Rebranding......again?

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1274 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, December 19, 2011 - 03:40 pm:    Every few years this discussion comes up. Who are we? What are we all about? What are we supposed to be doing? We have the word "specifications" in our name, but are we about specifications or are we about more (BIM, sustainability, professional practice, etc.) Recently CSI sent me a survey which I answered and I encourage you to answer as well. It just seems to me that CSI has an identity crisis. It also seems to me that CSI wants to be everything to everyone and actually get away from specifications. I have always been puzzled by the formation of Specification Consultants in Independent Practice. I find many of their activities goals and purpose to be that of CSI. I just seems like while CSI is trying to figure if they want to get involved with specifications that SCIP picked up the slack and concentrated on specification writing and improvement. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 978 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2011 - 11:12 am:    Keep an open mind. I think we can all agree that CSI is more than just specifications, but it definitely is not trying to be "everything to everyone." Specifications was a great beginning, but CSI has grown beyond that to include all construction documents and construction information in general, as well as many other areas relating to the construction industry (think facility life cycle). This rebranding process (it's more of a brand revitalization process) is trying to find out exactly where CSI fits within the construction industry and how best to project that image to the public. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 494 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2011 - 04:06 pm:    Successful businesses take branding pretty seriously. I think it's good that CSI looks at their brand every few years, and am glad that they put together a pretty well thought-out survey to engage all of us curmudgeonly specifiers. Read this forum for awhile, and you'll see that we all complain about specifiers not being understood, the value of good documents not being recognized, etc., etc. The more industry members who know and understand what CSI is, the better we can promote the values we work by. I wish them well in the effort. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1225 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2011 - 05:48 pm:    yes, I think one of the issues that CSI has is that everyone I meet seems to think that it ONLY is for specifiers. I've had young people in this office go to CSI meetings and they still think that everyone who goes "is a specifier". emphasizing the plurality of the organization is critically important. Look at the USGBC -- no one thinks that the USGBC is only for LEED consultants -- its for "people who care about sustainability". CSI needs to build itself to "people who care about documentation" or some equally big-tent sort of thing. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 431 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2011 - 05:51 pm:    Amen Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 173 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2011 - 06:06 pm:    David Don't you think the relationship of specifications to BIM is an important topic for CSI? I believe CSI's main activity related to sustainable design is GreenFormat - a tool for architects/engineers and specifiers to receive better sustainable information from manufacturers - this is not a benefit to specifers? I don't what you mean about CSI and professional practice. What do you mean "wants to be everything to everyone"? CSI's mission statement certainly is not like that. Give some examples of what you are talking about. What do you mean "actually get away from specifications"? One of first new practice guides was Construction Contract Specifications. CSI continues to strongly support the CCS education/certification program, MasterFormat, and Section/Format all strongly related to specifications. Then there is the new master specifiers event this year. I don't think your statement has any validity. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1276 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2011 - 06:10 pm:    CSI is not about specifiers....it's about specifications and anyone who writes, reads, uses and wants to get in them. Maybe SCIP should rebrand themselves to "The National Association of Specifiers"....because they are not just for independent specification consultants! David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1277 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2011 - 07:16 pm:    I have seen many companies/firms that have rebranded themselves. Most, if not all, have not been successful. Sometimes the rebranding even ends up hurting the company. I would not like to see CSI go down the same path. These companies typically get convinced by a big marketing firm to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to come up with a new name, catchy motto and slick new logo. Just think of all the printed material, awards, banners, pins, etc. that will have to be changed. Can CSI really afford to spend the money in this economy and with declining membership? Does CSI really expect to get more members/attendance just by changing their name and logo? Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 979 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2011 - 01:10 am:    "Most, if not all, have not been successful." I doubt that, unless you have significant data to support it. A logo and name change are not definite--they are options. Right now the process is in the research stage and some decisions will be made based on what the research provides. If a change to the logo and name are made, then yes, some (and I emphasize "some") items will need to be changed. But most printed products are time-sensitive anyway (e.g. flyers, forms, etc.), so any new name or logo can easily be incorporated as the outdated items are replaced with new items. I can't see CSI reprinting copies of MasterFormat or the Practice Guides just due to a name or logo change. If stock runs out, new copies could have the updated image. I don't recall people complaining when CSI moved not once, but twice, in the past 10 years, which required address changes on everything--CSI survived that and they will survive this, if needed. "Does CSI really expect to get more members/attendance just by changing their name and logo?" -- No, we hope to get more members by the value that CSI can offer; the problem is getting that message out to the construction public, and CSI's current image appears to be getting in the way. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS LEED-AP Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 258 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2011 - 11:10 am:    I don't see how asking members in an on-line poll how they feel about the organization and what its image is to non-members is wasteful spending. CSI is a mere shadow of what it was 20 years ago. I want to know why we aren't as strong as we once were and would like to chart a path to a renewal. The past couple of years has been nothing short of brutal to the construction industry, which is down something like 20 percent, but my sense is that for specifiers, the hit was more than twice as big. The dedicated in-house spec writer would probably qualify for the endangered species list. The downturn hit at the same time that design firms were in the process of rethinking how they produce construction documents. It is quite clear that firms don't value specifiers the way they once did. Somehow, we need to prove that our specialized knowledge is still as important to the success of a project as it always has been. If we are no longer inside making our case, we need a way to be heard, and I believe CSI is going to be the way. By doing member polling in an open and transparent manner rather than hiring a consultant to produce a report, the board is showing that they want the members to lead the way rather than imposing changes that don't fit our sense of who we are and what we want to be. We have demonstrated that we can be a pretty irritable bunch if they don't listen to us. I hope that when people reply, they show the same kind of concern and thoughtfulness that is reflected in this discussion. Peggy White, CSI, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: peggy Post Number: 32 Registered: 07-2007 Posted on Sunday, January 01, 2012 - 03:22 pm:    Thanks David, for bringing this up. I responded to the survey and, per usual, told them exactly what I think. "It just seems to me that CSI has an identity crisis. It also seems to me that CSI wants to be everything to everyone and actually get away from specifications." <-- I agree. I'm watching from a distance these days as CSI becomes less and less relevant to my work as a specifier focusing on sustainability. Ron, I do have an open mind, but I'm just not feeling the specifier love from CSI/HQ at all these days. In my view, the most valuable 'product' that CSI has is the certifications. Recently I saw a posting on CSInet indicating that several manufacturer written specs had been 'approved and validated' (I can't remember the exact terms that were used). It seemed odd to me that CSI would promote the idea of manfacturers writing their own guide specs rather than encouraging them to have a CCS prepare it for them. To me, this devalues the CCS specifier - pushing us a little further out on the limb. On another note, the upcoming changes to the member categories significantly narrows the range of diversity in CSI. That diversity has been, to me, a major differentiator that brought tremendous value to the organization. No polling and nothing transparent about that change Richard. Done by HQ on their own as I understand it. My response to the survey was that soon CSI will soon be an organization of manufacturers reps talking to themselves. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 409 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Sunday, January 01, 2012 - 05:49 pm:    Peggy: What are the "upcoming changes to the member categories" to which you are referring? In the 2011 election last February, CSI members approved an amendment to CSI’s bylaws which combined the former Associate, Industry, and Professional members into a single class of members (Professional). Chapters and regions are in the process of modifying their bylaws to reflect that change to the Institute bylaws. One may or may not agree with the results of the vote (and I didn't), but the process was highly transparent and obviously there was polling, ie the election. Peggy White, CSI, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: peggy Post Number: 33 Registered: 07-2007 Posted on Monday, January 02, 2012 - 03:10 pm:    Sorry Dave - I didn't mean to confuse you. I used the wrong term. I don't mean to be coy, but it's not my place to announce the change. Stay tuned ..... Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1228 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2012 - 01:34 pm:    Peggy: if you look at USGBC, what are their member categories? individual, corporate and non-profit. and yet, they promote themselves as the biggest "big tent" organization out there. Member categories is pretty irrelevant. membership is what we're looking for. I don't really care what you call them. (and I do agree with Dave about the results of the vote, but ultimately, I don't think its that important). CSI messed up originally by not having corporate members (like AIA, like USGBC), and I think CSI also suffers because for most people its their "secondary" organization -- their "real" organization is AIA, or National Glass, or some other targeted group that directly addresses their specific industry. Not many of us can get our companies to pay for two memberships in something. But I do often see CSI Institute as going off and doing things that aren't necessarily in the interests of the membership but reflect staff's preferences or capabilities. And that, I think, is an issue. CSI has certifications, but they don't mean anything because there are no alliances with the building users/owners (so: no demand from clients). Get a CCS required on federal work, and the institute issues will pretty much go away. Doug Frank FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 292 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 08, 2012 - 11:43 am:    I received my copy of the March “Specifier” a couple of days ago and read Ron Geren’s article about CSI’s rebranding effort. I participated in the survey he mentions and pretty much agree with all 6 key points he lists, especially number 4 which suggests a new tagline would help clarify what CSI is about. Ron says that CSI is open to further input, will monitor brand-related discussions on the CSI Linked In Group, and offers the e-mail of the Brand Revitalization Task Team for input. Then yesterday I received my copy of the March edition of “Building Design + Construction”. On page 7 there’s an editorial written by Robert Cassidy entitled “CSI at a turning point – What is the organization’s mission?” Mr. Cassidy talks about much of the same things as did Ron and explains that he was asked to participate in a study group charged with the review of over 1,500 survey responses. At the end of his editorial Mr. Cassidy states that the study group made two recommendations to the CSI Board; one for the Name of the organization and one for the tagline. Name: “CSI: The Building Knowledge Network” Tagline: “Advancing Project Delivery” What do you all think? Doug Frank FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate FKP Architects, Inc. Houston, TX Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 424 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Thursday, March 08, 2012 - 12:27 pm:    Name: “CSI: The Building Knowledge Network” Tagline: “Advancing Project Delivery” Not too bad. I'd like to see what the other options are. I don't care for the term "network" in the name though. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 994 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, March 08, 2012 - 04:01 pm:    Although I appreciate Robert's willingness to bring CSI's rebranding efforts to a more public front (and his willingness to participate on the Task Team), the recommendation he presented was not the final solution, but one of many possible solutions. Please believe me, the Institute Board and the Task Team do not want this effort to move forward without the involvement and input of the CSI membership. It will be as open as physically possible. If you have a suggestion, please email it to brandrevitalization@csinet.org. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 171 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, March 12, 2012 - 04:20 pm:    Thanks Ron. Glad to hear that rebranding is going forward and that we'll have a voice. As with the sentiment already expressed, I look forward to seeing the various options available. Peggy White, CSI, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: peggy Post Number: 34 Registered: 07-2007 Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2012 - 06:31 pm:    Well, definitely they should plug something into the re-branding lingo about how CSI is going to rubberstamp manufacturers' "guide" specs, as long as they have the paragraphs in the right order (because that's what counts apparently): http://www.csinet.org/cdr Do Designers request specs from manufacturers or do manufacturers try to push their "guide" specs onto Designers? Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 444 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2012 - 06:41 pm:    I'm usually the first to deride sillyness disguised as product. but I believe there is a bit more here than just "rubberstamping paragraphs." Let be fair in our analysis - then complain about it. And as for numbering paragraphs - isn't that a big part of what CSI is about? ...format, format, format. What's wrong with promoting one of our core product areas? Can we do more than format? sure. Are we involved in more areas now-a-days - yes. Sorry. I was positive there for a minute - I'll return to regularly scheduled sarcasm after this break. Peggy White, CSI, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: peggy Post Number: 35 Registered: 07-2007 Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2012 - 07:00 pm:    Note the graphic of the rubber stamp in their promotional message... ;o) And the note that they are not reviewing technical content, only format. Too funny to me. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 546 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2012 - 01:33 am:    CSI has at least twice paid consultants to survey the construction industry and find out what members and others perceive CSI to be. The survey taken while I was on the board indicated CSI was well-known, but considered a bit stodgy. I suspect similar results would be obtained today. As David noted, this comes up every so often; how many times will we seek the same information, at what price? One of the things that disturbed me about the recent survey was what appeared to be a predetermined result - that the name will change. Other questions did not allow for a full range of responses, but that is typical of surveys. While I understand the possible value of re-branding, I also am aware of the risk of a name change. Is it wise to give up name recognition on the chance the new name will be so sexy everyone will want to join? A gradual change from one name to another is possible, but adds cost and may reduce the supposed impact of the new name. One of the big questions is, what do we offer that is unique? What sets CSI apart from similar organizations? AIA pretty much has a corner on education, so that's off the table. Most organizations offer networking and fun parties, not much difference there. Our love of what we did so well decades ago kept us from seeing the change from paper to electronic documentation, and the BIM train left the station without CSI. Certification has little practical value, because it is not required, as are professional licensing and LEED AP. AIA has a captive audience, and it seems everyone knows AIA means architect. As Anne notes, there may be a common belief that CSI is for specifiers only, though why anyone who went to a meeting would believe that I can't understand. Perhaps what seems to be a recent increase in promoting CSI beyond its members will help. Until we know what CSI does, what makes it important, and what it has to offer, there is no point in changing its name. I suspect all those things were clear twenty years ago; what is different now? It's easy to blame the economy, but it's more than that; AIA and USGBC seem to be doing quite well. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 547 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2012 - 02:36 am:    The tag line, or motto, or slogan, or whatever it's called, should be more than something to fill space; it has to make sense. It also should stand on its own, with little need for explanation. Apologies to those who suggested the following examples; they sound good, but it isn't clear what they mean. The Building Knowledge Network - what knowledge would that be? Advancing Project Delivery - do we do that? Those are better than some of the goals in our strategic plan a few years ago: "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." They sounded great, but were they achievable? Maybe we don't need a slogan. I'd rather skip it than have something that is difficult to explain. And then there's the mission statement: "The Construction Specifications Institute advances the process of creating and sustaining the built environment for the benefit of the construction community by using the diversity of its members to exchange knowledge." I have yet to hear someone say that without rolling their eyes, or even gagging. Heck, most members can't even remember what it is. It is good for buzzword bingo, though. Looking back to the old "Advancement of Construction Technology", maybe it makes sense again, what with computers and BIM and all. Or a slight update, assuming we are able to continue what we started: "Advancement of Construction Communication" - which is what CSI has been doing all along. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 184 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2012 - 12:09 pm:    "Most organizations offer networking and fun parties, not much difference there." The difference with CSI networking is that it with all the participants in the design/construction industry - big difference from networking only with your fellow architects, product reps, contractors, etc. I also had some problems with the survey - for one, the subject of construction contract administration was never mentioned in the survey. More people take the CCCA exam over the CCS exam by a very wide margin each year. Specifications was in the survey over and over again, and construction contract administration was not even mentioned? I must admit that I have long ago gotten tired of the 5 year cycle of the planning committees that have come up with a new mission statement each time instead of concentrating on the strategic plan to achieve the mission - Sheldon lists some of the resulting bad statements. As Sheldon states, how many members could state the current mission statement word for word??? I know I couldn't. It needs to be simple and to the point. Every member should be able to say it without having to think - it should be natural to them. Sheldon't last suggestion (Advancement of Construction Communication"} is actually going back to 20-30 years ago - it was the mission statement for quite a few years. In my mind you don't change the mission statement every five years unless there has been some major change in the organization like a change in who the membership is - you periodically evaluate your strategic plan to achieve the mission in light of changing times. I for one don't think that the mission of the Institute has ever changed from the "Advancement of Construction Communications" in the last 25 years. Yes, the means of communication has and is changing, but that doesn't change the mission statement, that changes the strategic plan to achieve the mission. Regarding the name change debate. That was also a Board issue in the late 80's and was assigned to a task team for research. The recommendation that was accepted by the Board was to totally emphasize "CSI" rather the title in words. The primary example of that time was "IBM" - how many people knew it stood for International Business Machines? We have all sorts of examples today in the media - who knows what ESPN stands for? But yet is has a very strong identity. The idea was to keep the "CSI identity" while getting rid of the restrictive words of the full title that did not reflect the full mission of the Institute. Unfortunately the staff of that time never followed through on that Board action and continued to use the full name in communications and Board members never called them on it (I am one of the guilty parties). Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 548 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2012 - 12:28 pm:    "The difference with CSI networking is that it with all the participants in the design/construction industry - big difference from networking only with your fellow architects, product reps, contractors, etc." As Ed McMahon would say, "You are correct, sir!" That must be part of the message, though; "networking" by itself doesn't say much. I love reading posts from Bob and other elder members. It seems every time I come up with something, I learn that it's something we either did, or considered doing, years ago. A big problem with volunteer organizations is their reliance on individuals to get things going, and then to keep them going. I have seen many initiatives get off to a good start, only to fade away when the officer or committee chair responsible moved on. For an organization so deeply involved in communication and documentation, we do a miserable job recording our actions and thoughts. Colin Gilboy Senior Member Username: colin Post Number: 294 Registered: 09-2005 Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2012 - 12:28 pm:    I recommend that Institute forgets promoting their activities and focuses on promoting their local chapters. CSI's strength is in the local chapter community and the relationships built there and not in the Institute's contribution to the community beyond what it has already done with standards. A judo or aikido move against the flow. Just my opinion. Colin Gilboy Publisher, 4specs.com 435.654.5775 - Utah 800.369.8008 Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 445 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2012 - 12:46 pm:    I agree with Colin and I don't, we need strong chapters. we also need national level products and opportunities that small chapters just can't produce. NOT to get political but...How would you build a interstate highway system using only city monies and private business?? on a lighter side see my next post. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 446 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2012 - 12:50 pm:    MISSION STATEMENT CREATION Please select one sentence from each category. FUNDAMENTAL COMPONENTS OF A MISSION STATEMENT: WHO ARE WE? We're you and me. We're young professionals looking for the spotlight. We're experienced leaders sharing the limelight. We're fathers playing baseball on a summer evening with our kids. We're mothers packing another school lunch. We're America growing strong. WHAT DO WE DO? We're building a better America today for tomorrow! We're discovering our future in our past. We're fighting terrorism at home and abroad with the tools of democracy. WHO DO WE DO IT FOR? We do it for Mrs. Jones and the guy across the street. We do it for major corporations and sole proprietors. We do it for the government and the governed. We do it for multi-nationals and We do it for ourselves. HOW DO WE DO IT? We're using tomorrow’s technology to solve yesterday’s problems for today’s success story. We're using communication to silence the calls of despair. WHY DO WE DO IT? We're driven by a passion for doing! Because it’s there! Why? Because we LIKE you! ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 172 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2012 - 01:52 pm:    I thought we were using yesterday's technologies to solve tomorrow's problems to make up for today's promises of success. So, can we decide to just go with CSI (no byline, and verbally let people know we're not the TV guys) and revert back to some variation of "Advancing Construction Communication?" How about "Getting people to talk with each other without resorting to sharp objects?" Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1253 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2012 - 04:31 pm:    Well, what I thought was the funniest was the last line in the announcement of the CSI approved documents: See Guide Specs Apprved through the CDR Program. I have a hard time seeing a successful campaign for documents when the marketing piece has a very prominent misspelling right in the link. I think the real mission of the Institute should be "providing enough value so that employers think having a lot of certified professionals is a good idea." CSI needs to commission a study or two showing the value of the CCS; the value of the CCCA, and perhaps the value of the CCPR. We can't market these certifications just as another credential -- we need to show fewer claims, smaller claims or something that would demonstrate an ROI for firm ownership or building management. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1409 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2012 - 04:36 pm:    Just because we (almost intuitively) understand the value of the certifications, as Anne's stated we should be able to quantitatively prove it. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1286 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2012 - 06:05 pm:    How about "CSI: More than just formats"? George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 621 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2012 - 09:32 pm:    My experience as a CSI member is limited to the last decade – I joined shortly after I became a full time specifier. As a generalist practicing architecture, I of course thought I could write specifications, just because, well, I was an architect , I’d done it lots of times before, and jeez, that’s part of what we architects do, isn’t it? But it didn’t take long to realize how much I needed to learn. What CSI did was take me from real dumb to real smart, real fast. Seems to me that is what we do best at CSI. Don’t know exactly where to specify something, or what a section should look like? We have the formats for that. Want to figure out specifications, or construction contract administration, or product representation? We have certifications and training for that. Have a specific question about a tricky construction related issue? As my mentor and friend Bob Teller often says, “Pick up the phone and start calling CSI contacts.” A few years ago I did a presentation for our chapter on specifications, and was taken aback to be introduced as a expert in specifications – that’s a humbling thing to be called given the length and quality of experience seen from those who I considered to be the real experts (most of you folks who post here and have multiple decades of specification experience, instead of just one). But humbling or not, it is certainly true, I am now one of the experts in specifications in St. Louis. And that happened quickly – real dumb to real smart, real fast – because when writing specifications became my full time job, I was able to tap into the inexhaustible wellspring of knowledge that is CSI. It will never be the tag line or the mission statement or the slogan: “CSI: takes you from real dumb to real smart, real fast!” But for me, that rings truest and it’s why I continue to stay a member and to stay involved. George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA Ingersoll Rand Security Technologies St. Louis, MO J. Peter Jordan, FCSI, AIA, CCS, LEED AP (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2012 - 10:53 am:    It has been my belief for about 10 years now that what CSI is very good at and where it has contributed the most is the development of organizational structures for construction data thereby converting the data into useful