Assembly vs. System

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

Author Message George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 51 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 02:51 pm:    Anyone want to suggest or point me to definitions of these terms? Are they synonyms or is there a difference? Intuitively, I think of systems as being bigger, composed of assemblies; for example, a curtain wall assembly would be part of the building enclosure system. But by the same token, then, an insulated glazing assembly would be part of a curtainwall system, and we have curtainwall being both system and assembly. Material and product give me similar headaches. The material portland cement is a component of the product concrete which is a component of a precast concrete wall assembly which is a component of the building structural system. But concrete is usually referred to as a material, not a product. Material, product, assembly, system: are these wispy terms that vary with context, or is there a firm definition for each? Doug Brinley AIA CSI CDT CCS Senior Member Username: dbrinley Post Number: 68 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 03:09 pm:    Systems consume energy. I think we use the catch-all term 'systems' in an architectural context too frequently. A building enclosure is not a system. Fire suppression is a system; it consumes energy. Lighting is part of a system. Engineers usually design systems; and sometimes manage design of assemblies. Assemblies are what we architects are usually designing, and we should use that term more often. Architects usually design assemblies; and sometimes manage design of systems. Where we have a number of assemblies that comprise a whole, we need another term besides 'system'. 'System' is a poor choice methinks. I like 'building enclosure' more than 'building enclosure system'. I like typing 'methinks'. 'Material' and 'product' are neither system-specific or assembly-specific; and these terms can be used interchangeably. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 455 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 03:35 pm:    Doug, The only references that I find in a variety of dictionaries that speak of consuming energy in either of these definitions is from the Visual Thesaurus where it is assembly that is given the characteristic of using or creating energy about 6 levels of definition down from the primary definition. Assembly: n 1: a group of machine parts that fit together to form a self-contained unit 2: the act of constructing something (as a piece of machinery) [syn: fabrication] System: n 1: a group of independent but interrelated elements comprising a unified whole Both of them from a Websters, but other sources similar. The 2 words in all the references have similar defiitions - but interestingly none of the various sources have it where the 2 words reference each other. I actually try to avoid the use of both of these terms, more inclined to avoid assembly because anything put together by anyone can be an assembly by the various definitions - whereas a system by the various definitions is speaking more to a unified combination of elements that make up, by design, an completed whole. That is to say, as the definition above for system is exactly how I use it where I never use assembly. William Doug Brinley AIA CSI CDT CCS Senior Member Username: dbrinley Post Number: 70 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 03:55 pm:    We do a lot of work with engineers/engineering consultants/wannabe experts, and that's the place I'm coming from. I cannot over-estimate how different we architects and engineers communicate. In my office we cannot take 'design community' for granted (I'm one of six architects in a 40 person A/E firm - civil/municipal/heavy industrial). Half of our architectural work is under subcontract to engineering firms. Yes we have 'architect jokes' and 'engineer jokes'. The last one was "an architect and two monkeys walk into a bar". (He and I "had speaks" over that one). That being said, and maybe our office is an extreme case, but for us a 'system' requires energy, and an 'assembly' is passive. Engineers and architects are not prohibited from employing 'materials', nor 'products'. But if an engineer is employing an assembly, he or she is gonna talk with the architect. If the architect is employing a system, he or she is gonna talk with an engineer. There's more of 'them' than 'us', dang it. Interestingly enough, we have to explain our 'systems' needs more often than they have to explain their 'assemblies' needs. Often we architects have to diagram the system for the engineer to design it. We get funny looks mostly because calculators don't have 'design' buttons. I made up this 'system' and 'assemblies' notion, but the simplicity of it has 'saved my bacon'. The reference materials just haven't caught up with us yet. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 456 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 04:07 pm:    Aha!!! Now I know why you like to type 'methinks'. The dictionary according to Doug -grin! If it works for you, it works for you. Use it. However, I would personally shy away from it so that I did not have to defend it in at some arbitration hearing. Though as concepts, that's not likely to happen. Someone woud have to be picking some pretty small points to try to base a claim on how you use the words. The language is a living language - it changes over time. Like the thread on 'must' vs 'shall' - or that the entire use of shall in the living language as spoken is just about nonexistent anymore. Relegated to legal terms. I guess if you have to 'live' with engineers and they outnumber you, you have to do what you have to do. Having been there, done that for about 5 years when I started out I understand. William Doug Brinley AIA CSI CDT CCS Senior Member Username: dbrinley Post Number: 71 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 04:15 pm:    It's probably not a coincidence I'm engaged in the 'must', 'shall', 'will' discussion with one of our venerable client's attorneys at this time. Our client's project manager says to me 'you're in the owner's world now'. She's very dear but I have to respectfully disagree. It's like 'liquidated damages'. No jurisdiction around here prevails but we go through contortions to define what the damages are and why they're reasonable for a tiny bit of leverage in arbitration. And every job is arbitrated! Doug Frank FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 114 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 04:20 pm:    In quickly reviewing MasterFormat 2004 section titles, I found no less than 12 instances of the word “Assemblies”, and 3 instances of the word “System”, in Division 09 alone. None of them consume any energy, except what little I expended doing the search <grin> William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 457 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 04:22 pm:    Nifty Owner saying - only retort I know is in reference to Oz, "This aint Kansas, Toto." I have mumbled that on more than one occasion. *** Oh my god - 2 Dougs on 1 thread, we are in trouble now. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 54 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 05:22 pm:    George, in his original post, said, "I think of systems as being bigger, composed of assemblies...The material portland cement is a component of the product concrete which is a component of a precast concrete wall assembly which is a component of the building structural system..." A system isn't necessarily bigger than an assembly or vice versa, nor is one necessarily a part of the other. While thinking in such terms might be useful in a particular context (as in an office, if everyone agrees on such specialized definitions and hierarchical relationships), since each term can mean many things, relationships may vary or be non-existent. It may be more useful to think in these terms: A product is something produced, implying a producer (and not just a manufacturer; could be a quarry, or a farmer, or an insurance company.) A product can be a material, and vice versa, but neither is necessarily also the other. For example, dirt is a material used in rammed-earth construction, but I wouldn't think of it as a "product," since it's usually just dug up on site; an insurance policy may be a "product," but it isn't a "material" (other than the paper it's printed on). A material is something