnick and Associates, Inc. Roseville CA
Clouten, AIA, LEED AP Bjorn SRG Partnership, Inc. Seattle WA
Cluck Stewart C. Bink Architectural Partnership Camp Hill PA
Costello, PE, CSI, CCS, ASME, MAI Milton Mechanical Engineer Stony Brook NY
Cummins Thoma P. M E & E Engineering, Inc. Durango CO
Currie Stuart W. Harborside Homes, Inc. Kirkland WA
De Rouin, RA, CSI Michael E. Fitzgerald Associates Architects Chicago IL
DeGaro Scott Trudeau/Architects Latham NY
Devos Sandra MWH Denver CO
Durham Dale H. Durham & Associates, Inc. Shreveport LA
Dyrstad Steve Henningson, Durham & Richardson Omaha NE
Elmore, Assoc. AIA Jeffrey A. MBAJ Architecture Shelby NC
Ericson, PE, CSI, IALD Paul K. Syska Hennessy Group San Diego CA
Fabregas VI Joseph M. Fabregas Design Services Athens GA
Fairchild Jason USAED, Vicksburg Vicksburg MS
Fallon Vince HDR Omaha NE
Fawcett, AIA, CSI David D. ELS Architecture Berkley CA
Fitch, III, PE Rex B. "Trip" Naval Fac. Eng. Com., Mid-Atlantic, Public Works Dpt. Norfolk VA
Freier Russell E. HDR Engineering, Inc. Tigard OR
Fuchs, Assoc. AIA Steven Obelisk Architects Torrance CA
Gavila Alphonse A. Intel Corporation Rio Rancho NM
Goerig Donald Zmistowski Design Group, Inc. Boulder CO
Godwin Elbert GSA, PBS ( 7PDT Fort Worth TX
Graham, Jr. AIA, NCARB Charles A. O'Neal, Inc. Greenville SC
Green, RA. CSI.CCS Charles Rick Wilson & Company Albuquerque NM
Gunderson Bruce ASCG,Inc. Albuquerque NM
Haddad Sonia Dar Al-Handasah Beirut LEBANON
Hague, P.E. David R. NFPA Quincy MA
Hall Michael Poss Architecture + Planning Aspen CO
Hall Robert G. Isaac Benton & Associates Albuquerque NM
Hall, FAIA, FCSI Dennis J. Hall Architects Charlotte NC
Hammond Steve Broward County Fort Lauderdale FL
Handy Mark BSA FM Indianapolis IN
Harris Stephen L. Stephen L. Harris, Architect Annapolis MD
Harvey William Steven William Steven Harvey Design Pittsburgh PA
Hayes Michael A. CH2M Hill Gainesville FL
Helms Diana HDR Architecture, Inc. Portland OR
Hillhouse James D. HillHouse & Associates Birmingham AL
Horner David H. CADD/GIS Technology Vicksburg MS
Houston William W. RTKL Associates, Inc. Baltimore MD
Huell, Jr. Edward L. CADD/GIS Technology Center - CST Vicksburg MS
Jackson James G. (Jerry) Autodesk Inc. Auburn CA
Jatkar Hany A Suweidi Engineering Consultant Bureau Abu Dhabi AD
Jenkins Raymond Torti Gallas and Partners Silver Spring MD
Johnson Jonathan A. US Navy Public Works Ctr Portsmouth VA
Jones Rodney O'Neal, Inc. Morrisville NC
Jordan Gregory L. Dewberry Fairfax VA
Jordan Terry L. KJWW Engineering Consultants, P.C. Rock Island IL
Jordani, AIA David A. Jordani Consulting Group Minneapolis MN
Jurcic, CSI Mark MTA Bridges and Tunnels (TBTA) New York NY
Karley Stephen J. Waterloo Region District School Board Kitchener, Ontario CANADA
Keirnan John P. U.S. Coast Guard Cleveland OH
Kiker Mark W. HMC Architects Ontario CA
Kleppin Carol Architects Hawaii Honolulu HI
Kraakmo Arnold M. KDW Architects, P.C Seattle WA
Kucharski Alan HDR Engineering Phoenix AZ
Lafferty, AIA Stephen B. Lafferty ARCHitecture Group LLC Dunedin FL
LaRose, FCSI, CCS Gary W. Dean And Dean Associates Architects, P.A. Jackson MS
Le Pichouron Jean Claude. Online Technologies Inc. Unionville, Ontario CANADA
Ley, RA, CSI Hugo D. University of Southern Mississippi Hittiesburg MS
Lick Edward C. STTV, Inc. Douglassville PA
Looper Thomas L. The Kagan Company New Haven CT
Lopez Marc Oculus Inc Saint Louis MO
Lorenzini, RA, FCSI, CCS David Architectural Resources Co. Leesburg VA
Lowe W. Edward Burgess & Niple, Inc. Painesville OH
Lucas Craig M. TATM Associates, Inc. Etobicoke, Ontario CANADA
Luna Richard Wilson & Co., Inc. Albuquerque NM
Lydick Viera Wilson & Company Alburquerque NM
Maginniss Howard RMK, PC Alexandria VA
Manuel, AIA Margaret "Peg" WJA Design Collaborative Seattle WA
Mathews Barrie Softco Engineering Systems Inc. Vancouver BC
Mayo Glenda Uninversity of West Florida Pensacola FL
McCaffrey, FCSI, CCS, AIA John Patrick John Patrick McCaffrey, Architect, PC San Franciso CA
Meyer Alan Weldin Construction, Inc. Palmer AK
Middlebrooks Robert E. Clark Nexsen Norfolk VA
Miller Fred GSA PBS National CIFM Center Washington DC
Miller Mathew SMPC Architects Albuquerque NM
Miller Thomas Schaumburg IL
Mills Stanley Wilson & Co Inc. Albuquerque NM
Mitchell David F. Engineering Ventures Burlington VT
Montoya Arthur J. Wilson & Company INC. Engineers & Architects Abuquerque NM
Moody Jason D. National Network Services, Inc. Centennial CO
Moon Greg HDR Omaha NE
Morales Ramon GGLO Seattle WA
Morse Richard Data CAD LLC Avon CT
Morse Roger Morse Associates Postenkill NY
Mueller Dean Lucien Lagrange & Associate, LTD Chicago IL
Mueller Volker NBBJ Columbus OH
Muller Mike Haag Muller, Inc. Port Washington WI
Mulligan, Jr. James H. HDR Architecture, Inc. Phoenix AR
Nadeem Tahir Bhargava International, Inc. Ellicott City MD
Navas Guillermo A. SMACNA Chantilly VA
Nesbit Christopher BBH Design, PLLC Morrisville NC
Nora Reginald Intel Corporation Santa Clara CA
Nordmeyer Ronaco O. Ken Herceg & Associates, Inc. South Bend IN
O'Brien, CSI, CCCA, AIA Christopher F. HHCP Architects, Inc. Maitland FL
Olsen Gregory A. HDR Architecture, Inc. Omaha NE
Ong, AIA, NCARB Yen 5GStudio Dallas TX
Oswald Robert R. Patrick Architectural Lisle IL
Pace Larry Allen Duke Energyr Charlotte NC
Patnode Dennis HDR Architecture, Inc. Phoenix AZ
Peter Robin J. Intel Rio Rancho NM
Porter Rachelle, R. Spectrum Engineers Salt Lake City UT
Powell Martin W. ZGA Architects and Planners, Chartered Boise ID
Rader, AIA Michael FKP Architects, Inc. Houston TX
Reinke Laureen L. Weber Murphy Fox Erie PA
Riede Robert C. HDR Engineering Omaha NE
Rien Stephen Brown & Caldwell Seattle WA
Rogers Richard Naval Fac. Eng. Com., Mid-Atlantic, Public Works Dpt. Norfolk VA
Scharneck Anna Graef, Anhalt, Schloemer & Associates, Inc. Milwaukee WI
Schiffer,AIA Brad TAXIS Naples FL
Schulte Gary J. Systems Administrator Durrant Dubuque IA
Selmer John Slack Alost Architecture Shreveport LA
Septien Jorge Gruzen Samton LLP New York NY
Sholl Douglas C. HDR Architecture, Inc. Omaha NE
Shotwell Eric Eli Lilly & Company Indianapolis IN
Silva Antonio Wilson & Co, Inc. Albuquerque NM
Sloan, PE, RLS Hank Wiles Mensch Corp. Reston VA
Smart John L. Lindsey & Ritter, Inc. Valdosta GA
Smith Cheryl A. Cope Linder Associates Philadelphia PA
Smith Dale E. Smith Design Group Incline Village NV
Smith Dana K. (Deke) DUSD(I&E) BT Arlington VA
Smith, RLA, LEED AP Bradley A. EDAW I AECOM Fort Collins CO
Smythe Melanie Interior Systems, Inc. Milwaukee WI
Snyder Erik W. Kaikor Construction Alea HI
Soder Roydan B. Intel Corporation Rio Rancho NM
Sorensen Erin Idaho Power Company Boise ID
Spangler Stephen CADD/GIS Technolgy Center Vicksburg MS
Stancik Susan E. A. Morton Thomas & Associates, Inc. Chantilly VA
Stevens Greig M. KCI Technologies, Inc. Hunt Valley MD
Stokes Mike AMEC, Inc. Minneapolis MN
Strominger Alan Ghafari Associates, LLC Dearborn MI
Stypka, FCSI, CCS, AIA Joseph A. Murphy/Jahn Chicago IL
Swanson David J. Columbia Sheet Metal Works, Inc. Chicago IL
Swenson Shane Unified Electrical Consutling LLC Logan UT
Taute Brett Building Data Management Center Portland OR
Taylor Lorilee U.S. Army Corps of Engineers St. Paul MN
Teller Robert W. Phoenix Design Group, Inc. Wildwood MO
Tevet Isaac Flether Farr Ayotte P.C. Portland OR
Tirone Jason Dekker/Perich/Sabatini Alburquerque NM
Tomaszewski, CSI John Michael Hartman Design Group Rockville MD
Tromble Nancy Johnson Controls Inc. Dupont WA
Turney Steven C. ZGA Architects and Planners Boise ID
Uczynski Beth CADapult, Ltd. Newark DE
Urban Harold Pickering Firm, Inc. Memphis TN
Van Kersbergen Rene P. ARCADIS G&M, INC. Orlando FL
Vandergriff Gary L. Vandergriff Group Architects Midland TX
Vange Jens Henry Architectural Alliance Minneapolis MN
Vann John Perkowitz + Ruth Architects Long Beach CA
Vest, CSI Jack Consulting Engineers Sand Spings OK
Vickery Lisa GLHN Tucson AZ
Wahlen Janna Weber State University Ogden UT
Waller Stanley R. Atlantic Div., Naval Facilities Engineering Command Norfolk VA
Wardlow Curt Burns & McDonell Kansas City MO
Warren Perry Louis and Henry Inc. Louisville KY
Washock Dominique R. Morse Zehnter Associates Poestenkill NY
Wedding James Jones & Boyd Inc. Dallas TX
Weldon Nathan USA Architects Somerville NJ
Wells Daniel MHTN Architects, Inc. Salt Lake City UT
White Scott Terracon Little Rock AK
Wikstrom Scott Roof Spec Inc. St. Paul MN
Willems Steve Wilson & Company Albuquerque NM
Williams Robert B. HDR Engineering, Inc. Folsom CA
Wilson Bice Meridian Design Associates New York NY
Wilson James Toby CADD/GIS Technology Center Vicksburg MS
Wind John M. Piper-Wind Architects Kansas City MO
Wright Michael V. SUNY Buffalo, Facilities Plan&Design Buffalo NY
Wyatt Todd Eppstein Uhen Architects Milwaukee WI
Yandow Bob Axiom International Clearwater FL
Zambrano Christian Ismael Leyva Architects New York NY