information. There have been other useful contributions from CSI, but it is this area in which they continue to contribute. Although this has primarily been in the area of specifications, CSI's contributions have been to in the area of Procurement and Contracting Requirements, Drawings (interesting that CSI seems to have taken the lead in this one although AIA participated), and BIM. I believe that ultimately, CSI's contributions to and support of OmniClass will make it the defacto structure for BIM. For me personally, CSI has also been about collegiality and fellowship and the willingness to share information. At this stage of my career, I get as much out of a 30-minute conversation from another CSI member (professional or industry) as I do from a formal presentation in an education setting. At my last CSI Show, I did not sign up for any education sessions, but walked the floor of the show and talked to colleagues. I felt like I has as successful of a "CSI experience" as I have had at the other 20 I have attended. Sheryl Dodd-Hansen, FCSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2012 - 12:57 pm:    I hate to tell you, Sheldon, but the mission statement you quote was replaced in the FY2011-2015 Strategic Plan with this: "The mission of CSI is to advance building information management and education of project teams to improve facility performance." I noticed recently that we've had a tagline on the magazine for many years. Under "The Construction SPECIFIER" it says "Solutions for the Construction Industry". Why should that be a tagline only for the magazine? I don't recall ever seeing it used elsewhere and it seems like it would apply to the organization as a whole. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 185 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2012 - 12:54 pm:    The mission statement was "The Construction Specifications Institute advances the process of creating and sustaining the built environment for the benefit of the construction community by using the diversity of its members to exchange knowledge." Then it changed to "The mission of CSI is to advance building information management and education of project teams to improve facility performance." If you look back further you will find that it has changed about every 5 years for some time. Anyone notice the revolution? A change in the mission statement would indicate a major change in direction by the Institute – our reason for existence has changed, the makeup of our membership has changed, we have decided to take on a whole new area of responsibilities. I pay pretty close attention to what goes on at the Institute, and I haven’t noticed any changes of that significance. It is interesting to note that Sheldon didn’t have the current mission statement and that Sheryl was the only one to notice (I certainly didn’t notice). This illustrates how much the membership is paying attention to a mission statement that changes every 5 years. What percentage of the membership keeps up with the constantly changing mission statements? I would say very little. Mission statements should be short and to the point – you should not have to work to try and remember and understand long statements. What percentage of the membership can remember the long current statement, or the longer one before it? You can’t even twitter these statements! Every member should be able to state the mission of the Institute without having to think about the exact words. Mission statements should remain constant for an organization unless there is some major change such as a significant change in the makeup of the membership you are representing or serving, or the organization is moving into a whole new area of involvement. If there are not these sorts of major changes for the organization, why would the mission statement be constantly changing? By contrast, the strategic plan under the mission does need to be periodically evaluated and revised to meet changing times, changing challenges, past failures, past successes, etc. If you are changing your mission statement every five years, you are confused about who you are. Several of us (Sheldon, Ken, myself) in this discussion are in agreement that it is about construction communications – advancement, improvement, improving – take your pick of words. I think Peter is also saying that in talking about development of organizational structures for construction data – that is construction communications in the broad sense. All CSI programs center on this – understanding each other’s roles (you need to understand the person or organization you are communicating with), understanding the basic documents of communication, understanding how to organize and communicate information to all the other participants. I think that this has been true for CSI for at least 30 years, and in fact it was the formal mission statement of the Institute back in the 80’s. The type and means of communication has changed radically since that time and it will change even more in the world of BIM and IDP. It will always be a challenge for CSI to keep up with the changing means, methods, and content of construction communications; but it has always been about construction communications. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 549 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2012 - 01:04 pm:    Sheryl, you didn't either hate to tell me! ;-) Yep, you're right; I was looking at older documents for examples of not-so-great goals. We seem to have made some progress since then. Sheryl Dodd-Hansen, FCSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2012 - 01:25 pm:    The point is, Sheldon, that you are pretty alert to what's going on but, as Bob noted, it's not easy to keep up with mission statements that change every five years or so. Each time we develop a new strategic plan, we have a new consultant with their own catch phrases and ways of developing the plan. And yet, do we actually change much? I think the Plan is largely about how to accomplish our goals. We need to own our niche centered on construction communications or solutions or whatever our "brand" needs to be and be consistent in how we present ourselves.