CSI Academies

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

Author Message David S. Proudfit, FCSI, CCS, AIA Junior Member Username: dproudfit Post Number: 2 Registered: 12-2011 Posted on Thursday, April 18, 2013 - 11:31 am:    The CSI academies will be next March in Indianapolis. I am in charge of the Specifier Track and I am looking for suggestions for session topics. This track is geared toward specification writing and specification practice, not technical subjects. Below are a few suggestions to get you started. Your suggestions would be greatly appreciated. How to specify Mockups The Future of Specifications The Specifiers Role in Quality Control Understanding ASTM Nos. Spec Language Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1629 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, April 18, 2013 - 11:40 am:    Understanding and using the UL and Roof Nav information Specifications and BIM: How it's supposed to work (both topics reflect frustrations) John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 629 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Thursday, April 18, 2013 - 09:37 pm:    Division 01 - General Requirements: - Coordination of Division 01 with General/Supplementary Conditions of the Contract - Coordination of Specific Administrative and Testing Requirements Specified in Sections of Divisions 02 through 33 (+/-) with Division 01 Using MS Word Features to Produce Construction Specification Sections Applying the 4Cs of Construction Specification Writing: Clear, Correct, Complete and Concise Coordination of Drawings and Specifications (except where BIM renders the issue moot) Easy GreenWashing of Construction Specifications for Non-Technical Design Professionals Developing Paranormal Skills to Identify Design Intent for Selecting and Incorporating Products into Construction Specifications Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1107 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, April 19, 2013 - 11:03 am:    John, I'd attend that last one! I had one job, a golf course clubhouse, for which the architect sent me schematic drawings (if you could even call them that). The drawings had virtually no keynotes identifying materials and components. I asked several times for input and received absolutely nothing. The deadline approached, so I prepared an outline spec based on what I thought they wanted (I almost sent unedited full specifications, but thought that would just tick him off). The architect sent me a angry email stating that what I had sent him was useless and he could not forward it to the client. I told him fine, and to get his specifications done by someone else. I never heard from the firm again, thank goodness. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 631 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Friday, April 19, 2013 - 01:57 pm:    Seriously ... A session on Uniformat and Preliminary Project Descriptions would be useful. The systems approach and simplistic technical content of a PPD is appropriate for design decision-makers to comprehend and maybe provide useful information for development of bidding and construction contract specifications, in my opinion. Semi-seriously ... A PPD would sure be more beneficial than what I typically receive: An incorrectly organized, incomplete bunch of copies of sales literature, non-annotated catalog cuts and manufacturer "master" specifications with multiple choices unselected, and MSDS sheets ("they have ASTM numbers, so that makes 'em specs, right?"). Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 231 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Friday, April 19, 2013 - 04:35 pm:    A great place to do sessions on UniFormat and PPD's would be at the AIA Convention and chapter meetings. In my experience Owners and Architects take to UniFormat organized PPD's well once they know about it. The problem is that many of them do not know it exists. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1630 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, April 19, 2013 - 04:38 pm:    To get back to John's last one and Ron's experience, how about something on gaining knowledge through osmosis? John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 632 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Saturday, April 20, 2013 - 01:29 pm:    I agree with Bob Johnson: Presentations on PPDs and shortform specifications might attract architects at national conventions. I've even toyed with the idea of presentations at the local chapter level, especially shortform specs. Shortform specs are attractive to small firms doing projects of light construction. And, if these firms become more successful, they might want to learn how to write "fullform" specs. The issue is really how to write specs which emphasize the "Concise" C of the four Cs of spec writing, while still being sufficiently Clear, Correct and Complete. Despite his advocacy and expertise in shortform specs (see the 4specs.com archive of his articles on shortform specs), I recall Herman Hoyer, PE, FCSI saying, "How can you write a shortform specification when all specs should have only what is necessary ... not too much and not too little?" or words to that effect. It's a tension between Complete and Concise. "Shortform Specs" might be an attractive topic for the Academy, although CSI doesn't officially recognize "shortform." Facility design and construction staffs might also be interested in shortform specs for minor capital projects, for which they prepare bidding and contract documents in-house. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1341 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, April 23, 2013 - 03:57 pm:    I think rather than "The Future of Specifications" which would be mostly speculation, you might have a presentation by the especs and speclink guys showing what they think the future is going to be. CSI did that presentation, and while there was a lot of interest in my office, I also reminded people that the few firms I know who are doing fully integrated documents have very different practices than Gensler does. And, that access to the building model may be difficult for a specifications consultant. I think the discussion should be at least buffered by the facts -- "even though integrated specs/drawings is where we think we want to go, only ____% are actually doing this. " What would be useful would be a survey of various sized firms and consultants: what software do you use? do you modify it for office use and clients? how embedded is it with the drawings? do you use keynotes ? who oversees that effort? Have you coordinated your specs with Revit yet? Now THAT would be interesting. I'm saying this because there has been so much popular press about the capabilities of especs (and speclink) but I know of almost no firms actually using the software as integrated with the drawings/model. Since our management hears all the "everyone is doing it", our spec group had to really do some work to say "no, almost no one is doing this, and we don't think its time yet". in the integrated architectural specifications, the press has FAR outstripped the actuality. it might be useful for your attendees to hear some research about that. Ivette Ramirez Bruns CSI CCS Junior Member Username: ivette_ramirez_bruns_csi_ccs Post Number: 2 Registered: 01-2013 Posted on Wednesday, July 17, 2013 - 11:18 am:    There are still contractors and developers that judge a specification section or Project Manual by the size. No one can really say what they want other than just "smaller". The primary reason being "it scares the subcontractors". In this age of tablets and pdf files, we no longer have to carry 3 volumes of the Project Manual around a jobsite. It is readily available at our fingertips in one light electronic device. So maybe size is not really the issue. Is it the CYA langugage that has been incorporated, driven by our litigious society, that "scares subcontractors"? Or is it the responsibility to comply with codes, industry standards, and manufacturer's written recommendations? Have we become a society where the written word becomes ominous because some people don't want to read? I can't tell you how many times I've had to reiterate text from the specification because someone failed to read it. With all that said, a session on short vs long specs, content in the electronic age would be good. (I may start working on that presentation myself!) Can't wait to see everyone in Indianapolis! Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 657 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, July 17, 2013 - 12:25 pm:    Relying on the conditions of the contract (assuming AIA or similar) and Division 01 obviates the need for much of what is found in typical manufacturers' guide specs, which eventually finds its way into contract documents. Smaller is, indeed, both useful and defensible; easier to write, easier to interpret, easier to enforce. Failure to read specifications does not justify failure to comply with them. Taken to the logical conclusion, attempts to "write specifications for Bubba" would require each specification section to restate all information relevant to that section, including bidding requirements, conditions of the contract, the full content of all reference standards, applicable building codes, and so on. It also would require the architect to be present at the site whenever work is done, as well as at manufacturers' facilities and other locations for some work, and to oversee every step of construction. The still unrealized potential of tablets eventually will allow links from each section to the relevant standards, making what would amount to a moving van full of paper instantly available. But, as in the case of the proverbial horse, it would not ensure that those involved looked at the information.