NCS Version 3.0 Project Committee:
• Chair: David A. Jordani, FAIA; Jordani Consulting Group
• Vice-Chair: John Patrick McCaffrey, CSI, CCS, AIA; Construction Specificer
• Ronald A. Agnew; HDR Engineering, Inc.
• Jerrold Anderson; MHTN Architects, Inc.
• John H. Anderson, AIA, CSI; Dietz & Company Architects Inc.
• Ramon V. Baez; Intel / Jacobs Facilities
• Ronald E. Baker; HDR Architecture, Inc.
• William Bambeck; Christian Ideas Co.
• David Barisa; Anderson Brown Higley Associates
• Gary L. Beimers, CDT, CSI; McGraw-Hill Construction Information Group
• David M. Benjamin; New York State Office of General Services
• David P. Benscoter; HDR Architecture, Inc.
• Kenneth J. Bentz; Intel Corp.
• Kevin Black; Simon Property Group
• James Boggs; Intel Corp.
• David M. Bono; The Dewolff Partnership
• Janine Boyer-Richards; Boyer Richards Services
• Mark Brazee; Pahl-Pahl-Pahl Architects
• Laurence W. Bunch; Corley Redfoot Zack
• Chuck F. Burgess, P.E.; Environmental & Civil Engineering Services
• Kit Burns; BLRB Architects
• Mark S. Bushhouse; Williams & Associates, Architects
• R. Mark Butler; HDR Architects, Inc.
• Roderick K. Butler; Glover/Resnick & Associates, Inc.
• Mark A. Carter; NJRA Architects
• Milton Costello, P.E. C.C.S; Consulting Engineer
• Cathleen Curtin, AIA; Construction Specification Institute
• Scott DeGaro; Trudeau/Architects
• Dale H. Durham; Durham & Associates, Inc.
• Steve Dyrstad; HDR Architecture, Inc.
• David Fawcett; ELS Architecture
• Jim Fletcher, Jr.; AEC CADCON, Inc.
• Ressell Freier; HDR Engineering, Inc.
• Joe Y. Fuchida; Fuchida Associates, Architects
• Steven Fuchs; Obelisk Architects
• Alphonese Gavila; Intel Corp.
• Debbi L. Gottlieb, AIA; Dietz & Company Architects
• Charles A. Graham, Jr.; Fluor Daniel
• Charles R. Green; Wilson Company
• David R. Hague; NFPA
• Dennis J. Hall, AIA, FCSI; Hall Architects
• Willam Steven Harvey; William Steven Harvey Design
• Michael A. Hayes; CH2M Hill
• James D. Hillhouse; Hillhouse & Associates
• David H. Horner; CADD/GIS Technology Center
• Edward L Huell, Jr.; CADD/GIS Technology Center
• Steve Hutsell; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• James G. Jackson; Autodesk, Inc.
• Raymond Jenkins; Torti Gallas and Partners
• Gregory L. Jordan; Dewberry & Davis, LLC
• John P. Kiernan; U.S. Coast Guard
• Mark W. Kiker; DMJMH+N, Inc.
• Stephen B. Lafferty, AIA; O'Keefe Architects
• Gary W. LaRose, CSI CCS; Dean And Dean Associates Architects, P.A.
• Paul LaNigro; Jacobs
• David E. Lorenzini; Architectural Resources Company
• W. Edward Lowe; Burgess & Niple
• Craig M. Lucas; International Academy of Design & Technology
• Peg Manuel; WJA
• Barrie Mathews; Softco Engineering Systems Inc.
• John Patrick McCaffrey; CSI, CCS, AIA
• Fred Miller; GSA
• Richard Morse; Data CAD LLC
• Roger Morse; Morse Associates
• Jeff Moths; Forrer Business Interiors, Inc.
• Dean Mueller; Lucien Lagrange & Associate, LTD
• James L. Mulligan, Jr.; HDR Architecture
• Guillermo A. Navas; SMACNA
• Reginald Nora; Intel Corp.
• E. Scott Okes, RA, CCCA; Dewberry & Davis
• Gregory A. Olsen; HDR Architecture, Inc.
• Robert R. Oswald; Patrick Architectural
• Larry Pace; Duke Energy
• Dennis Patnode; HDR
• Robin J. Peter; Intel Corp.
• Eric C. Quinn; Washington State Parks & Recreation Commission
• Michael R. Rader; FKP Architects, Inc.
• Robert C. Reide; HDR Engineering, Inc.
• Rachel Rogerson; Spectrum + Bennion
• Brad Schiffer; TAXIS, Architects/Planners
• Eva Schocken; Dietz & Company Architects
• Stephen R. Scott; Haden Inc.
• Sephen Shatter; Multinomah County, Oregon
• Alexander (Sandy) Shaw, National Institute of Building Sciences
• Joel S. Shelton; Intel Corp.
• Douglas C. Sholl; HDR
• John L. Smart; Lindsey & Ritter, Inc.
• Bradley A. Smith; EDAW, Inc.
• Cheryl A. Smith; Cope Linder Associates
• Dana K. (Deke) Smith; Army Research Laboratory
• Haden D. Smith, AIA; Gunn & Smith Architects
• Roydan B. Soder; Intel Corporation
• Stephen Spangler; CADD/GIS Technology Center
• Carl Staats, HDR Architecture, Inc.
• Susan E. Stancik; A. Morton Thomas & Associates
• Joseph A. Stypka, AIA, CSI, CCS; Murphy/Jahn
• Michael Tardif; American Institute of Architects
• Brett V. Taute; Multinomah County, Oregon
• Nancy Tromble; Johnson Controls, IFM
• Jens Henry Vange; Architectural Alliance
• Jack Vest, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCA; Consulting Engineers
• James R. Waller; Naval Facilities Engineering Command
• Curt L. Wardlow; Burns & McDonnell
• James Wedding; Jones & Boyd Inc.
• Daniel Wells; MHTN Architects, Inc.
• Scott Wikstrom; Roof Spec Inc.
• James (Toby) Wilson; CADD/GIS Technology Center
• William H. Work, AIA; Consulting for Architects, Inc.
• Michael Wright; SUNY Buffalo, Facilities Plan & Design
• Robert Yandow; Axiom International