material, as opposed to immaterial. A design may be a product - produced by someone - but it isn't a "material." Portland cement and concrete are products, typically, of a cement manufacturer and a ready-mix company. Both are also materials. And a better hair-splitter than I could even claim that both are assemblies (composed of various components) and systems (those components work together in some way that they don't when separate). But that is not a particularly helpful use of either "assembly" or "system," except in illustrating such a point. An assembly is made up of things (components) that are assembled together. It may or may not be part of a system. It may or may not BE a system (e.g., the "solar system" is an assembly of a star, its planets and their moons, etc.) A system is a combination of things (again, components) that work or interact together in some way, often for a common purpose. It may or may not consume (or produce) energy. A simple system would be the alphabet - a system of letters, which are used together to spell words. Most words are assemblies of letters. So, one can use a system to create assemblies. A system may or may not be, or be a part of, an assembly. My point is, these words DO have basic or inherent meanings underlying most if not all of their "definitions," which just "define" particular variations of those meanings. But those definitions or even meanings aren't necessarily related to each other in fixed or simple ways. Maybe our concern should be with meanings, not "definitions." Tobin Oruch, CDT Senior Member Username: oruch Post Number: 27 Registered: 04-2003 Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 05:28 pm:    I gotta question Doug's assertion that "'Material' and 'product' are neither system-specific or assembly-specific; and these terms can be used interchangeably." OmniClass has distinct definitions and tables for each. http://www.occsnet.org Doug Brinley AIA CSI CDT CCS Senior Member Username: dbrinley Post Number: 72 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 05:39 pm:    Is that URL correct? George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 52 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 06:04 pm:    As OmniClass defines them: "Materials are basic substances used in construction or to manufacturer products and other items used in construction. Examples: Limestone, sand, aluminum, ponderosa pine, propane, polyethylene, fly ash." "Products are components or assemblies of components for permanent incorporation into construction entities. Examples: Aggregate, cement, concrete, asphalt, brick, door, window, electric cable, pipe, boiler, curtain wall system, paint, prefabricated brick veneer panel, vinyl covered gypsum board, demountable partition, and pre-engineered manufactured building." They do point out that some materials are also products, sand for example. I am still pondering Doug's breakdown. I am more comfortable with architect = assembly and engineer = system than I am with the energy consumption criterion, at this point. A motorized overhead door consumes energy, but is an architect designed assembly, for example. Doug Brinley AIA CSI CDT CCS Senior Member Username: dbrinley Post Number: 73 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 06:08 pm:    George, In 'my' system a motorized overhead door is a product. It is probably part of an 'assembly' that includes a wall, structural steel, etc. But it doesn't constitute a part of a system. Products can consume energy but materials cannot. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 53 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 06:26 pm:    Doug- Yeah, your assemblies are broader than what I had originally vaguely proposed. On the other hand, and to introduce yet another term, maybe your overhead door is a piece of "equipment" as much as it is a product, huh? Equipment hooked up to the electrical system, and part of the bigger wall, etc. assembly. Doug Brinley AIA CSI CDT CCS Senior Member Username: dbrinley Post Number: 74 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 06:43 pm:    In what is becoming 'my' concept, a 'product' is attached to the building and is more or less a permanent part of it. An overhead door is a 'product' and not 'equipment'. The overhead doors are not part of a 'system' until door controllers are brought together, and a common control device is implemented. (That's where the engineers may come in handy. Also, we architects probably owe the engineers a statement about how the owner wants the controllers to function.) An item of 'equipment' is not necessarily attached to a building. An item of equipment may be procured rather than contracted. The UCC may be more applicable for equipment than a statutory warranty. For example, we'd like the owner to contract for it's own hydraulic packers (even though these are mounted securely to the building), while we'd rather have the contractor responsible for the diesel generator that is 'less' attached. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 55 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 07:29 pm:    So, are these distinctions important, or useful? Even if it were true (and it may well be), what is gained by using the concept that products can consume energy, but materials cannot? Or, by arbitrarily limiting otherwise common but general terms to the idiosyncratic strictures of an unusually narrow "concept," would we risk miscommunication? Wasn't there a character in "Alice in Wonderland" who insisted that his words meant exactly what he wanted them to mean - nothing more, and nothing less? Should we then include specific definitions of meanings and relationships (perhaps also stating what they can or cannot be, do, require or include) in the Project Manual, as one might define "provide" to mean "furnish, plus install"? And, if we get so specific about the diffence between "products" and "materials," will someone question whether it is proper to specify mere "materials" in "Part 2 - Products"? Omniclass no doubt has valid reasons for being so specific. But its very specific definitions don't govern the use of the English language outside its domain, even in the rest of the specifying world. Each context has its own set of meanings, with a degree of specificity or generality appropriate to the purpose. And the appropriate level is determined by common consensus - what people normally think when using those words in that particular context. Special definitions, except when well understood and clearly established, can thwart communication, not aid it. Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 72 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 10:08 pm:    <I like 'building enclosure' more than 'building enclosure system'> 'Methinks' the term "building envelope" is more descriptive without the controversity. Ron William Wagner Member Username: bill_black Post Number: 3 Registered: 07-2005 Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 10:25 am:    Isn't their a book called "Refabricating Architecture" that dicusses this type of difference? George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 54 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 10:36 am:    I should have shared the reason for my initial post, I guess. I’m putting together a community college level course on Construction Materials, with the goal of teaching relatively novice architectural technology students how to research, evaluate, select and specify products. It seemed useful to get a handle on some of the terms that I’ll need to be using in that class. As this thread shows so far, although we use those terms every day, each of us has a slightly different slant on the meaning. “I know what I mean, but I’m not sure YOU understand what I mean.” After reading some of the responses, I am thinking Products needs a broader meaning. Everything used to construct a building is a construction product, as defined or implied by Part 2 – Products. Materials are more elemental, or fundamental: Products are made of materials, as is already defined or implied in Section Format, with some overlap in some sections, like sand, or concrete. That seems fairly clear and easy to understand, and using Section Format is a good classroom tool. The assembly vs. system original question is still fairly murky. When I write an MBR roofing section, including all the various membranes, mastics, flashings, insulations and so forth within the one section, is this a roofing assembly or a roofing system? Doug would say assembly, Robert would say it is both, and William would prefer to avoid both (to put words in your mouths). Thanks for you comments so far. Any additional thoughts would be welcome. I have until the Spring semester before I have to stand up in class and speak “definitively” on these definitions. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 56 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 11:14 am:    There's something to be said for avoiding needless distinctions. "Assembly" and "system" are useful words, but is it really useful to narrow them down into "technical terms," with definitions so specific that they no longer mean what most people would think? There is so much overlap in these terms that trying to separate them into distinct categories does more harm than good. Part 2 is called "Products." I can think of no reason it could not have been "Materials," which if anything is probably more inclusive (but not necessarily more useful). What I tried to show above (apparently without much success) is that unless there is something significant to be gained - some purpose to be achieved, problem to be solved, or misunderstanding to be clarified - making these unnecessary distinctions by arbitrarily re-defining common terms is just going to lead to greater potential for misunderstanding. It's not only useless, like speculating on how many angels can stand on the head of a pin. It's counterproductive. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 112 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 11:39 am:    CSI's SectionFormat says "PART 2 PRODUCTS: Describes materials, products, equipment, fabrications, mixes, systems and assemblies that are required for incorporation into the project." MasterSpec's Section 01600 (or Section 01 60 00) defines Products as "Items purchased for incorporating into the Work, whether purchased for Project or taken from previously purchased stock. The term 'product' includes the terms 'material,' 'equipment,' 'system,' and terms of similar intent." When I have attempted to explain this to students, I have said PART 2 includes "stuff" that is to be incorporated into the Work and anything that happens to that "stuff" before it gets to the jobsite. PART 3 describes how the "stuff" gets incorporated (erecting, applying, installing, constructing, etc.) into the Work. This is a little simplistic, but is useful. Shop-applied coatings are in PART 2 because they happen before the coated material gets to the jobsite; field-applied coatings are in PART 3 because it is done as a part of jobsite activity. The coating material itself is a PART 2 item whether it is shop-applied or field applied. A further refinement is "stuff" that does not remain after completion of the Work, but is required to execute the Work, probably goes into Division 01 "Temporary Facilities and Controls." Susan McClendon Senior Member Username: susan_mcclendon Post Number: 28 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 12:22 pm:    I would like to reinforce George Everding's last post. I've worked on OmniClass some. If you look closely at the Products table in OmniClass, you'll see that it includes "stuff" that some people call materials, products, equipment, assemblies, systems, etc. In my opinion (not completely agreed to by the rest of the OCCS committee), the reason all those different kinds of things are in the Products table is that they all can be BOUGHT. Some of them are also mentioned in the Materials table and some of them are also mentioned in the Elements table, which is a "systems" and "assemblies" table. If you can buy the whole assembly (e.g. a metal building), then the assembly is a Product. Isn't this fun! This is one of the most difficult conceptual problems OmniClass has faced. I suspect explaining it to others will be even more difficult. Another point: In earlier editions of the Section Format, Part 2 was "Materials and Equipment". Doug Brinley AIA CSI CDT CCS Senior Member Username: dbrinley Post Number: 75 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 12:26 pm:    Defending my position, I've had to come up with a simple way to communicate in an increasingly murky design/construction world. For my place, it is really important to have consistent, concise definitions for these particular words. The 'shall', 'will', 'must' discussion is a good parallel to my way of thinking. We have this difficulty because science and technology have changed everything. We are seeing oodles of electronic systems, data loggers, integrated controls on anything that moves. We have RF controls on things (remote controllers) to open doors and turn on fans. There is a need to say 'what moves' and 'what doesn't'. We designed a rainwater harvesting' system (quite passive - not fun to watch it do 'it's thing'). It was an integral 'system' for a LEED NC-2.1 'Gold' project last year. We banked project certification on this 'system'. The mechanical engineer could not go into a corner and figure out how it should work; nor size of the components. As architects, we had not designed anything like that. We accomplished it by first go into our corner, and by looking at the 'assembly' and 'product' aspects (gutter; leader; tank) we could scope it. Then we could describe the 'system' aspects (screen filter; overflow; 20 micron filter) to the engineering team . Therefore we got to the 'systems' (ie: booster pump system) aspect, where it could then be engineered. There were a few 'materials'. Then we have to communicate this to the CM and the Owner, both of whom take 'systems' seriously. 'Systems' can be shut off. 'Assemblies' cannot be shut off. Our owners want a switch to turn off 'systems' that malfunction. Anything that does work (ie: uses energy) is a 'system'. Anything you might call a 'system' but that you wouldn't want to watch 'do it's thing' (ie: passive) is an assembly. You could make a case that an engineered system can be an 'assembly' and I'd be okay with that. Structural 'system' is incorrect unless it jumps up and down seeking your attention. Structural 'assembly' is correct. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 55 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 12:45 pm:    Peter - I too have used the idea that the break between Parts 2 and 3 is what happens to the stuff before it gets to the site and after it gets onsite. Students find this a useful distinction, and as you point out it successfully conveys the core idea. I also have used Part 2- "WHAT [products] do you want?", Part 3 - "HOW [execution] should I do it?" and Part 1 - "What are the rules of the game?" (This is the contractor speaking to the specifier). I find this explanation less successful because as you point out, there is HOW information in Part 2 as well, and of course the big caveat that the "HOW" excludes methods and means, of course. Robert - No, I do understand what you are saying. Maybe systems and assemblies really are (by common usage and meaning) synonyms and it is counterproductive to try to differentiate. Analogy would be that here in St. Louis, we call some streets "Avenue", others "Boulevard" and others "Street", without much rhyme or reason. Still, intuitively, "Pine Lane" is different from "Pine Boulevard", particularly in what you picture when I say each one. Bottom line, I still am not totally convinced that assembly and system are the same thing. Doug Brinley AIA CSI CDT CCS Senior Member Username: dbrinley Post Number: 76 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 01:09 pm:    Hey George, I grew up in St. Louis! (I'm a Kirkwood H.S. Pioneer!) Susan McClendon Senior Member Username: susan_mcclendon Post Number: 29 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 01:25 pm:    On distinguishing "active" systems versus "passive" assemblies: The term "Services" is used in MF04 for plumbing, hvac, electrical etc. It is also used in Uniformat (I think) and certainly in the OmniClass Elements table. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 57 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 02:30 pm:    Looks like we're getting somewhere with this. Most of us. Peter, you hit the nail on the head, with a simple (not necessarily simplistic) and useful explanation. Just what students (and the rest of us) need. It's an easy-to-understand summary of the definitions of products in CSI's SectionFormat and MasterSpec, which are accepted industry standards, which is where we should look for "definitions." If we make up our own ad hoc or arbitrary distinctions, they won't necessarily be understood by others, who would likely assume the "standard" sense is meant. Note that both documents "define" Products, not by describing all the mandatory characteristics necessary to make them "products" instead of something else, but simply by listing all the various types of things that the term can include, which are obviously overlapping categories, not mutually exclusive subdivisions. Susan, you make a similarly useful point, that to Omniclass, products are things that can be BOUGHT. Or, as MasterSpec says, "Items purchased..." Nails it. (After all, we might want to build a mud hut with a grass roof from unpurchased "materials" found on site - but we wouldn't likely be writing specs for it!) The definitions we need are useful, authoritatively defined, and widely understood. (I had forgotten about the replacement of "Materials and Equipment" with "Products" as the Part 2 title; materials and equipment are easy to think of as two different kinds of things; "products" includes both, but "materials," arguably, doesn't.) Doug (Brinley - hey, I went to architecture school there at Wash U), the terms "shall," "will" and "must" are an inappropriate analogy, since these are used so often throughout so many documents, and parties' responsibilities and obiligations hinge on their meaning. (In fact, the understanding of these terms is being muddied by the well-meaning but misguided efforts of some in the legal profession to redefine or replace them.) The distinction between them has an impact that the one between "systems" and "assemblies," or "materials" and "products" (if there is one) lacks entirely. Your "rainwater harvesting system" is as good an example of the problem as any I could think of. These have been around for thousands of years, and if fact were a central feature (literally) of a typical Roman house. Gutters, leaders and downspouts are designed with standard tables and weather data, and tanks and pumps can be sized accordingly. Does something have to be a "system" for it to be "engineered"? (And, if a "structural system" is only an "assembly," is it NOT?) You added, "Then we have to communicate this to the CM and the Owner, both of whom take 'systems' seriously.” AHA. Looks like we're getting into euphemism here, not just muddled terminology. Call gutters, leaders and cisterns (and a pump - gotta have a pump, so it uses energy) a "system" and all that stuff will be taken more seriously. OK, whatever it takes... “Our owners want a switch to turn off 'systems' that malfunction." Exactly. The problem with "assemblies" that malfunction is, you can't “turn them off,” since (as defined) they don't use any energy. "Anything that does work (ie: uses energy) is a 'system'" is at best misleading, at worst downright false. Is a butane lighter a "system"? A kerosene lamp? They use energy. And is a "structural system" not a "system," because it doesn't use energy? Wrong. It's BOTH. "Structural system" is the standard term for it. OK, so it's also an assembly. Made of products. Which are materials. So what? These terms are NOT mutually exclusive. If you want to define them as such, explicitly, for a specific purpose, in a very limited context, where everyone knows what you mean, have at it. But realize these are arbitrary and limited to that context, and that other than that, they may well do more harm than good to communication. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 113 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 02:37 pm:    George - Sometimes the "HOW" gets done to "stuff" before it gets to the jobsite (like welding a steel door frame, galvanizing, shop painting, factory glazing, etc.). The one topic I find this difficult to apply to is "Mixes." I think the developers of "SectionFormat" must have had ready-mixed concrete in mind; most other mixes that I can think of are done at the site from either scratch materials (e.g., portland cement, lime, sand, and water for mortar or plaster) or from a package of pre-mixed materials to which other materials must be added at the jobsite. All mixes, however, are specified in PART 2. Some things are the way they are just because (I used to ask students why they call it a "pencil" holding up a No. 2 Eagle brand). Doug Brinley AIA CSI CDT CCS Senior Member Username: dbrinley Post Number: 77 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 02:49 pm:    Bob - I respectfully disagree. For example - the butane lighter is both a 'system' and a 'product'. It requires the work of your thumb; it is designed as an 'assembly' and as such it becomes a 'system'. Low tech stuff that performs work but that does not require energy is an 'assembly'. It functions on the basis of it's arrangement. The rainwater collection 'system' from antiquity is an 'assembly' (it never got to the stage where it required the application of work - energy). A window is an 'assembly' (it's not moving yet) and a 'product' until it is automated and controlled, when it becomes a 'system'. I grant you it gets funky when there is an 'assembly' within a 'system'. I think the terms have to be exclusive. It is at least as important as the 'shall', 'will' discussion. I see the imperative language as being something I employ in specifications and communications every day. And distinguishing between 'systems' and 'assemblies' is extremely useful and basic to how I aid my teams in organizing and thinking about information. And sometimes I get it wrong, but that's part of the whole language thing and I can live with that. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 458 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 03:55 pm:    I still can't buy into this concept of energy in/out or no energy of something differentiates between an assembly and a system. Especially when no definitions of system involve energy, and the only time energy shows up is in a 4th or 5th level definition of assembly. And especially when the definition of system does not make a distinction at this level at all. The evolution of moving to must from shall is specifically to deal with the use and definition of the term shall. Not because a small group of people got togehter and decided on the terms new definition. I just did a check, there is nothing in my entire master that uses the word assembly anywhere. Assemble as a verb, yes, assembly as a noun, no. However, there are a number of locations where I use the word system, correctly as the word is defined. Many of these do not involve anything related to energy creation or consumption. William J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 114 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 04:37 pm:    The term "assembly" is used extensively in relation to UL fire-resistive "assemblies." Such assemblies do include components from various "systems" (e.g., suspended acoustical panel ceiling systems and structural system). Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 58 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 04:55 pm:    OK, Doug. A lighter is a system, and a lantern. How about a candle wick? It uses energy (burning wax or tallow), so it can be "turned on and off" (with a match, and a pinch). So it's a system. Is it an assembly also? Well, it's composed of threads or fibers, so, yeah - it's an assembly, too. Do we agree on this? I'm curious. Where did this "Systems consume energy" distinction arise? Is it a standard mechanical engineering concept? Your own idea? Doug Brinley AIA CSI CDT CCS Senior Member Username: dbrinley Post Number: 78 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 06:09 pm:    Admittedly I have taken liberties in an attempt to organize the chaos I've described ... that being said I favor the engineering model. Software/hardware guys have this down cold. Wikipedia offers a sympathetic model: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System Your candle is a 'machine'. I recently discovered Wikipedia (internet encyclopedia) and can recommend it. For those that are bored with this thread you might want to get something out of it - try Skype'ing your acquaintances. (Free VoIP) www.skype.com Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 59 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 06:48 pm:    "Wikipedia is a free-content encyclopedia, written collaboratively by people from around the world. The site is a wiki, which means that anyone can edit articles simply by clicking on the edit this page link." So, Wikipedia (a "free-content encyclopedia") is a lot