4specs.com    4specs.com Home Page

"Industry" vs. "Professional" member ... Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

4specs Discussion Forum » Institute Discussions » "Industry" vs. "Professional" member designations « Previous Next »

Author Message
David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI
Senior Member
Username: david_axt

Post Number: 673
Registered: 03-2002
Posted on Thursday, June 08, 2006 - 07:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Do we still need to have the "Industry Member" and "Professional Member" designations? I can't really think of a good reason why we need them. Why not just call everyone "members"? The exceptions would be if they are "student members", "retired members", "dead members", etc.
Kenneth C. Crocco
Senior Member
Username: kcrocco

Post Number: 53
Registered: 04-2003
Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 05:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

CSI is unique in the design/construction industry. We include all members of that industry. I am completely neutral on this issue. "Professional" is an ill defined term. It, of course, ranges from paid sports player to a licensed professional with other professionals in between. We consider the individuals we work with throughout this industry as "Pros" in their field. Professional still carries a specialized use with the design side as states licensed professionals for specific categories of work. I don't know if that influences how we label our membership.

I don't know what an "industry" member is; that is even more ambiguous. (Can something be more ambiguous? or "Industry" is ambiguous also.) Maybe they work harder.

just rambles.
Robert W. Johnson
Senior Member
Username: bob_johnson

Post Number: 86
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 06:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I think if you read the CSI Bylaws (http://www.csinet.org/s_csi/docs/9500/9488.pdf) you will find that there are actually three classes of membership - professional, industry, and associate (in addition to intermediate, retired, etc.). I think you will also find that all three classes have all the same rights and priviledges. The real purpose of having the classifications I believe is to have a reasonable balance in the governance of the Institute so that the various elements of the design and construction industry are represented.

The bylaws state:
"The Executive Committee shall have at least four professional members and at least two industry or associate members. Two of the vice presidents shall be professional members and two shall be industry or associate members.
Directors: One professional member and one industry or associate member from each geographical region shall be elected to the Board in accordance with Article VI of these Bylaws."

This is done to ensure that there is some balance of representation on the board and the executive committee. I think you will find that the model bylaws for chapters follows the same pattern (I did not double check that) and I think you will find that most chapters have similar requirements in their bylaws.

In other words the only real reason for these membership classifications is to ensure the various parts of the total industry are properly represented in the decision making bodies of CSI. You can discuss the actual titles and categories, but I think the basis for having some categories is pretty sound and has served the Institute well.
Sheldon Wolfe
Senior Member
Username: sheldon_wolfe

Post Number: 207
Registered: 01-2003
Posted on Saturday, June 17, 2006 - 11:03 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

As Bob said, the categories are used to keep balance in the organization. If I recall correctly, there was a time when industry members were not allowed to hold some offices; fortunately, that is not now the case. A few years ago, it was suggested that the categories be eliminated altogether.

The names of the categories has been the subject of discussion for some time. Several years ago, I took to referring to them as "design professionals" and "industry professionals", as I consider our industry members to be every bit as professional as those in the design fields.
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre

Post Number: 356
Registered: 07-2002
Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 01:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

to provide a little more history -- there WAS a time (about 25 years ago) when Industry members were not allowed to be chapter presidents or even more particularly, Institute presidents. there was (as I understand it ) some concern that Big Building Products, Inc,. would use the chapter president or Institute presidency to run a marketing campaign for Big Building Products. (I also remember when the Professional members of my chapter referred to Industry as "peddlers"... so we've evolved some). the first time an Industry member was a chapter president in the Puget Sound chapter was the 1978-79 term, and it was a pretty big deal.
in general, I think our categories should more or less be:
A) People who select things
B) People who provide things
C) People who provide services used by both A and B
Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: rick_howard

Post Number: 82
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 01:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

So spec writers are the "Type A" personalities.
Roy Crawford
Advanced Member
Username: roy

Post Number: 5
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 03:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I fully agree with Sheldon in his post. As a past chapter preseident, I had a difficult time soliciting new board members on the basis of whether or not they were 'professionals'. I also believe that our industry members are as professional in their endeavors as the design professionals are in theirs.
David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI
Senior Member
Username: david_axt

Post Number: 676
Registered: 03-2002
Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 07:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Back to my original question. Why do we need this outdated label?

Should we start distinguishing between "male member" and "female member"? How about "black member" and "white member"? Then again "Catholic member", "Protestant member", "Jewish member" and "Atheist member"?
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rliebing

Post Number: 412
Registered: 02-2003
Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 07:05 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Hold on, Mr. Axt, let's not get carried away.

I think some, if minimal differentiation between members can be helpful, so long as the rights are the same. Ms. Whitacre mentioned how things have changed over the yearss-- for the better.
But a simple recognition of the "root source" of the member could be helpful in identifying their expertise and their potential contribution to the chapter and CSI in general.