NCS Version 2.0 Project Committee:
• Chair: David A. Jordani, FAIA; Jordani Consulting Group
• Vice-Chair: John Patrick McCaffrey, CSI, CCS, AIA; Construction Specifier
• John H. Anderson, AIA, CSI; Dietz & Company Architects Inc.
• William Bambeck; Christian Ideas Co.
• David Barisa; Anderson Brown Higley Associates
• Gary L. Beimers, CDT, CSI; McGraw-Hill Construction Information Group
• Javier Bersabe; Thornton-Tomasetti Group
• Kevin Black; Simon Property Group
• David M. Bono; The Dewolff Partnership
• Janine Boyer-Richards; Boyer Richards Services
• Mark Brazee; Pahl-Pahl-Pahl Architects
• Laurence W. Bunch; Corley Redfoot Zack
• Kevin J. Busacker; Leo A. Daly Company
• John P. Cooney; E-B-L Engineers Inc.
• Milton Costello, P.E. C.C.S; Consulting Engineer
• Cathleen Curtin, AIA; Construction Specification Institute
• Scott DeGaro; Trudeau/Architects
• Vijay Duggal; Port Authority of NY & NJ
• Dale H. Durham; Durham & Associates, Inc.
• Dagmar Epsten; The Epsten Group
• Kristine K. Fallon, FAIA; Kristine Fallon Associates, Inc.
• Joe Y. Fuchida; Fuchida Associates, Architects
• Paul Gold, AIA; Autodesk, Inc.
• Debbi L. Gottlieb, AIA; Dietz & Company Architects
• Charles R. Green; Wilson Company
• Dennis J. Hall, AIA, FCSI; Hall Architects
• John R. Harrington, P.E.; The Austin Company
• Michael A. Hayes; CH2M Hill
• Paul D. Herold; U.S. Coast Guard
• James G. Jackson; HDR Architecture, Inc.
• Gary L. Joaquin; GLV & Associates
• Richard S. Johnson; Frankfurt-Short-Bruza
• Haden D. Smith, AIA; Stauder Architecture
• Ron Smith, AIA; Dick & Fritsche Design Group
• Stephen Spangler; CADD/GIS Technology Center
• Joseph A. Stypka, AIA, CSI, CCS; Murphy/Jahn
• Michael Tardif; American Institute of Architects
• Anamaria Tusa; Thornton-Tomasetti Engineers
• Lynn L. Twyeffort; Sandia National Labs
• Casey Upshaw; Flad & Associates
• Jens Henry Vange; Architectural Alliance
• Jack Vest, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCA; Consulting Engineers
• James Wedding; Jones & Boyd Inc.
• William Max Wells, Jr., CCS, RA; Little & Associates - Architects
• Scott Wikstrom; Roof Spec Inc.
• James (Toby) Wilson; CADD/GIS Technology Center
• Michael Wright; SUNY Buffalo, Facilities Plan & Design