like this forum (except we can't edit each others' posts), and it may be just as authoritative...In either case, free content may be worth what you pay for it. Back to that link, where it says, "A system is an assemblage of inter-related elements comprising a unified whole. From the Latin and Greek, the term "system" meant to combine, to set up, to place together. A sub-system is a system which is part of another system. A system typically consists of components (or elements) which are connected together in order to facilitate the flow of information, matter or energy. The term is often used to describe a set of entities which interact, and for which a mathematical model can often be constructed." This is similar to (though wordier than) the meaning of "system" I used several posts ago. Interestingly, a system can "facilitate the flow of information, matter or energy." So, by this definition, the alphabet really CAN be considered a system, since it facilitates the flow of information, and energy flow is not essential to "systemness" (being "optional," as in "OR energy"...) So, is a candle a machine, because "A machine is any mechanical or organic device that transmits or modifies energy to perform or assist in the performance of tasks"? Here again, we have a case of definitions getting out of hand...if performance of "tasks" means "performance of work," does a candle perform any "work" (in the mechanical sense)? To paraphrase the old zen koan, if a candle burns in the darkness all alone, without anything around to be illuminated by it, does it perform any work? Doug Brinley AIA CSI CDT CCS Senior Member Username: dbrinley Post Number: 79 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 07:20 pm:    When we observe something with our true selves, we change. I think that is what we are doing. I agree an alphabet is a 'system'. But for buildings, we have static (passive; or nearly so) and active conditions. In context of a building, 'systems' are inherently active; meaning there is a condition we could call change. Change requires energy. In context of a building, 'assemblies' are inherently static. All is not well if assemblies are in a condition of change. Assemblies must not require energy to remain in a static state. When we deal with energy we speak of engineering. 'Systems' require engineering. If in the context of a building a 'system' becomes sufficiently simple as to not require energy to perform it's purpose, it is thenceforth an 'assembly'. This is esoteric enough that my head hurts, (it could be the shampoo massage my hairstylist applied to my noggin at lunchtime) but I think we're getting somewhere. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 60 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 08:33 pm:    "I think we're getting somewhere." OK, so an alphabet is a system. Progress. I'll keep this in a building context. A building's "signage system" may or may not be an assembly; all the components may be one-piece signs, widely separated, and not connected or attached to each other in any way - not what we think of as an "assembly." But they DO comprise a system - a set of things working together (and in this case, for a common purpose). But they aren't "active" (using energy). And, as mentioned, a "structural system" is a system, and also an assembly - no contradiction. Once assembled, it usually doesn't require energy to hold it up. But an air-supported "roof system" (which is also an assembly, made of connected components) DOES require energy to remain in a "static" state. So, Doug, contrary to your assertions: Systems (like those signs) are NOT inherently active. Systems (like those signs) DON'T necessarily require engineering. Systems (like most structural systems) DON'T necessarily consume energy. But assemblies (like that roof) MAY require energy to remain static. I do hope we're getting somewhere... William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 459 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 12:21 am:    I can't put any faith in a dictionary where anyone is free to come along and add their own definitions, or totally redefine the word. The concept of system as explained on the page is also contradictory. Note the example of the teacup given there... >>>begins... In addition, all so-called "things" (Objects) are actually systems. For example, a cup is an object, but it is also a system for holding hot or cold liquid, or other material. The cup has a certain shape and a handle, it is made of non-porous material and so on, and it is put together in such a way as to provide a useful function. Describing this thing makes up information, and defines a system. <<<ends. All so called objects are systems? Well, that defeates the energy concept entirely. As it continues with the example of the teacup, note that it is defined as a system not for any energy transference reasons, but entirely because it is made up of bits and pieces of stuff, they are put together in a certain way, and it performs a function. So does a curtainwall, so does a roof or brick wall. William William Wagner Intermediate Member Username: bill_black Post Number: 4 Registered: 07-2005 Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 10:17 am:    I think this is a heirarchy problem. methink we are missing a one word in this discussion: architecture. Architecture as defined by a lot of other professions (computer science) is a collection of systems. Systems are a collection of assemblies. Assemblies are made of materials. In the process I am using specifications to select assemblies and material. Using drawings (details mostly) to relate multiple assemblies into systems. And using drawings (overall plans and sections) and professional experience to make architecture out of systems. Lets test this idea using the building envelope "system". I specify: stucco, roofing, windows, flashing, etc. When a stucco material and window assembly come together--I detail it. Through a series of details I create a system that hopefully will keep water out. This system interacts with a stuctural system, so it can stand, to make an architecture. What are coffe cups? I think system. It is a material: ceramic. With assemblies, handles and bowls that are joined together (a detail) to make a system to carry hot liquid. It may or may not fit into an architecture depending on its use. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 460 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 10:23 am:    William, Yes, that's my take on it. That's the way that I use/define system, and the way that all the major dictionaries define it. Nothing to do with th energy use or transportation concept. William Doug Brinley AIA CSI CDT CCS Senior Member Username: dbrinley Post Number: 80 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 11:41 am:    It occurs to me the larger part of the group is more comfortable looking outside themselves for an authority than I myself am. I like Wikipedia. I like these posts. With this information I can make up my own mind. That's what Wikipedia is and that's ideally what we are doing here. We don't have to agree. That being said, there is a language problem particularly with the word 'system' in the context of buildings. I stand firmly behind my conceptualization. For many years I used the word 'system' much as Robert has indicated. Mullion system. System of mullions. THERE WERE SO MANY CONCEPTS OF 'system' THE WORD ITSELF DIDN'T MEAN ANYTHING. Because now on a regular basis I am confronted with what previously I could design, describe in specifications, (but because of technology) now have to find and recruit an engineer to elaborate upon, I recognize there is a problem with the specificity (and lack of) what you might consider the 'common' usage. A cup is not a system. It is a machine. Energy has to be applied to it for it to function. You have to fill it up. You may have to pick it up, depending on your intention. Signed, Steadfast in Seattle Doug Frank FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 116 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 12:02 pm:    OK., I’ve been enjoying reading this series of posts wondering how it got so terribly important. Now however, I’ve got to put two more of my cents in. A cup may be a machine when used as a container for something as Doug suggests. However, if it sits totally inanimate on a shelf purely as a decorative item, assembly, product, or something, then it isn’t a machine. It’s just a Thing. Now watch, somebody will post a