So how about just, "Member[P]", and
"Member[I]"?
Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED AP SCIP Affiliate
Senior Member
Username: lynn_javoroski

Post Number: 389
Registered: 07-2002
Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 09:59 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I have to also agree with Sheldon. I think "Design Professional" would encompass Specifiers, Architects, Engineers, Interior Designers and all who produce the design documents. "Industrial Professional" would include all who contribute their expertise to both the production and the execution of those documents.
Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI
Senior Member
Username: specman

Post Number: 281
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 10:19 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Although I have no problem with the current arrangement, I think it's worth pointing out a couple of disconnects with the current system:

If an owner/facility manager wants to join, what category they go in? If they're an architect or engineer, probably the "professional" category. If their background is maintenance, with no "professional" degree, are they industry?

What about people in industry that are architects or engineers? Do they get to choose which one they want?

CSI has a figure in the PRM that's on page 1.2 (Figure 1.2-A) that indentifies the "Project Team": Design, Contractor, Owner, Supplier. As a suggestion, and since CSI has over the years turned its focus to the "Team" and not just specifiers, why not use these team titles as the basis for their membership categories?
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rliebing

Post Number: 413
Registered: 02-2003
Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 10:39 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

WHO YOU CALLIN’ “PROFESSIONAL”?
by Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Cincinnati, OH




First, we acknowledge and summarily dispel the use of the word “professional” in any shady, illegal, or derogatory context!

What is a “professional”?

Is it one who is paid for what they do? Paper boys? Truck drivers of some types? Teachers? Police officers? Professional athletes [all pay-for-pay sports]? those who work long term at the same job? .......... ...................etc. Well, perhaps.

Of course, those mentioned and the other myriad are paid for their work and they work consistently doing basically the same work [with changed circumstances and conditions].
But is that the context intended by “professional”?

Should be it more narrowly drawn and applied to those who “practice a learned profession”— which is then defined as:

“....a calling to a specific vocation or employment, requiring specialized
knowledge and long and intensive academic preparation;....:

In the past, this seems to have been taken within this definition of professional. It almost approached a specific status of those to whom it was applied. But of more recent year, the word is much more broadly used and applied, and is used to substantiate an increase in status-- i.e., a baseball player has become a "Professional Baseball Player". But the root meaning is quite different from that directly above.

This is no attack on the word or the people involved, but is merely a reflection of new direction to apply older words in new venues. For example, “architect” is now applied to a person who designs the innards of computer apparatus [which in itself is called “system architecture”]. In some states, this is illegal use of the word, in that the law requires that the word be narrowly used and only by registered architects [solely, in the realm of architecture and construction].

Engineers, on the other hand have long had a litany of classifications from the better known, civil, mechanical, consulting, geo-technical, soils, and electrical, to soap, sanitary, stationary, etc. Still all function well in their venues, and their nomenclature proves to be no inhabitant.

So, in CSI for example, how valid is the need for differentiation between members from the design professions, and those from the fields of sales, technical assistance, reorientations, etc.? All work steadily within their position and job descriptions-- does that equate to "professional"? You decide. Does that necessitate distinction between membership classifications? You decide.

Maybe we need to pull back and understand that nobody comes to CSI functions [except the holiday parties] who does not have some interest in the work or products that will be discussed, shown, or specified.

Walking into the room before dinner, you may well just say, “Hey, you! I want to talk to you”. And put the notion of professional in your back pocket-- not relevant!

Sticks and stones [and lost sales] may break my bones, but names can never hurt me!
Robert W. Johnson
Senior Member
Username: bob_johnson

Post Number: 90
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 10:53 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Current Membership Category Definitions:

From the CSI Bylaws:

Professional members shall be technically experienced individuals whose primary function is to author, interpret, or enforce construction documents.

Industry members shall be technically experienced individuals whose primary function is to use and/or comply with construction documents in the normal course of their work to construct projects.

Associate members shall be those individuals whose primary function is to provide service, support and assistance to the construction industry.

From the CSI Membership Application Form:

Professional: My primary function is to write, interpret, enforce, or oversee the completion of construction documents.

Industry: My primary function is to use and/or comply with construction documents in the normal course of my work to construct, or supply materials for, construction projects.