NCS Version 1.0 Project Committee:
• Chair: Aram H. Kailian, AIA; General Services Administration
• Vice-Chair: Toby Wilson; US Army Corps of Engineers
• Benjamin Adams; Social Security Administration
• Norman Arendt; Mead & Hunt Inc.
• David D. Barisa; Anderson Brown Higley Associated
• Gary Beimers, CDT; McGraw-Hill Construction Information Group
• Lane Joseph Beougher, AIA, CSI, CCC; Braun & Steidl Architects, Inc.
• Robert W. Bird; Stafford King Wiese Architects
• Tariq Khalil Bsharat; National Fire Sprinkler Association
• Kevin Busacker; Leo A. Daly Company Christopher
• G. Bushnell CSI CCS AIA; The Construction Specifications Institute
• B. Robert Callori; B. Robert Callori, A.I.A.
• Randall K. Cecil; R.E. Warner & Assoc.
• Stuart B. Chait, Sr.; Stuart B. Chait Sr. Architect
• John J. Clements, AIA; Plans & Programs Division, Facilities Department
• David Commeree; Architects BBL
• Wilbur A. Conyers; Boyle Engineering Corp.
• Kenneth R. Crellen; Emory University
• Cathleen Curtin, AIA; The Construction Specifications Institute
• James M. Davidson; Texas A&M University System
• Vijay Duggal
• Herbert R. Duncan; The Methodist Hospital
• Kristine Fallon; Kristine Fallon Associates
• Roger N. Fish; Roger N. Fish, Architect
• Guillermo Flores, Jr., P.E.; Architectural Consultants, Inc.
• Hal Foster; NYC Human Resources Administration
• Brad E. Gee; ManTech TIS Corp.
• Charles R. Green, CSI, CDT; The Construction Specifications Institute
• Dennis J. Hall, CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA; The Construction Specifications Institute
• Michael L. Herman; J. Albert Paquette & Associates, Inc.
• Paul D. Herold; U.S. Coast Guard
• Michelle Hogg; A.M. Kinney, Inc.
• Raymond Karenas, AIA, CSI; McClier Corporation
• Thomas M. Kennedy; The California State University
• Kevin Knippa, AIA; Avatech Solution
• Stephen B. Lafferty, AIA; O'Keefe Architects
• Gary W. LaRose, CSI CCS; Dean and Dean Associates Architects, P.A.
• Tom Liebel, AIA; Design Collective, Inc.
• David Lorenzini, FCSI, CCS; Architectural Resources Co.
• W. Edward Lowe; Burgess & Niple
• Craig M. Lucas; International Academy of Design & Technology
• Leonard Martin; Peter Basso Associates, Inc.
• Barrie Mathews; Softco Engineering Systems Inc.
• Jean A. McGinn; Headquarters U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• Maria Minassian; Khatib & Alami Consolidated Engineers Co.
• Jeffrey H. Morgan; Dietz & Company Architects
• Richard Morse; Data CAD LLC
• Roger Morse; Morse Associates
• Jeff Moths; Forrer Business Interiors, Inc.
• Dean Mueller; Lucien Lagrange & Associate, LTD
• Guillermo A. Navas; SMACNA
• E. Scott Okes, RA, CCCA; Dewberry & Davis
• Robert R. Oswald; Patrick Architectural
• John R. Potter; Hart Freeland Roberts
• W. John Powell, AIA; PEI Partnership Architects
• Victor M. Prebor; Lunz Prebor Fowler Architects
• Rob Rafferty; Rafferty Rafferty Tollenfson Architects
• William Rakatansky; Freeman White Inc.
• Abdul–Raouf Rifai; Khatib & Alami Consolidated Engineers Co.
• Brad Schiffer; TAXIS, Architects/Planners
• Eva Schocken; Dietz & Company Architects
• Robert Schulz; California State University
• Neil Sego; Schmidt Associates
• Alexander (Sandy) Shaw, National Institute of Building Sciences
• Kevin M. Shertz; American Institute of Architects
• Dana K. (Deke) Smith; Army Research Laboratory
• Gary W. Smith; J. Hyatt Hammond Associate Inc.
• Cheryl A. Smith; Cope Linder Associates
• Haden D. Smith, AIA; Stauder Architecture
• Ron Smith, AIA; Dick & Fritsche Design Group
• Stephen Spangler; CADD/GIS Technology Center
• Joseph A. Stypka, AIA, CSI, CCS; Murphy/Jahn
• Michael Tardif; American Institute of Architects
• Anamaria Tusa; Thornton-Tomasetti Engineers
• Lynn L. Twyeffort; Sandia National Labs
• Casey Upshaw; Flad & Associates
• Jens Henry Vange; Architectural Alliance
• Jack Vest, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCA; Consulting Engineers
• James Wedding; Jones & Boyd Inc.
• William Max Wells, Jr., CCS, RA; Little & Associates - Architects
• Scott Wikstrom; Roof Spec Inc.
• James (Toby) Wilson; CADD/GIS Technology Center
• Michael Wright; SUNY Buffalo, Facilities Plan & Design