message that says “I agree with Doug” and we won’t know which Doug, and probably won't care either. Doug Brinley AIA CSI CDT CCS Senior Member Username: dbrinley Post Number: 81 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 12:05 pm:    I'm with Doug! William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 461 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 12:56 pm:    I'm not with Doug! As an aside, Wikipedia itself in its definition of a system is the source of stating that the cup is a system simply sitting there on the shelf, and it specifically states that objects and things can be systems in and of themselves, regardless of energy status..."In addition, all so-called "things" (Objects) are actually systems". I just don't think any attempt to change a definition ought to rely on a source that anyone can edit and 'change the facts' so to speak. Nor upon a discussion of a small group, nor on the basis of another professional group of which some part (unknown extent) come up with a definition that is in opposition to common, and frequent usage (as well as specific defnitions in several major language dictionaries). The system/energy link has a nice logic to it. But that is just not how it is commonly used or commonly defined. William Doug Brinley AIA CSI CDT CCS Senior Member Username: dbrinley Post Number: 82 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 01:15 pm:    William - We inevitably come to the question - which came first; the dictionary or the word? My answer to the question is that when we use words we have a responsibility to take care of them. So, the word comes first, then we take care of it (invest it in a dictionary); until such time it becomes misused; and we then must tend to it again. 'System' is misused. Software 'architect' is not misused. A Software architect is invested in architecture of software. There are important differences between software 'engineering' and software 'architecture'. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 62 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 01:23 pm:    Right, William. "Common usage" is the key, what makes words useful. Dictionary definitions are, after all, nothing more than a summary of the common understandings of the meanings of words. If our own understandings differ (as in this thread), communication breaks down. So it's better to use common definitions wherever possible, not abstruse or overly-narrow variants. Reminds me of Churchill's remark about the U.K and the U.S: "Two great peoples, separated by a common language..." William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 462 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 01:40 pm:    Doug (B), System as such has then been misused as you put it for a long long time, such a long time that if it were a path across your property that legal interpretation would declare it a public right of way and you would loose your property. The Websters definition dates to 1913. There is also the manner in which the language is maintained. English, particular as spoken and written in this country, has no official organization that maintains it. It is recognized as an evolving language based on common usage. Many words no longer mean what they originally meant - some meaning very different things than originally. Many words are respellings of mispronounced words that have actually displaced or replaced the original. Now, if we were dealing with French or German, that would be different. They have official boards sanctioned by their governments that meet at regular intervals to approve or reject new words and to cleanse the language of what are regarded as errors of use English does not have this. Yes, the word comes first, but dictionaries are not records of permanent investments - they record common and accepted usage. I think what is happening here is that the language permits multiple (and correct) definitions based on different fields or cultures. Specifically, most dictionary refrences to 'system' involve stating that it is based on either a logical or scientific analysis of objects. Your interpretation seems to be restricted to a scientific defiition - though it dictionaries that carry these distinctions don't carry this particular one. I don't have access to a scientfic terminology dictionary. But a system based on a logical classification is much broader. It is also a correct way to look at logically associated elements, components, assemblies (and sub-systems) that make up a greater whole - such as a roofing system or curtainwall system. William Richard Baxter, AIA, CSI Senior Member Username: rbaxter Post Number: 13 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 02:02 pm:    We are in the profession of communicating with other people. I think that effort is seriously hampered when we start imposing our own conceptualizations or definitions on things. When we do not accurately anticipate how the recipients of our specifications will understand our words - we fail to communicate effectively with them. It is not a question of whether or not we are comfortable looking outside of ourselves for an authority. We have no choice in the matter. There is no other way to communicate with the others outside of our selves. People would not understand me clearly if I decided to define ‘system’ as ‘something that invariably consumes energy’. It would just throw one more possible definition into the already ambiguous language goo. It doesn’t matter how the outside world defines things - we still are obligated to speak their language if we intend to communicate with them. If the world out there has an ambiguous definition for systems and assemblies - our obligation is to accept their ambiguous definition. Our challenge is to look for ways to attain greater clarity in our words in spite of the nature of the language. If you've ever read Plato, you'll know that just about any word can be discussed and debated to the ends of time. The best you ever get is a vague generally conforming understanding. I have always thought of systems as being any kit of parts organized for a unified purpose or function. All other observations seem to be merely ancillary and are not necessarily true in all cases. I have always thought of assemblies as a type of system where each piece of that kit of parts has a specifically designed or assigned purpose within the system. I know my understanding of the terms is in the same range of understanding of most people, thus I am confident in the effectiveness of my ability to comunicate with them. That's all I am after. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 56 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 02:26 pm:    Well, since we have alluded to or quoted Plato, Thomas Aquinas, Lewis Carroll, Churchill... ...I'll remind everyone that when Samuel Johnson wrote the first English dictionary, he (allegedly) did so by reading a lot of outside sources and determining for himself how each word was commonly used. And dictionaries ever since (allegedly) do the same thing, at least in the living language English, which has no academy to rule on words. Wow, I had no idea that such a seemingly simple question would generate such a great dialog. Imagine what Dr. Johnson could have done with the internet in his back pocket! Doug Brinley AIA CSI CDT CCS Senior Member Username: dbrinley Post Number: 85 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 03:01 pm:    Thank you for a good thread, George. I hope you share what's transpired with your students. Tom Heineman RA, FCSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: tom_heineman Post Number: 55 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 09:12 am:    Our discomfort with definitions (expressed by William Pegues in his Post 456) is real. We hate to imagine having to defend the terms we use. So many of them are not in dictionaries, and we have no thesaurus of our craft that is in common use. “Definitions” can get AECs in trouble, even when we talk among ourselves. There are too many exceptions and trade / local variations in the growed-like-Topsy jargon of construction. Descriptions, on the other hand, are helpful. They do not pretend to be exhaustive or mathematically precise. We need “feel” and concreteness. AECs use many “words or phrases that have a well-known technical or construction industry or trade meaning” (EJCDC) that are not in desktop dictionaries like my American Heritage. Take “beam”. My AHD call it, “a large oblong piece of timber, metal or stone . . . used as a horizontal support in construction.” Does this exclude concrete beams? Is a WF really oblong in section? Could a cross-examining attorney have fun tongue-tying one of us on that one? Is the AHD definition of “channel” better?: “A rolled metal bar with a bracket-shaped section”. But is a channel a bar? Is it bracket-shaped? If so, what shape bracket? Would “U-shaped” be better? See if you can find a definition in AHD for “lite” as we use it. Is a casement window the only example of “a sash that opens outward by means of hinges”? (AHD does not mention awning windows - that open horizontally. What about pivoted sash?) AHD ignores “single-hung” and “double hung”, yet these terms are used more often each day than “squinch” or “corbel” or “gargoyle” for which they give detailed, classic definitions. We are well advised to consult some industry guide as to what we mean by “system”, or “assembly”, and to distinguish “material”, “manufactured product”, “equipment” and “component”. Agreement need not be enshrined in a thesaurus. Our CSI MasterFormat and SectionFormat are already widely referred to when we are searching for the right word. And they can do even better. Personally, I often come up against the lack of good descriptions for “system / assembly / component / equipment / manufactured product / accessory / material” in two areas. Commissioning (Cx) Cx is mostly about dynamic (energized) systems. In practice, we have to add dynamic, energized “sub-systems” such as the water purifying component of an AC system, that need to be tested before the entire system. The term “Equipment” is a bummer because it can mean either a component of a system or a free-standing item like a freezer. “Component” is a great term – using it as a general term for a functioning part won’t confuse anybody. But what is a “manufactured unit”? – a cooling tower?, or a fan in a cooling tower?, or a blade on a fan in a cooling tower?, or a rivet that fastens a blade on a fan in a cooling tower? (We don’t Cx blades or rivets.) “Accessories” is another fortunate catchall term like “component” that is recognized in SectionFormat. Our systems have lots of accessories, and you want to both specify them briefly (by simply listing or by briefly describing) and later you want to add them to each sub-system’s or component’s checklist. In our old Cx section (to be 01 90 00) we have tried in the past to scope Cx by listing all of the above, along with some terms we would just as soon see disappear, such as “manufactured unit”, “accoutrement”, “auxiliary device”, “part” and “material”. (We never Cx a material as such, not even the bull on the outside of the ducts or fiberglass inside.) PART 2 of SectionFormat needs to be written for use with the 2nd and 4th MF 04 Subgroups, Facility Services and Process Work, and should not focus itself mainly on the primarily low-tech, static, non-energized concerns of Facility Construction, Site and Infrastructure, which dominate current SectionFormat thinking. It would be good to eliminate most uses of the term “system” in the Facilities Construction and Site / Infrastructure Subgroups. There are lots of assemblies in these Subgroups, but few systems. I think of a proper roof assembly as reaching from structural roof deck - through insulation, roofing, flashings, and walkways - to every penetration, be it plumbing vent or fan support or skylight. This is still not a system, but is certainly an assembly worthy of intense Cx-ing. The worst linguistic offender is EIF construction, which fails on most of my jobs precisely because it is NOT a system, rather a gathering of fasteners that don’t fasten, backers that don’t back up, sealants that don’t seal, and interfaces with windows that don’t interface. A paint system? With a properly prepared surface?, assembled coat by coat by spray gun?, and cured by standing naked for 4 hours? Come on now! More and more we are Cx-ing the static, non-energized assemblies that make up most of our facility construction, site and infrastructure work. We started with roofing, but are going into storefront / curtainwall assemblies, doors (especially their hardware). Even a concrete slab can be Cx-ed, mainly by walking on it, looking hard, and spilling a few glasses of water to see if the birds take a bath. Of course there are a few energized items in facilities construction, site and infrastructure get Cx-ed just like the dynamic Subgroup work - examples being motorized coiling doors, lifts, and parking control & revenue systems. And yes, there are a few systems in MF Subgroups 1 and 3 (like fountains) - just as there are few assemblies in Subgroups 2 and 4 (like ducts).But by and large, 1 and 3 reflect an assembly culture, while 2 and 4 reflect a systems culture.SectionFormat should cock an ear to engineering needs, and not confine itself to architectural applications, especially when it comes to the growing art of commissioning. Teaching This is the 2nd problem I have. In years of teaching at 2 colleges I have found, since about 1985, that the most confusing part of SectionFormat is the list of categories of products that heads PART 2. The original 1969 section format had one illustrative example of what goes in PART 2: “Materials”. Well, nobody took that as definition, and from the start, we all included assemblies, equipment and accessories in our PART 2 writing. SectionFormat covered itself with glory when it made sure that the growing list of topics for PART 2 (Equipment, Components, and Accessories) did NOT include Systems. These were properly taken care of in PART 1 where the headings System Description and Performance Requirements encourage treating systems as systems, governing PARTS 2 & 3 - and other sections by reference - total systems that have to totally perform in such and such a way. PARTS 2 and 3 take can care of the components in detail, even their individual performance. Or, the components may be specified in other sections - as is generally the case for air conditioning systems, for example. Unfortunately, students often think on first reading that they have to prepare 1 to 4 major category articles under PART 2: one for materials, one for equipment, one for components, and one for accessories. (I leave out manufactured units, since this redundant term blankets every other category and generates sheer confusion.) And where is the assembly of all these parts to be found? It has been missing for 25 years. However, our section titles come to the rescue by often giving a clue. Why not list Assembly as the top category of subject matter in PART 2 (and explain in the right margin that it’s there for all those non-system sections)? A nationally marketed guide specification once listed MATERIALS as the first and major category under PART 2. It then specified equipment, components, accessories and the assembly under that article - along with any raw materials. Today, fledgling specifiers agonize over whether to include heating or cooling coils under equipment, or components, or accessories. Any answer can be correct; any answer may be confusing or misleading. The fault lies with using a descriptive device like SectionFormat - with its chaotic categories in PART 2 - as a mandate to be interpreted literally, subject to possible crackdown by the SectionFormat agents. Set SectionFormat free. Yes, include a list of recommended topics to be specified under PART 2, but put them in italics and label them as examples – as description – not as bases that must be touched or you’re out. At the same time, make the list rational. Start with the large – Assembly / Assemblies – and work down through Components and Equipment, ending with the least crucial and most open-ended – Accessories. Forget Manufactured Units. But explain the variant meanings of Equipment (still a very useful term, even if it may overlap the other categories): equipment as a component of a system, an item of equipment as a freestanding entity. With Assembly, Components, Equipment and Accessories you have a simple descriptive guide, and by which you are not required to use each category as an article heading. SectionFormat should state that the first article heading and each following article title in PART 2 are best composed as actual keynoted titles that are identical to those used on the drawings. Promote UDS! Naturally the keynote should follow each title, on the same line. A lot of items low on the product list will not be noted on the drawings, so generally you do not need keynotes for equipment hoods, protective screens, and the like. Mixes and Gradations is still a useful major article for architects and civil engineers, as is breaking out some Finishes as articles. Also, Fabrication and Source Quality Control are still highly useful headings where they apply. In any section that goes beyond a single manufactured product, the title MANUFACTURERS at the head of the current list becomes a pain, since the proprietary producers should be attached to each assembly, component or item of equipment, and not all grouped at the beginning for some poor estimator to unravel. Actually, the Proprietary method is one of the classic four methods of specifying and should follow Description and Referenced Standards. This is because there is a priority in enforcement that must be made clear, lest the producer’s current model trump the specified description. This is the understated but wise message of non-restrictive specifying (PRM 5.7.5) that has been around since before the first MoP and is too important to be limited to Federal work. If I had rational terminology - and descriptions for its use - in the SectionFormat that I use in teaching and commissioning, life would be more beautiful. MasterFormat can clean up its loose use of "system". Students, foremen and estimators do not carry the American Heritage Dictionary with them. Kenneth C. Crocco Senior Member Username: kcrocco Post Number: 32 Registered: 04-2003 Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 05:13 pm:    System = parts which interact to form a unit Assembly = parts assembled (but don't necessarily interact) to form a unit. It is difficult to imagine one not being the other, however, it may be where we wish to place the empasis. I would never say computer assembly, but rather computer system. We should make a record on which discussions receive the greatest attention. (Watch out specifiers, your point-of-view is showing) definitions; which section number to use; Kenneth C. Crocco Senior Member Username: kcrocco Post Number: 33 Registered: 04-2003 Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 05:38 pm:    System = parts which interact to form a unit Assembly = parts assembled (but don't necessarily interact) to form a unit. It is difficult to imagine one not being the other, however, it may be where we wish to place the empasis. I would never say computer assembly, but rather computer system. We should make a record on which discussions receive the greatest attention. (Watch out specifiers, your point-of-view is showing) definitions; which section number to use; David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 72 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 08:20 am:    You can always tell when there's a lull in everyone's workload by the number of postings that appear on such innocuous topics! Don't get me wrong - These are all very good postings, and the discussion / debate / banter make for some very interesting reading. But in my short 20 years in the specifications arena, I've never been faced with the quandary of having to differentiate between "systems" and "assemblies." It's just never come up before. My first reaction to the original question was to go to UniFormat for the definitions, but it wasn't in there. But there is a reference to ASTM E1557 - "Standard Classification for Building Elements and Related Sitework, Uniformat II." I currently do not have a copy, but perhaps the definitions are in there. Keep up the good work, all. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 63 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 10:20 am:    "SectionFormat should state that the first article heading and each following article title in PART 2 are best composed as actual keynoted titles that are identical to those used on the drawings." Great concept. Thanks, Tom, for cutting through the fog to a really useful suggestion! I'd only add that, instead of elevating them to the level of articles, it might be helpful to group them under the first article, "Materials." Or leave the formatting flexible, but keep the principle: That keynoted items on the drawings will be listed in identical terms in Part 2. Just because a corner bead is keynoted, does it deserve its own article? At the least, this approach would likely take up a lot more space. It would also force a lot more painstaking coordination between drawings and specs -- making both more useful, but also taking more time. And each keynote missing from the spec could be a potential liability issue... Let's face it -- "assembly" and "system" -- as ordinarily understood -- both have to do with combinations of things, combined for some common purpose, or working together in some way. As we have seen, it is impossible to define one in any credible way that excludes the other; there is so much overlap between them that it is not only pointless to try, but confusing and therefore counterproductive. Whether something is called one or the other depends primarily on what it is customarily called, not on some purist mentality. Speaking of definitions, I had the same problem when I read the dictionary definition calling a channel "bracket-shaped," since to us, brackets can take almost any form imaginable; it's a functional designation, not a shape. Then I realized, these are lexicographers we're dealing with here; what's a "bracket" to them? On reflection, I realized they were referring to "square brackets" -- typographical characters (as opposed to "parentheses" or "curly brackets"). We, on the other hand, would probably define a square bracket as "channel-shaped." Mind set. Context. Tom Heineman RA, FCSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: tom_heineman Post Number: 56 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 12:59 pm:    David and Robert, My point about systems / assemblies is that so many mere assemblies are inflated (usually by manufacturers) to systems. The crux of the votes cast so far in this forum is that a system is an entity in which the parts work together in an intimate, interconnected, and functional way, with dynamic (or energized) systems being the foremost example. I take care to describe only. I do not attempt to define. That is particularly handy in this discussion because the dividing line between assembly and system is often fine, fuzzy, and even movable (at least in the eye of the classifier). For instance, an operating entity like an automatic damper is more an assembly than a system. But an operating entity like AC controls strikes me as a system; its being energized is one criterion that leads me to describe it that way. It hurts me to see simple, low-tech wood cabinets elevated to so-called systems. Likewise the layers that make up a terrazzo installation. Likewise ductwork appears to me to be an assembly. Likewise the complex tangle we call house wiring. It’s academic in a sense, because I recommend writing no articles in PART 2 titled 2.1 ASSEMBLY, 2.2 COMPONENTS and 2.3 ACCESSORIES for actual projects. Instead, in SectionFormat, these descriptive categories should be in italics with a note in the right margin that they are just examples of the types of product-specific articles that we should be making prominent - and that we should be keynoting to the drawings to promote quick comprehension and close coordination under the Uniform Drawing System / National CAD Standard. We already do something like this generic listing of categories in the case of PART 3 where we give INSTALLATON, ERECTION, and APPLICATON as examples of the central execution function. Systems, of course, are still handled in PART 1, where system criteria can be specified for both products and execution; or if you wish, design, overall description, and function. As to an older meaning of “systems”: In 1973 CSI published its two hefty “green sheets” on performance specifying of building systems. These monographs were in every MoP and have now been condensed and modernized in 5.15 of the PRM. The term “building systems” that was the main subject of the 1973 monographs has by now been effectively replaced by the different and distinctive term “elements” that is a feature of UniFormat. We should go the UniFormat way, and edit the next PRM to suit. Even though contracts for innovative design/construction using entire building elements are few today, the brief popularity of “performance specifying of building systems” in the 1960s and 1970s has passed. Let’s go with our good UniFormat document and not let its descriptive term “element” be confused with an earlier “systems” description.