Associate: My primary function is to provide service, support, and assistance to the construction industry.
Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED AP SCIP Affiliate
Senior Member
Username: lynn_javoroski

Post Number: 390
Registered: 07-2002
Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 10:59 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I like the "Project Team" approach that Ron proposed. It gets away from the negativity that has become wrongly attached to "professional".
Robin E. Snyder
Senior Member
Username: robin

Post Number: 52
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 12:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Interestingly enough, my lawyer has recommended that I remove the word "professional" from my contracts. Because I am not a licensed Architect, and therefore not technically a Design Professional, he has suggested that the use of the term "professional" could be construed to imply that I am offering "professional" services, that I am not licensed to perform.
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rliebing

Post Number: 415
Registered: 02-2003
Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 12:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

That's consistent with Ohio law, Robin, where the registration board will come after you if you use the word "architect" or any mutation/version of it [like "architectural designs:, "architectural drafter:, etc.] and you are not a registerd architect. They have gotten convictions and numerosu withdrawals with their enforcement actions. I think this is called a "title law", where the title is restricted to certain people.

The board has also gone after software and computer folks for such uses n their want ads,and other advertising.
Wayne Yancey
Senior Member
Username: wyancey

Post Number: 143
Registered: 05-2005
Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 05:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Ralph,

Ohio is a tough place, but I ran into similar issues in the province of Alberta in Canada. I am in the same situation as Robin. I have 39 years expereince in the industry. Never changed jobs, just employers.

My dipolma declares I am an Architectural Technologist.

I have had to correct employers in both Canada and the USA who have introduced me as an Architect. When I protect their response is "I am an Architect in everything but name."

Wayne
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rliebing

Post Number: 416
Registered: 02-2003
Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 07:27 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Wayne, as you noted, the law is diferent from state to provience, etc., which tends to complicate things if you practice or are employed on a regional or national basis.

Our firm has two stylings to meet variations in the laws of the states where we practice-- just to meet the variant registration laws.

So we can only rely on axioms-- "When in Rome....", and "A rose by any other name.....", and the ever true, "Be careful out there...."

Also, as an aside, we do see similarities in other professions [what is legal in Nevada, that is not legal elsewhere?] 'Nough said!!

And I cannot let your "Ohio is a tough place", go without comment. Yea, true! but Ohioans are all sweethearts!!!!
Kenneth C. Crocco
Senior Member
Username: kcrocco

Post Number: 55
Registered: 04-2003
Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 11:24 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I believe we are straying (far) from the original question. This issue of state licensing is, in my opinion, very complicated and we should all carefully check our state laws to verify the facts of how they apply to what we do. I believe there will be some surprises, but we should discuss this issue under a separate thread, if necessary.

The question here is regarding classifications for membership. We are an organization that invites membership from all "categories" of players in the design construction field. Categorizing these members is useful; what we call them is somewhat arbitrary. Bob Johnson's post with the definitions is a good start for further discussion on whether we keep them and what we name them if kept.
Hans W. Meier, FCSI, Honorary Member of CSI
Senior Member
Username: hans_w_meier

Post Number: 12
Registered: 07-2005
Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 06:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

My dictionary says this about "professsion." "1. An occupation or vocation requiring training in the liberal arts or the sciences and advanced study in a specialized field. 2. The body of qualified persons of one specific occupation or field. 3. Etc." How much more "advanced" does study have to be than for Certfication"?

We faced this problem in the early 1970's when so many spec writers were grumbling that there should be a spec writers license so people would have a little more respect for us. Our legal counsel pointed out substantial pitfalls on that road, and we developed a "certification" program to achieve the same end. The program has worked fairly well.

We pointed out at the time the necessity for educating and "certifying" product reps so spec writers would have some means to measure if the salesman had even the slightest idea of what specs were all about. That has worked out fairly well, too.

The word "professional" is bandied about without mercy: "world's oldest profession," "professional car wash," "professional handyman." After a while, words tend to take on the meaning people give to them: "fridge," "coke." We are in the midst of that with "professional" since it has -- perhaps innocently -- been misused for so long.

Within CSI the terms "Professional" and "Industry" serve a very useful purpose when they help us immediately identify what side of the construction community we are talking to.

If there has been an inadequacy in the way CSI has handled certification, and a lack of awareness in the architectural and engineering professions, that lack has been publicity by CSI outside CSI about the values attained by use of "certified" personnel. CSI preaches to the choir with beautiful ads in Specifier magazine but I have yet to see even the tiniest ad about it in Architecture or Architectural Record or Engineering Nws Record where it might do some good in achieving recognition and professional status.

As to changing the names within CSI, while change is good when needed, it is a waste otherwise.

Hans
David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI
Senior Member
Username: david_axt

Post Number: 677
Registered: 03-2002
Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 08:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Back to the original question.

So far nobody has effectively explained why we need to distinguish between the two types of members other than we do it out of tradition.

More and more the lines are getting blurred. I met a gentleman the other day that designs and installs high-end home entertainment systems. He is works as a consultant to the architect and is sometimes hired by the contractor as a subcontractor or he is contracted out separately as an owner's contractor. Sometimes he designs the system and has a separate company install. If he joins CSI will he be an industry or professional member?