Obviously only some of the above people who have produced the NCS over the last 10 years are CSI members because of the multiple organizations involved, but there are significant numbers of CSI members involved. There also a few CSI staff and other association staff members listed that have assisted in the effort. The vast majority however are volunteers from the design and construction industry who have extended the time and effort to contribute to the NCS. There are also quite a few repeated names of people who have stayed with the program to work on more than one version of the NCS.

I think it is pretty difficult to say that there is not sufficient number of people interested enough to provide the contributions necessary for the establishment and improvement of drawings standards which in Version 3.1 contains almost a 1,000 pages of material. There certainly has been significant resources besides the CSI staff involved in the creation, revision, and expansion of the NCS.
Hans W. Meier, FCSI
Senior Member
Username: hans_w_meier

Post Number: 17
Registered: 07-2005
Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 10:45 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

A rather cheap shot, Bob Jonson. I had expected better from you, but it did take up a lot of space, didn't it. Disappointed you didn't like the Certified Word Processor; I thought it fit right in with the direction CSI was going.

The folks you listed, many of them CSIers, have agreed to do much of the heavy lifting. I join with everyone else to applaud them and to thank them for their efforts. But let's get back to the central question as stated in Colin's post at the start of this thread: "Should CSI's strategic plan be changed?"

I've tried to make my position clear. I think CSI's strategic plan should be changed for now to focus on two things: 1) Limit the area boundaries within which CSI should currently work; and 2) Focus more strongly on programs to improve the preparation and use of construction specs.

Bob, you are held in high esteem by everyone I know in CSI. When you have carefully considered and studied the question Colin posed, your answer will be of interest to us all.

Hans
Robert W. Johnson
Senior Member
Username: bob_johnson

Post Number: 98
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 12:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I think the first step in discussing the CSI Strategic Plan is to read and study it as John Bunzick's posting demonstrates that he did. Substantial information about the plan is readily available on the CSI website at http://www.csinet.org/s_csi/sec.asp?CID=705&DID=7278. A 2-page executive summary as well as a full 10-page are available at that location. If you haven't already done so, I would invite you to take the time to understand the contents of the plan.

I think it is important that we discuss what the plan actually says and not just what we may have heard about it from others.
Robert W. Johnson
Senior Member
Username: bob_johnson

Post Number: 99
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 01:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Hans

You can call it a cheap shot if you want but I could not let your insinuation that there were not resources of people, including CSI members, who were interested enough and available to accomplish work in the area of drawings standards go by unchallenged. Yes the list is long and took a lot of room. It could have been longer if we added to it the people who served on the CSI Drawings Subcommittee and who were the pioneers in starting the work on the development of the Uniform Drawing System (UDS) in the first half of the 90s before the agreement was reached with the other organizations to jointly produce the National CAD Standard (NCS).

For those of you not familiar with the string of documents produced regarding drawings, here is a short abbreviated history:
CSI produced the first document related directly to drawings called “Standard Reference Symbols” in 1990, began the formal development of the UDS in 1994, published the first three modules of the UDS in 1997 (now has 8 modules), participated with other organizations (including AIA, federal agencies, & NIBS) in the publishing of the first edition of the NCS in 1999 (now at Version 3.1), and work is currently underway for revisions for NCS Version 4. The majority of the content of the NCS has been produced by CSI.
Two CSI members, Rick Green and Dennis Hall just authored a book published by Wiley on the NCS.

Obviously, the people on that long list have been productive in their efforts. If you are interested to find out more information about the NCS, so to the NCS website: http://www.nationalcadstandard.org/. You will also find a list of organizations who have adopted the NCS including all the federal agencies, other local public institutions, major corporations with on-going construction programs, and many major A/E firms. The NCS is well on its way to become an accepted standard.

We need to project ourselves back to the days in the 60s and 70s when the adoption of what we now call MasterFormat and SectionFormat were in their struggling stage of being accepted and adopted by the specifying community. It is not easy to get a standard of this type introduced, accepted, and adopted by the industry. MasterFormat was not officially adopted by DOD until 1983 even though it was first published in 1963. The federal agencies have been supportive and adopted the NCS as it was published.

Bob
Robert W. Johnson
Senior Member
Username: bob_johnson

Post Number: 100
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 02:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Hans

The part of this discussion that I find troubling is that it seems to be a perception that if CSI is involved in other programs perceived to be outside the arena of “specifications,” that CSI is going to neglect the specifications area. The premise seems to be if CSI is not devoting all of its energies to “specifications,” it isn’t doing its job properly.

The definition of what is included in the area of “improvement of construction specifications” is not clear. You and Colin seem to want to include areas like contract administration in the definition of “improvement of construction specifications,” but seem unable to use the broader term construction or contract documents. I would like to see you list out what current CSI programs you feel are appropriate to the concept of “improvement of construction specifications” and which ones you think should be dropped.

CSI is not an organization of just specifiers and product representatives. The following is a membership category count (as members classify themselves) as of June, 2006 for those membership categories with over 20:
Architect 4108
Manufacturer's Rep./Supplier 2207
Other 1368
Material Supplier 1189
Specifier or Specification Con 872
Consultant 646
Project Manager 592
Subcontractor 486
General Contractor 453
Civil Engineer 442
Structural Engineer 357
Distributor 345
Student 302
Contract Administrator 286
Construction Manager 280
Mechanical Engineer 239
Electrical Engineer 150
Cost Estimator 148
A/E Drafter - CAD Operator 139
Facilities Manager 86
Attorney 81
Support Personnel 73
A/E Representative 73
Landscape Architect/Designer 72
Manufacturer's Agent 71
Marketing Professional 69
Educator 65
Interior Design./Space Planner 56
Association Staff 56
Environmental Engineer 51
Forensic Architect 46
Public Agencies Staff 45
Publisher 43
Constructor 43
Building Official 35
Test Lab Personnel 35
Building Owner 31
Developer 31
Forensic Engineer 27

CSI has a diverse horizontal membership. Is CSI short of proper representation in some areas? Definitely, we should be doing a much better job of recruiting in some areas – especially in the engineering disciplines and the construction side. Yes, specifiers are an important core element of that membership, but still only one element of a diverse membership.

I think we also need to be realistic about the potential for membership growth for CSI. How many man-hours are involved in the preparation of construction specifications versus the preparation of drawings versus the manufacture and supply of products versus the construction process versus construction contract administration? There are many more people involved in the preparation of drawings and the administration of construction contracts then in the preparation of specifications. That is a fact of life. There are a limited number of specifiers in comparison to other members of the A/E team. This is especially true when we consider that there are very few specifier specialists in the engineering disciplines.

An interesting statistic is available from a listing of those getting their certification so far this year that is available by looking at a recent posting on the CSI website: There were 27 people who became CCS while there were 94 people who have became CCCA. At least this year among those at the stage of achieving certification, there are many more interested in contract administration then in specifications. CSI can not afford not to provide services to those interested in construction contract administration and also think about the untapped potential for CSI membership growth in this area. Then think about the potential for growth if CSI had a NCS certification program for those concentrating on the preparation of drawings. This is just talking about CSI membership without talking about the benefits to the industry as a whole that result from these programs. By the same token this should not be an excuse for ignoring the needs of the important specifier community within CSI.

By the same token, think what would happen to the current membership if the CSI programs were reduced to a more strict definition of “improvement of construction specifications.” I believe we would definitely see a decline in the membership numbers because there are significant numbers of the membership whose primary interest is not strictly specifications.

I think we also have to recognize the joint alliance between SCIP and CSI. SCIP is an organization which limits its membership to the specifier community with a current membership of a little over 200 (including independent consultant members and affiliate members who are employees of firms). SCIP does provide a place to discuss “specifier only” issues and an organization that has a stated purpose of promoting, fostering, and advancing the interest of those preparing construction specifications. SCIP has recently taken and is about to take an additional step they provides for more participation by the affiliate members. CSI and SCIP seem to be entering a new era of cooperation with each other. In discussing “specifier issues,” the relative roles of SCIP and CSI should be a part of the evaluation picture.

The above discussion is not meant to try and now ignore specification issues, but rather to remind ourselves who the members of CSI are what their interests are. Even though it may not seem like it, I am not ignoring your request to respond to the question about the strategic plan. I will get there (eventually).