(BTW Tom Stone's website is: www.stoneglidden.com)
Robert B. Molseed, FAIA, FCSI (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 03:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I hesitate to weigh in on this topic because it really reflects more what CSI has become than what was on our founding father's minds when they organized CSI. There can be no doubt that they intended CSI to be an organization for writers of construction specifications. The writers were the "Active" members, everyone else was an "Associate" member (to use the labels that the founding fathers used). I do not know how many "Associate" members were among the group that chartered CSI nearly sixty years ago, but I suspect there were very few, if any. My own Chapter, D.C. Metro (the second chapter chartered) had only one "Associate" member when it was chartered, and I believe that was typical for most of the first dozen or so chapters.

It is true, that in the early days there were many restrictions on what an "Associate" member could do within the organization. For example, they could not be elected Chapter or Institute President; they could not become Fellows; in some Chapters they could not even become officers. In the old days, all chapters were required to have more "Active" than "Associate” members. Today, some chapters have had trouble chartering due to the small number of Professional members willing to join. That statement alone speaks volumes about the way we are perceived by many of the design professionals around the country. We need to work on changing these perceptions, but that is another discussion.

Gradually over the past fifty plus years, the prohibitions on the role of Industry members (to use the current term) have largely been eliminated (whether this is for the better or worse is a different discussion), until today there is virtually no distinction between the "Professional" and the "Industry/Associate" member. Are these labels useful today? That is the real question here.

In my opinion it is always useful to have some method of distinguishing between the design professional/specification writer and the manufacturer’s representative or construction system consultant. Over the years, I have noticed that each seeks out the other during the cocktail hour before meetings. I recall one Industry member who carefully looked over the names on the registration table to see when a new “Professional” member was attending so that he would be certain to introduce himself. Much networking is accomplished through the use of these labels or tags that we have used to differentiate between individual members. We should be careful to maintain these labels for that reason alone. This distinction between membership classifications is a deeply ingrained part of the culture of CSI. We would be a much different organization without these distinctions.

The next question is “Is out choice of terms (“Professional” and “Industry”) the best? Here I am not so certain. I know many “Industry” members detest that tag, and I for one do not blame them. In my opinion, the old tag “Associate” member was far better, but we have now appropriated that term for another use so it is no longer available. The argument that the term “Professional” really applies to all members is inappropriate because that is not what the term is intended to imply. A very good case can be made for choosing new terms to define our member classifications; however, I for one would not want to be part of the group assigned the task of selecting new terms because nothing they cam up with would please everyone.

Finally, it is well to remember that our member classifications are a function of a member’s employment rather than background. We have many architects and engineers as members who are appropriately classified as Industry or Associate members because of their employment, and there are also cases where the opposite is true.

In short, we have labels to distinguish between different membership classifications. We have had these distinctions since CSI was founded. They work well. We should keep them as is until someone comes up with something better.
David J. Wyatt
Senior Member
Username: david_j_wyatt_csi_ccs_ccca

Post Number: 29
Registered: 07-2005
Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 09:52 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

The term "professional" is applied so broadly in common usage that, as with "quality," its meaning is obscured.

Lifetime commitment to one's vocation; the impetus to associate with one's peers and advance collective core values; willingness to mentor the next generation; the ability to recognize and praise those who make a positive difference; the ability to see wisdom in opposing points of view -In sum, these and other attributes break down the false boundaries of labels.
Jonathan Miller, FCSI (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 04:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

My main issue with the divisions we have created with these labels comes down to finding active leadership willing to move into the position(s) of Institute Director and, in 9 out of 10 regions, Region Vice-President / Region President.

The Northeast has found it difficult, over the last 8 years or so, to field well qualified multiple candidates and is, I believe, overly hampered by these labels.

If we can eliminate difficulties by modifying the meanings of these labels... great, although it requires further thought.

These are but two of the many issues for the Governance Committee to discuss and propose solutions to.
Kenneth C. Crocco
Senior Member
Username: kcrocco

Post Number: 56
Registered: 04-2003
Posted on Wednesday, July 05, 2006 - 09:13 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I see that there has been an answer to the question, "Is there a need to distinguish types of members?". Bob J. and others have mentioned that CSI uniquely invites all members of the design/construction industry to the table, therefore it is a benefit to all to know which parts of this large industry our members represent. In my mind this question is adequately addressed.

A second question that is being tossed about is what to call the categories. Ostensibly, some are unconfortable using "professional" for one of the categories and not others who are also professionals.

I suggest the need for categories is well demonstrated; what we label them is another question. (To which I have no further suggestions or opinions)

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