Bob
Colin Gilboy
Senior Member
Username: colin

Post Number: 46
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 03:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

My concern with the strategic plan as stated on the CSI site is that it appears to me to be a compromise (probably with each phrase hard fought over) with phrasing that could be interpreted as supporting both Plans E and S.

We must not lose track that CSI does not have an Executive Director, and the strategic plan is an essential component to recruiting.

I think we need to hear from the new President (and Excom) about the tasks he plans to complete this year and ones he plans to start. This will be a key starting place for any search for a new Executive Committee.
Robert W. Johnson
Senior Member
Username: bob_johnson

Post Number: 101
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 04:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Colin

I guess I really don't understand how you differentiate between your two plan descriptions.

Do the following items taken directly from the strategic plan fit in your Plan S?
* Develop updated PageFormat, SectionFormat, UniFormat, and Uniform Drawing Standard tools.
* Develop a national standard for the coordination of drawings and specifications.
* Develop a uniform system for the harmonization of construction terminology and symbols.
* Investigate a certification program for UDS/National CAD Standards
Do these support your Plan S?
I believe Hans has been definitive that should not be included.

I assume you meant "search for new Executive Director" in your last sentence. I would not be so concerned about the strategic plan in the search for an executive director. In my view, the main role of the staff is to support the current strategic plan of the organization. Those strategies and their priotities always change over time and the staff will be required to flex with them.
Robert W. Johnson
Senior Member
Username: bob_johnson

Post Number: 102
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 04:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Hans

If anyone feels that CSI has failed in giving proper attention to specifications, then I think they should make that known to the current leadership through all the channels that are available to them by means of the CSI organizational structure. If you are concerned about something, communicate with your appointed and elected representatives about it. David Combs has provided a list of things he is concerned about in an above posting. I would suggest a course of action to try and resolve those issues without having to try to attack other programs of the Institute that are of benefit to other members.

For instance one of the subjects on David’s list relates to education in schools and the development of the next generation of specifiers. CSI currently has an Academic Affairs Program Committee (Margaret Chewning is a member), a Professional Development Committee (Peter Jordan and David Wyatt have been members), a CSI University Model Development Task Team, and an Education Documents Development Task Team. The members and contact information for members of all of the above are on the CSI website. I believe that these are the CSI groups that would be appropriate to contact with concerns in this area to find out what is going on in this area of concern.

I believe Margaret does put out a plea for people to help with student events at the 2007 convention in Baltimore a few days ago. I have not seen a response to it on the forum. Some may have gone to the directed website to assist in the effort.

In my experience, CSI is an organization of volunteer doers. The staff certainly is important in providing assistance and support in those efforts, but in general, the CSI staff has never been responsible to produce the “content” of CSI programs. Our programs have primarily been the results of the time and effort of member volunteers. If the members don’t dig in and produce, then the program is not likely to happen. I remember distinctly my first international contacts in the early 90s, primarily with our European counterparts – they were totally amazed at the amount of programs and documents that CSI had produced with volunteer efforts – totally outside their realm of experience.

One of my first positive experiences as a young CSI member in the Denver chapter was participating with a group in formulating a way to efficiently document door, frame, and hardware information in construction documents. The group included some older experienced types and some younger types like me and included people from all aspects of that business – both professional and industry (for lack of better words) types. The group did good work and produced some recommendations very similar to what has become what I think is standard practice around the country. It is that sort of cooperative effort that kept me involved in CSI.

We have now had for many years a CSI “Substitution Request Form.” I don’t know the details of its history but I know that it came out of some work by people in the Northwest Region of CSI (someone from there might provide more detail). Some people identified a problem and came up with a solution that was first distributed locally or regionally and later became formal part of CSI recommendations. I believe it now has very high usage across the country because of the original efforts by some local CSI people.

The Phoenix chapter I believe has produced some very good technical advice documents that they have made available to others.

The above are only a few examples from my own personal knowledge of CSI activities and programs. I am sure others have many other similar stories.

What I am trying to say is, if you see a problem that you have a strong interest in, see what you can do to help solve it. Only choose subjects that you like to work in and feel that you can pull together the right expertise and experience. Find some kindred folk in your chapter, your region, or the Institute depending upon your network of contacts. Include some knowledgeable experienced folk and some less experienced people so that new people can learn how to solve problems in a cooperative manner. See if you can come up with a solution or come up with improvements. Let others know about it and make it available to others. Based on my long experience in CSI, if your solution or improvement has merit, it will spread to others – maybe beyond your wildest expectations!

The message is – don’t think about CSI doing (fill in the blank) for me in a we/them context. CSI is we the members. Things happen in CSI when there are enough members interested to make them happen – that can be a relatively small number if they have real compassion about what they are trying to do. We all then benefit from our collective efforts. It is amazing what we can accomplish when we work together to help each other!

Bob
Robert W. Johnson
Senior Member
Username: bob_johnson

Post Number: 103
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 05:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Hans

OK I am ready to make my personal comments about the current CSI Strategic Plan.

“Long Range Goals:
• CSI will be the premier integrating force for creating and sustaining the built environment
• CSI will be the primary gateway to resources for programs, services, and the exchange of knowledge”
The above long range goal is too broad and far reaching for me. I have a hard time putting any boundaries on it. I would restrict it more to the total design and construction process with particular emphasis on communications. As I stated earlier I have not formulated a position of the inclusion of facility management or not. I have not tried to formulate my concept of what it should be into a definitive long range goal statement.

Objectives:

“Advance the tools and practices of specifying and documenting design and construction information.”
I am supportive of this objective. In fact I would be for expanding it so that it is more obvious that it includes enforcement of construction documents (CCCA). I am very supportive of some of the items listed under it including UDS, coordination of drawings and specifications, and harmonization of terminology. I think the latter two items are very critical. Previous CSI efforts at improving the coordination of drawings and specifications have not been successful. A CSI task team is currently working on terminology.

“Expand the diversity of CSI membership and participation at all levels.”
I am supportive of this objective. I interpret it to be saying to try to provide education and certification programs for all of the membership. Again I would add enforcement to “specifying and documentation functions.”

“Establish cooperative alliances/liaisons with related construction science organizations and government agencies in the U.S. and internationally.”
I am supportive of this objective. I think it is just saying work cooperatively with other organizations in trying to accomplish the other stated objectives.

“Develop an academic relations network with programs, institutions, faculty and students.”
This is not an area where I am too knowledgeable about even though I have served as an adjunct professor at several universities as I moved around the country during my career. I am certainly supportive of technical education in schools, but I am not sure how successful you can be at that and how it relates to internship type education and continuing education. I am willing to support whatever other more knowledgeable people support.

“Improve and expand Institute education programs.”
I am strongly in support of our continuing education programs that are based on the PRM.

“Identify needs and improve or develop new programs for certification”
I am supportive of a certification program related to the NCS. I would be interested to find out more about what the criteria would be for an advanced CCS certification.

“Establish CSI as an information resource for products, materials and practices related to creating and sustaining the built environment”
I am certainly in favor of improving our information sources and tools such as the Specifier, the convention, and the website. I have reservations about formalized mentorship programs – I have yet to get an formally organized mentorship program work – in my experience people select their own mentors and you only really have to provide the correct environment to allow mentoring – but I am always ready to be convinced otherwise. Although web-based education has some drawbacks in terms of lack of good interaction (based on my experience as an instructor using this method both in the CSI community and within RTKL), it certainly has many advantages and can reach many more people efficiently.

Summary:
I guess my summary evaluation would be similar to John Bunzick’s, I don’t think strategic plan objectives are nearly as expansive (trying to be all things to all people) as people have portrayed it. To me, the long range goal statement is much more expansive than the objectives under it. I would be for a more restrictive long range goal statement but have no real problems with the current objectives.

I think it is also interesting to note that several of the subjects listed in David Combs list of concerns are covered in the current strategic plan:
* Develop a network of faculty within design and construction schools.
* Support and sponsor student member involvement in CSI programs and events.
* Develop an interactive program using CSI mentor leaders that can be taken into high schools.
* Establish a student awareness and outreach program-elementary to college level.
* Pursue the re-engineering of The Annual CSI Show & Convention format and participation of industry partners in Construct America™
* Develop and coordinate internship opportunities.

Please note that the above commentary is not a commentary on priorities among the elements in the plan. That is a different subject. The current board is always in the position of having to make choices among priorities in relation to resources available. One would have to have more information in order to comment on the priorities of what can be accomplished from year to year.

Bob
Mark Gilligan SE, CSI
Senior Member
Username: markgilligan

Post Number: 86
Registered: 05-2005
Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 06:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Critique of CSI Strategic Plan:

There is no clear Vision as to what CSI is. The closest to this are the Core Values that are so general that they could apply to anything.

It is only when we get to the sub goals that there is any mention of specifications and other construction documents.

There is essentially no recognition of the need to meet the needs of Engineers and other consultants. Thus is it surprising that engineers and other consultants are unaware of the body of knowledge embodied in the PRM.

I see platitudes but no real vision or plan. I would be interested to hear what CSI has identified as threats to its existence.

No mention is made to the interaction of construction specifications to the building codes. This lack of awareness of what is going on in code development and the practices of building departments has the potential of making much of what CSI has accomplished irrelevant. Yet CSI is oblivious to this force.

A number of building code standards are mandating where information should be shown. Since most of the participants are engineers who are unfamiliar with the PRM is it surprising that these provisions are at odds with CSI’s vision of construction documents. In addition a number of Building Departments, again largely staffed by engineers, are requiring information that should be placed in the specifications be placed on the drawings. In some instances the building departments do not even want the specifications submitted.

I am afraid that if CSI continues with its present “Strategic Plan” that CSI will be irrelevant. The question is will we recognize this before it is too late?
Hans W. Meier, FCSI
Senior Member
Username: hans_w_meier

Post Number: 18
Registered: 07-2005
Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 07:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Mark Gilligan, thanks for joining in. The questions asked by Colin at the start of this thread were meant for open broad discussion but they have narrowed to an unattractive argument between two people, certain to turn interest away. Yet, this question directly affects the future and success of CSI. Your participation is most welcome, as is that of all others.

Bob Johnson, you input your keyboard a lot faster than I do. Gosh, I'm snowed under with all those pages you've written. I hope you feel better now with all that off your chest; must have been a heavy burden. Do I detect a touch of anger in your most recent posts? Anger is not called for, just discussion.

Thank you for stating your position regards to Colin's question. At least I suppose your answer is somewhere in there. As I thought originally, your position and mine seem not far apart. We both recognize the want for strong decisive action where it's needed. You seem to favor CSI getting involved in broader areas than I do, but you seem to agree that the technique of clearly identifying, specifying, and enforcing construction data is at least one of CSI's most important goals.

Hans
Robert W. Johnson
Senior Member
Username: bob_johnson

Post Number: 105
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 07:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

No Hans I do not have a heavy burden nor do I feel any anger towards anyone on this issue.
Nothing personal was intended by any of my comments.
I am sorry if you felt that from anything that I have said.
It was certainly not intended in that way.
I have just tried to express my views on the subject.
Please accept my apologies.

I have, however, probably said way over my share for the weekend. Time for a little R&R.

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
This is a public posting area. Enter your username and password if you have an account. Otherwise, enter your full name as your username and leave the password blank. Your e-mail address is optional.
Password:
E-mail:
Options: Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration