status of specs-BIM integration

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

Author Message Tony Wolf New member Username: tony_wolf Post Number: 1 Registered: 11-2007 Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 11:14 am:    I'm surprised that I have to make a new thread for this, but I've searched and searched here and can't find much on the current efforts to integrate specs production with BIM. So I apologize if this is a tired old 'been there--done that' topic. We're proceeding with a pilot project, without anything substantial to report yet, on using eSpecs Linx for Revit. It seems that Arcom/InterSpec has the only game in the Revit town, but I don't find much [any] comment on what I would expect is a common situation: firms dabbling in this area of spec automation. Either my expectation is wrong, or more hopefully, this is progressing without a lot of muss and fuss. When an informal survey of current specs software was conducted on this forum in March of 07, this was briefly mentioned in one post. I'm guessing in this overheated BIM environment that there's more going on today. Hopefully we can share some learning experiences [painful or otherwise] and avoid some as well. Is anyone else out there using or developing specs-BIM integrating software? Anonymous   Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 11:33 am:    We are evaluating the eSpecs product, but without the Revit link at this time. My view is that the product must be a good, usable tool to produce specs by itself. Linking to drawings and models may feed some data into the specifications documents, but if the usefulness of the basic product is not good, then it won't matter how well it integrates with models. I've done limited work with it so far. The back end (where final edits are done in a word processing like environment) is not good, but they have just released a reportedly substantial upgrade which I have not installed yet. On the front end, the accuracy of the links is reasonable, but not as robust as I'd like. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 806 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 12:24 pm:    in a recent survey of about 20 firms, I found that none of the large firms is pursuing drawing/spec integration because the software just isn't there yet for that to happen. if I were to attempt it with our software (Digital Project) it could integrate the spec, but only in a PDF form. since the models we produce are too large to open completely anyway (one of our models is 17 gigs) adding more information to the model just makes it less useable. I think integration will happen, but its at least five years out, and may be closer to 10 years out. remember that only the general contractor and maybe the larger subs are going to be able to access the model -- the guys building the project will be looking at paper just like they always did. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 312 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 10:52 pm:    I'd be happy with a simple report that listed everything in a project, once. Full-time specifiers can handle a lot of information, but they have to have it to handle it. Even after interviews and going through drawings a page at a time, an item that shows up only once can be missed. And then there are the things that get added late in the project... Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 73 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2008 - 02:57 am:    The reports will be limited by the granularity of your BIM model. Does your bim model include the vapor barrier under your concrete slabs on grade? What of the admixtures in your concrete? Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 313 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Friday, August 01, 2008 - 01:08 am:    BIM won't include everything, at least not at the moment. Concrete is a bad example; it usually exists in sufficient quantity that you can't miss it. I'm more concerned about the one markerboard that appears on only one page, or the things that get added without my knowledge. If I know the project has concrete, I can get the information to decide if I need a vapor retarder. If I know we have a marker board I can ask what the designer had in mind, but if the marker board in added in a single detail and I don't know it's there, it may not get specified. Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS LEED-AP Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 189 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Friday, August 01, 2008 - 09:15 am:    An important thing to remember is that the input has to be right for the output to be meaningful. For example, many people working on the drawings do not understand the difference between a vapor barrier and a vapor retarder. It's one thing if it is a note on a detail or a keynote that I check through as I work off the drawings to prepare the specs; it becomes a new kind of problem if the building model thinks it is something it shouldn't be. Vivian Volz, RA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: vivianvolz Post Number: 113 Registered: 06-2004 Posted on Monday, September 08, 2008 - 05:47 pm:    I agree with Richard, and I worry about Sheldon's idea at this stage of our game. I'm very eager to get the information out of the model in a useful way, but the more I see of how architects use the model the less I trust their understanding of what they're asking for. If I'm looking at a list, I still don't know whether the Owner or the Contractor is supplying the one markerboard, and I can't see that the waterproofing is really a roofing membrane because the drafter doesn't know the difference. On the other hand, I'm really interested in the day when the specs are a set of linked chunks of text that can be accessed from the model or from other parts of the specs. Just as the one markerboard in the drawings is a needle in a haystack, so are the important spec provisions (say, that it needs to be fabricated without urea formaldehyde?) buried in the specs. I've heard of firms who hyperlink their specs, but this is way too much work from a dumb-text world. I hope to be part of smarter more accessible text linked to smarter models. I just don't know how we're going to get there. Til then, I just keep saying it once in the right place and hoping someone knows how to find it once, also in the right place. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 429 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 03:14 pm:    What has developed since the last posting? I am interested in comments from those involved in projects using BIM. What are the formats and level of detail for specifications at Design Development, Plancheck, Bidding and Construction for a project using BIM? J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 315 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 02:06 pm:    I am concerned that the indescriminate use of manufacturers' BIM blocks embedds proprietary requirements in the database which has a way of making its way into the specifications. This may or may not be helpful depending on your point of view. I believe that CAD processes used to develop BIM models force earlier decision making on the part of designers which most people would view as a good thing. I believe, however, that the data being embedded in the BIM model may be less, rather than more, generic. Moreover, I would suggest that the decision to use a particular product may be based on the availability of BIM blocks rather than a thoughtful evaluation of the produce in relation to the particular needs of the project and the value this particular product contributes to the project. This value may be based on visual quality; i.e., blocks readily available from one manufacturer who turns out to provide fewer options in terms of colors/textures as well as blocks readily available from another manufacturer who turns out to offer (1) more expensive products, (2) no available installers, (3) less desirable warranty protection, (4) all of the above. CAD jockies (and their kissin' kin, the Reviteers) are seldom in a position to have any sort of real understanding of the implications of their decisions. The implications may become larger and more complex as the project develops with certain decisions based on availability of BIM blocks forcing the acceptance of unwanted parameters later in the design and documentation process. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 862 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 03:12 pm:    I think Peter's concern is more firm-related than BIM related -- most of the firms I've worked with discourage the direct use of manufacturer's CAD and/or BIM blocks without having them edited for content. the idea of selecting products based on the availability of BIM blocks isn't any more professional than using producs based on the manufacturer having a spec -- and then using it unedited. Be that as it may...the 3D models are making headway in the industry, but its still an issue of Modeling saving money for the contractor and driving costs up for the architect, so its a business decision that seems to be not adequately compensated at the design side. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 133 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 03:31 pm:    Earlier decisions are desirable when they allow subsequent stages to proceed quicker. On the other hand there is often an expectation that the BIM model show a certain level of detail. This can put pressure on the consultants to show more detail than is justified to meet that expectaion. This in turn results in spending more time modifying the BIM model. Robert W. Johnson New member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 1 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 08:07 pm:    None of my clients are into BIM yet, so I am not speaking from any personal project experience but I have been involved a lot of "BIM discussion." A few comments: I hear and read a great deal on the topic of BIM and specifications that treats "product information" as equal to "specifications." I see very little that includes the comprehensive subject of specifications and BIM. In regard to Peter's comment above: I would like to see ideas how you deal with the different types of specification information as you go through the design process in contrast to just inserting proprietary information on one product early in the process: * Performance criteria for functional elements (systems and assemblies). * Evaluation of multiple construction solutions for the functional elements (value engineering). * Selection of construction solution for each functional element. * Specification of components of functional elements for procurement/buyout (multiple products if proprietary). * Inclusion of information on product to actually be installed (may be different from product that was used during design analysis). When and who does this - information not known until during submittal process during construction. * Inclusion of maintenance and operation on the product installed. Historically provided by contractor - under BIM, who puts the information in the model? In other words some ideas of how you deal with the progression of "specification type information" in the design/construction process, not just using product information in the early design process to do analysis of the total model. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 13 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, March 16, 2009 - 11:13 am:    We have recently implemented using e-SPECS with our already established use of Revit and I'm happy to report that, so far, communication between Reviteers and Specifiers has vastly improved. The way the system is set up, the Reviteers identify the assemblies they are using based on UniFormat-based 'Assembly Codes' which are inherent in Revit. The Specifier, through e-SPECS, then binds specific Spec Sections to each of the assemblies. This generates the list of available keynotes. In other words, assembly components cannot be keynoted without direct input from the Specifier! We're just in DD on my current project but have generated meaningful, accurate content. Time saving in production has allowed me to spend more time collaborating with the Architects in working out systems, details, and holistic continuity. Reminds me of the old ad "Not more tea; more tea flavor". The value added by the Specifier is much more meaningful and much less reactionary than previous methodology since the project cannot proceed without the Specifier's direct involvement. Of course there was a learning curve but now that I'm up and running this seems to have the potential to be a very useful tool. I'll try to keep you posted as we proceed. David Stutzman Senior Member Username: david_stutzman Post Number: 54 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Sunday, March 29, 2009 - 10:09 am:    We had one client attempt to use e-SPECS on two different projects with two different design teams a hospital addition and a new corporate headquarters. We were the only common participants for both projects. After generating the first draft of the specs, our client abandoned e-SPECS for both projects for the same reasons. We found that we were constantly asking the designers to insert elements into the model so the model would generate the request for all the spec sections we intuitively knew would be needed for the project. These requests turned into burdens on the design team. They did not want to spend time inserting detail into the model during DD phase. Perhaps we spoiled our clients because we always create a table of contents, often with our proposal. So they do not understand why the model must generate requests for spec sections that we already know are required. I see Project Description as the more valuable link between the model and the specifications. I purposely refuse to call it a Preliminary Project Description as CSI does because we maintain the description throughout the design process, updating the description for each design submittal. We generate the Project Description based on UniFormat using the same number assignments as the Revit model. The UniFormat number association then becomes the link joining the model, the description, and ultimately the spec. I believe that directly linking the model to specifications will be difficult because the design process is iterative. Asking designers to know the exact composition of a wall during early design stages is unreasonable. The designers can distinguish between interior and exterior walls, which may be all that is required to link the model to the Project Description. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 16 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, April 07, 2009 - 03:54 pm:    We just finished our DD set. As anticipated, there was quite a bit of learning curve involved as well as inherent positives and 'issues'. We found that modeling a large amount of information during DD made sense for our structural and architectural teams, not just for the purpose of coordinating with specifications but for communicating within the team. Realistically, there will be numerous items that will never be modeled, even when we complete CDs. By the same account, we found that based on the laws of diminishing returns (econ 101), there came a point during DD when we were no longer benefitting from 'binding' specs to the UniFormat Assembly Codes within Revit. For the sake of speed, accuracy, and economy, we chose instead to allow the specifier (me) to populate the keynote.txt file with the proper keynotes. Close, ongoing communication with the architectural and structural teams was essential. The TOC is now based on the keynote list (and vice versa). With that said, there is no reason to go back and use the Binding Manager that I can tell. There were IT glitches encountered that we have yet to figure out. No idea what caused the glitches, but I did have the epiphany that all work can be done in e-SPECS without having to export, publish, or otherwise convert my content to some other means for editing. I converted my documents directly to pdf from e-SPECS and was ready to send the project to the printer much faster than expected (once I caught on). Editing within the database was easy in some ways, a major pain in others. Time was not a friend when having to retrieve deleted or altered information in the world of tight deadlines. You need to know how your spec should read and go for it. Don't worry about 'Saving' the files and losing the ability to edit spec content based on the model. That part of the process is a nice thing to have, but expect to do most of your editing the old fashioned way, one line at a time. Believe me, no one but spec writers want to deal with this. You almost need to understand keynoting more than specifying to be useful to your team initially, but from there you are still generating good old spec content regardless of spec master. Nothing is automatic. This process does not replace the specifier, it makes our role more important than ever. For me, database editing is a lot easier than using a certain word processing software that will remain nameless. Curious to hear what the rest of you find. Christopher E. Grimm, CSI, CCS, LEEDŽ-AP, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 191 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Tuesday, April 07, 2009 - 04:13 pm:    We use a filterable Excel template that is a master keynote list, with a yes/no/maybe column that the specifier and project architect develop together early in the life of each project to track what is in or out. With a few VB filter buttons the list can be shrunk down by section title only for quick 1st pass, and also by yes/maybe only, or full list. Another set of buttons exports to ADT and Revit formats *.prn or *.txt. This way the design team and specifier work closely but they do not get stuck waiting for us or vice versa. Then we have a concise listing of what is anticipated in the project to finish writing our specs by. Brett M. Wilbur CSI, CCS, AIA Senior Member Username: brett Post Number: 171 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Tuesday, June 09, 2009 - 12:20 pm:    FYI - SpecLink will be coming out with a BIM integrated spec product at the end of this year called LinkMan-e. Yea for us SpecLink users. http://www.bsdsoftlink.com/speclink-e/speclink-e.htm Di Ann Hassloch, CSI, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: dhassloch Post Number: 24 Registered: 07-2005 Posted on Monday, August 09, 2010 - 12:32 pm:    Christopher, Are you willing to share your template? Ken, Where are you now on adoption of e-specs? We are preparing to test pilot the program and I hope to learn from the past. Thank you. Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate, LEED-AP, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 249 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Monday, August 09, 2010 - 01:19 pm:    Di Ann, I will try to contact you through Colin, the owner of this site. Chris ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 58 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - 11:10 am:    We are almost exclusively using e-SPECS for our US based projects. Importing spec masters from other clients often results in e-glitches, but nothing too hard to overcome. Educating our Revit users in using e-SPECS Plug-in is taking less time now so we're getting more meaningful information from the UniFormat based Assembly Codes. Still nothing is as good as personal communication between team members which has increased when compared to our pre-e-SPECS days. The biggest issue is that much of this is not intuitive and requires a bit of trial and error. Most important to remember is that GIGO is still the rule; someone that understands archi-torture and construction has to drive the bus. If you have the luxury, start out with a small project for your learning curve. Learn how to reuse information, make libraries, and don't be afraid to make your own rules. e-SPECS is still learning too. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 992 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - 12:45 pm:    Ken has hit on the key issue with any spec preparation -- the communicationb between the team members and the experience and intuition of an experienced spec writer on the project. Now that I have thirty years' experience, I can say (with no small amount of hubris) that I don't want less experienced people drafting the documents (or an "automatic" spec system) because in order for that to be useful, I have to be able to rely on the preliminary information. When I have a client provide the "50%" spec for me to take to final, it actually takes me longer, because I have to check the information that I'm given -- and verify that its useful and correct. In my last job, the managing partner specifically did not want the specs tied to the drawings because the drawings (especially early on) contained too much erroneous information to be used as a template. Di Ann Hassloch, CSI, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: dhassloch Post Number: 25 Registered: 07-2005 Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - 04:14 pm:    Thanks everyone for the information! J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 440 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2010 - 10:02 am:    I think it is important to note the difference between product/system selection and specification. Many people who are not specifiers (including manufacturers and product reps) assume that when product selection is made, the specification is done. As near as I can tell, this is true of much of the embedded information in BIM--and why manufacturers offer "BIM blocks" to incorporate into building models. The real hard task is translating selection of a proprietary product selection into a specification that can be competitively bid. While you may incorporate the "BIM blocks" from XYZ Manufacturing, it is likely that products produced by ACME Products, LMN Fabricators, and ABZ Systems may offer comparable products and be perfectly acceptable. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 355 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2010 - 10:57 am:    I stronlgy agree with Peter. BIM or no BIM, product selection and specifying are two distinct tasks that are constantly confused by nonspecifiers. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 550 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2010 - 11:43 am:    "Many people ... assume that when product selection is made, the specification is done." Agreed, and conversely, many people think that when the specification is done, the product is selected. That's seldom true either. Final product selection for descriptive, reference standard, and performance specs (non-proprietary, in other words) is properly the responsibility of the contractor and should rely on market forces to give the owner the best most economical product consistent with the design intent. (At least, that's the theory) George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA Cannon Design - St. Louis, MO spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, August 12, 2013 - 05:16 pm:    I realize this is an old tread but it appears to be the best place for my issue. Our small office is beginning to do some projects in Revit and it is influencing the specs in a potentially uncomfortable way. We do not link the plans and specs at this time but I am being asked to change or add some product types, models, etc. into the specs which is fine with me (part of the job). However my concern/observation is that some of these changes/additions are being initiated because one manufacturer has a better BIM model than the products we typically specified. To date all of the instances where this has happened the new/additional products are comparable to the ones we always used. Still my concern is that product selection is being influenced by the CAD operator and not necessarily the best product for the specific application. Has anyone else seen similar issues? Does linking your plans and specs increase the risk of this condition? As I said the issues have actually been non-issues so far but it still makes me nervous that the manufacturer with the best BIM model may get selected whether it is the best product for the project or not. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 672 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Monday, August 12, 2013 - 05:40 pm:    You have good reason to be nervous - and so does your firm, whether they know it or not. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1368 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, August 12, 2013 - 07:10 pm:    you seriously import revit models from manufacturers and make them part of your standard details? that's really the big issue here -- is importing information that your firm hasn't reviewed for best practices. However, I assume that if your managing partner thinks that importing revit models is a good idea that your concerns about products will fall on deaf ears. Document your concern; specify the item shown with other suppliers who are comparable, and don't take it personally. the offices I've worked for have been using Revit (or something else) for about 10 years -- not exclusively -- but regularly. NONE of our revit models are copied from manufacturers, as are none of our specs. John Hunter Senior Member Username: johnhunter Post Number: 105 Registered: 12-2005 Posted on Monday, August 12, 2013 - 08:05 pm:    This speaks to one of the key factors as this situation evolves - that those who know the most about the BIM software often know very little about the construction of buildings. In my experience, for many of these folks the BIM model is their end product and they frequently have little regard for it's role as the instrument of service in delivering the actual contracted end result - the building. As a result, the model is optimized with the best available model components without particular regard for the appropriateness of those products and decisions for the building it is intended to become. spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, August 13, 2013 - 01:04 pm:    Anne: we definitely do not import information that our firm has not reviewed and if there were to be product concerns they would be heard. I am a managing partner so I have no problems or impediments in my way from pulling a product if I feel that it is not appropriate for the situation, use, location, function, etc. My concern is that products that we have specified and installed for years are now becoming the "or-equal" product because the Revit model was created (and our primary spec is written) around someone else who has a better Revit model. As an example: If Cookson or Cornell is my "go-to" for rolling counter doors but their Revit models are difficult to locate or are poor then some other manufacturer may be used. If they are reviewed and they do meet the requirements then that is fine but the "old standards" have been relegated to or-equal products not based upon performance, price-point, availability but rather the quality of their Revit Library. I also fear that material selections are getting made based upon how the "picture" looks. If you are looking at two potential vinyl plank floors and Armstrong has a strong Revit model that gives an accurate representative view while a competitor has Revit models that do not appear to be consistent then the tendency is to choose the Armstrong product. The ability to look at the small sample in your hand and visualize it on the entire floor is being lost because to many of us are waiting for the "picture" to have it tell us what it will look like. Maybe I am just being nostalgic Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 134 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Tuesday, August 13, 2013 - 04:35 pm:    spiper: In the "old" days when we actually drew in a computer (CAD) we actually "drew" generic drawings. BIM is beginning to change this with the exactness that is "required" for the model. This has been discussed quite a bit with the terms LOD (level of detail). You need to coordinate this with the demands of the project. This all leads to the fact that specs may need to be created as a basis of design so that the model can use and coordinate with the specs. Then the use of manufacturer's BIM models works well and is coordinated with the specs well. Other than that, I would suggest that you develop a generic family library so that you have the kit of parts for the modelers to use. Anne: I bet that is the preferred way there at your firm, right? Vivian Volz, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: vivianvolz Post Number: 137 Registered: 06-2004 Posted on Tuesday, August 13, 2013 - 05:27 pm:    spiper, I remember having a similar anxiety not so very long ago when I found myself choosing among products based, in part, on how much information I could get about them online (and how clear and professional their web sites were). Now, that sounds about equivalent to "can I get good representation and support if something goes wrong with this product?" But at the time, how much to put into a manufacturer's web site was very much a debate. It sounds like your anxiety is well-founded, because decisions are being made that ignore your firm's experience with the products you are comfortable with. Regaining some control over the design process will take a little education, or some of the techniques Alan and Anne have talked about, or most likely a discussion that makes someone blush. Don't brush it off as nostalgia. It's something more fundamental: you're missing a stronger sense of oversight and control of the real design criteria involved in product selection. It's important to start that discussion in house and keep after it. Make sure the people placing BIM objects are equipped to make informed decisions, so that they won't be guessing based on pretty pictures. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 601 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Wednesday, August 14, 2013 - 11:09 am:    This has been a problem since manufacturer began distributing "standard details." As a summer intern I used to copy them (I still have the stone carving tools), later we CADded them, then we downloaded them from websites. Now, instead of 2-D details, we have "BIM Blocks." These were never as "neutral" as some of us thought they were, and we should have to recognize that they are a marketing effort. There are several issues: 1) Wrong product for application. This may or may not happen as often as we think, but it can be the result of poor marketing information or poor understanding of the product on the part of the user. 2) Wrong information for project. What I worry about is embedding proprietary information into BIM files when generic information is more appropriate, but there are other issues as well. The most common example would be the use of a specific manufacturer's name or a trade name where a commodity product is required (think "Sheetrock" where you really want a note that says "gypsum board"). Once the "BIM block" is in the office library, getting it taken out is harder than killing a zombie vampire (or a vampire zombie). Even if one is successful in getting it deleted from the library, it usually has made its way into a couple of projects. At best, it gives the contractor and CA person a good chuckle; at worst, it can result in litigation. This is not a new phenomena. BIM users, especially ones whose experience is focused on developing computer expertise rather than architectural expertise, often do not understand why these issues are important. An emphasis on productivity (getting more stuff into the file) leads them to take the easiest path rather than attempting to think the problem through to arrive at a more correct solution. After all, that is not really what they are paid to do. Experienced design professionals need to carefully review the output. When there is garbage in the output, the source garbage in needs to be found and deleted (easier said than done). Greta Eckhardt New member Username: gretaeckhardt Post Number: 1 Registered: 08-2013 Posted on Monday, August 19, 2013 - 01:45 pm:    I think this discussion confirms that fact that, even as technology provides automation for many aspects of architectural practice, it will be a long time before there is a substitue for: 1. Quality control document checking by project team members and external reviewers. 2. Full-time specifiers who are assigned to projects with time to review drawings and provide informed advice regarding product selections. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1524 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 21, 2013 - 01:38 pm:    I think you can stick with specifying the particular products you always have, yet use the other manufacturer in the model. If they are equivalent products in that the differences are minor, it should not matter. If the BIM model has a slightly different product configuration than the one specified, but each specified manufacturer will fit the rough opening and clearances, then I think there is no reason at all to have to specify another product just because that's the one in the model. Contractor's have to coordinate anyway, and they may not even select the first choice in the specs regardless. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 585 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, August 21, 2013 - 04:00 pm:    Agreed John. Still there is the old concern that goes back to olden days when designers decided to simply paste in a detail from another project, or a CAD file, or a BIM Block, and just kept going. A big struggle has always been the customization of imported details to suit the project. I've seen designers simply change the size of a manufactured product shown in a BIM Block to fit the opening; problem being that the size shown isn't made. Right idea; wrong solution. Luckily that instance was caught. How many aren't? As far as integration of specs into the BIM, I don't know if anyone is even trying to accomplish this. The only place I hear it discussed is among the people on this forum. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 675 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, August 21, 2013 - 05:16 pm:    "olden days"? I think they're still with us. spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, August 21, 2013 - 05:58 pm:    thank you all for the feedback. I agree with John as well, I will keep working with the Revit folks so they agree. It is good to hear that integration of specs into the BIM is still a ways off. Scary part is I have heard it discussed in our office. Hopefully it will continue to be just talk until I retire. (I can't get old fast enough in this case) J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 604 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Wednesday, August 21, 2013 - 06:11 pm:    This brings to mind my point about "product selection" is different from "product specification." I would go on to add that product graphical representation is different from product verbal representation both of which are different from product ordering and incorporation into the Work. I wonder if the architect's BIM file should have generic placeholders what the contractor can replace with product-specific "BIM blocks" when a product is actually purchased. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 586 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, August 21, 2013 - 06:28 pm:    You're right Peter. I'm not sure about other software but Revit certainly allows users to embed product info. I don't know that it can incorporate the "intelligence" from that information (example - brick sizes) into the model. I think the BIM operator still has to manually manipulate the block. There is no reason why Contractors can't embed similar information in their record BIM. The crazy thing is that designers, and Contractors, can easily embed all of their proposed product selections into the BIM. In the case of the Design BIM, the Specifier could then extract the information easily. What a great communication tool this could be today. Unfortunately I can't usually get most designers to store their product info in a common folder on a server let alone get them to embed the information in the BIM. What's a curmudgeon to do? Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1370 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 28, 2013 - 11:59 am:    I don't know about you, but in most offices, the people doing the Revit model don't know anything about most of the product they are drawing -- and they are the last people I want putting product information on the drawings. You really don't want the product information embedded in the model -- because for the 2% of the time where the typical assembly doesn't work, no one is going to look at the details to see what to do. Most of the commercial spec systems are advertising that they can integrate specs and drawings. I have never seen this actually happen successfully except on buildings that are built to a prototype -- hotel chains, and the like. its not the typical assemblies that are the problems -- its all the custom stuff that changes from job to job, and would never be embedded into a model. Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 135 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, August 28, 2013 - 03:24 pm:    Peter, it isn't that easy yet, but I think it is heading there. I think I would look at how to integrate specs into the model families. In other words, how you control what they have available to them for the project. Then with that intelligence built-in the model, how someone can pull the data into the spec. eSpec was suppose to go there, but so far it is not a good interface. Speclink also has issues. Then you as the Specifier can just pull the data out and then mold it into the spec. Then the spec can also be proprietary or basis of design and coordinated with the drawings at the same time. Ken, I know ArchiCad can also do this. In fact, I just read an interesting comparison of ArchiCad GDL and Revit Families. ArchiCad seems to have an advantage. Small file sizes and more data can be applied. I think Vectorworks can also do it. Data being applied is the next step. Manufacturers are just realizing this as a way they can get there products into the Architects documents. Di Ann Reid, CSI, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: dhassloch Post Number: 31 Registered: 07-2005 Posted on Wednesday, August 28, 2013 - 06:13 pm:    I am finishing my first core and shell project in ESpecs with Revit integration. I found it very time consuming, and at times agonizingly slow, as the learning curve was high, but still quite interesting in its potential. The team was very interested in making this work, and skilled in Revit. What I found was greater opportunity for communication and collaboration with the team, and fewer errors and omissions in the specs. Yes, you still need a dedicated specifier, perhaps even more so, and earlier in the project. We are not likely to be replaced. However, we may ultimately be freed up to actually make a difference on the front end of the project, instead of making all of our contributions at the end. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 592 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, August 30, 2013 - 10:04 am:    Anne, one of my biggest issues is getting designers to let me in on their secret selections. In Revit, there are storage places within the model that don't show up graphically. Included in these storage spaces are areas where product data can be embedded, even links to websites. This information is not, or should not be, considered Contract Documents. If we can get Revit users to start using these areas for storing their product data, then we can start accessing the information they are using. Too often we reach consensus with the PA or PM on a project and include information in our spec but that consensus is not communicated to the Revit user who still has to solve the problem of incorporating a product into a design. They go out, pick something that fits, and keep going, often not telling anyone what they used as the basis for their graphic representation. If we can short circuit that process, we all win. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 609 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, August 30, 2013 - 11:52 am:    Ken, this is again a problem even with non-BIM production. I just had a PM tell me he wanted a certain tinted glass, but when I looked at the "completed" glass schedule on the Drawings, it was a different tint. Need better communication even when teams are small; on larger projects with larger teams, it becomes more difficult unless there are good procedures in place (that are followed). Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 136 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, August 30, 2013 - 02:57 pm:    @Peter: I think Ken is looking at this as a way to help minimize that issue. Think about how you could just print out a model query for product data and find those surprises earlier. In fact, dreaming a little, think about how you could actually have the product data imbedded and be able to form a specification with that. In essence, an application that allowed you to take data directly from the model into the appropriate spec. Is it available yet? I don't think so. Linkman has a start. eSpec, hmmm, not sure they have the right structure to be able to do it. To go even a step further, an app that input that data into the model directly. Where this could be an advantage would be like hardware sets. Then the team just keeps on working and the hardware comes for the consultant or supplier. These ideas actually may already exist, but I am not aware of it yet. The side of BIM that hasn't been explored much yet is the "I" (Information). Think about if you already had those ASTMs already in the model or any of the testing data. Ahhh, the dream... Trevor Intermediate Member Username: trevorpan Post Number: 4 Registered: 04-2014 Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2014 - 01:08 pm:    Ken, How much info would you like included in the identity data drop down list for components? (revit) Something you noted stood out to me. "secret selections". Eventually, I see the revit model being the only deliverable. But there is probably at least a decade between that. It seems like for this to really be successful, the revit model needs input from spec writers from the onset - in entirety. If you had a million dollars - how would you envision the premiere revit to specifications relationship? Trevor Pan http://www.trevorpan.com ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 788 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2014 - 01:28 pm:    For now I'd be happy with a clear line of communication between Designer and Specifier. The BIM should be a simple means of handling that information; the problem is that the model is already too big for our hardware and software to manage it so embedding the information becomes an issue. We can, however, easily store the information (cloud based storage would make sense here) and link from the model to those storage areas. The only information linked from the model should be whatever is current, though there are certainly means of tracking changes in selections as well if that is desired (since we change back at the last minute way too often). As to deliverables, please keep in mind that for traditional design-bid-build projects the design model will never be used as the construction model. In fact when done properly, embedding shop and coordination drawings into the construction model is the logical way to 'construct' the construction model. From there it should be easy to gage how much Work is complete so monthly submittal of the updated construction model with Pay Apps becomes a great way to track Work as it is completed. It also aids everyone in seeing whether the Project is on schedule or not. Trevor Advanced Member Username: trevorpan Post Number: 5 Registered: 04-2014 Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2014 - 04:08 pm:    Please pardon my low level of experience with specifications, only just started the ARE and passed my first one last month-6 mo' to go! One thing that strikes me, I went to e-specs website, and they say "Seamless integration & synchronization of BIM drawings with specifications", but this forum discussion does not agree. Where do you see the disconnect? Do you use the identity data from type properties in Revit, or is this a waste of time as a designer? Or do you cull project info from the "sheets, i.e. A110, etc" and personal experience to compile the specs. I guess, its hard to see where especs figures in. Trevor Pan http://www.trevorpan.com spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2014 - 04:39 pm:    I am a Revit novice so I may be talking out of turn here but I will attempt to give an example of the type of situation that I am concerned about (possibly without good reason). Imagine you are developing a model of a large board / meeting room. As you look at the east wall of this room imagine that the right hand side of the wall backs up to a storage room while the left hand side of the wall separates the room from an open office area with cubicles. The wall is constructed of steel studs and covered with 5/8" gypsum board on each side of the wall. The "picture" is now complete. However the "whole picture" still requires refinement. Do you want or need sound deadening board separating the room from the open office area? Does the open office area side need to be impact or abuse resistant drywall? Does the storage room require a fire rating and as such firecode core boards. This information is critical to specifying the materials, the assembly, the installation requirements, etc. However this specification information does not change the "picture" at all. It is still 5/8" gyp. bd. on each side of steel studs. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1841 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2014 - 05:15 pm:    We talk of the "I" in BIM standing for "information". The information ideally could come from a spec writer who understands the situation spiper described above. Talk to Marc Chavez or Beth Stroshane for their take on the role of the specifier in the implementation of BIM. They can explain it better than I. Trevor Senior Member Username: trevorpan Post Number: 6 Registered: 04-2014 Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2014 - 05:22 pm:    I try to include as much info about the wall as possible. The one realm, I see immense opportunity for is in the type properties, where you can link to product websites, call out fire rating, OmniClass Number, etc. However, I have not met anyone who fully utilizes this. And maybe I'm not talking to the right people! But, I want to learn, and this is a great discussion - I've read every post. What would be neat to me, is an excel spreadsheet, or cloud link (Ken), so as the model gets built so does the specbook. However, from the sound of especs, and others, this seems like their goal. Does this actually happen this way? To put it another way, is the BIM spec software that useful? And should a designer take the time to fill this stuff out? Or will that part be handled by the spec writer? Trevor Pan http://www.trevorpan.com Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1237 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2014 - 05:34 pm:    This is an issue that CSI is just starting to get a grip on. How specification content will be perpared in a BIM-based construction industry is really unknown. CSI needs to be at the forefront of this effort. CSI was created nearly 70 years ago because there was chaos in specifications. We are heading into a similar chaos in specifications with BIM. This is an opportunity for CSI to catch it and control before it gets too much out of hand as everyone tries to go in a thousand separate directions. This could very well be CSI's rebirth in the 21st Century! Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Trevor Senior Member Username: trevorpan Post Number: 7 Registered: 04-2014 Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2014 - 05:59 pm:    Now that sounds like fun! When's the next meeting for this? It would be great to be a part of, and help define this. Trevor Pan http://www.trevorpan.com Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 661 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2014 - 06:11 pm:    If you are planning to attend Construct 2014 in Baltimore, Beth Stroshane and her faithful sidekick Marc Chavez will present a technical session about "information". Their session number is T10 "Evolve the Specifier; the Information Manager Has Arrived! Beth and Marc have a weatlh of knowledge about e-specs and SpecLink. Wayne ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 790 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2014 - 06:17 pm:    When dealing with a typical assembly, or Revit Family, the tag uses UniFormat numbering, typically Level 3 or 4 which can get pretty detailed. E-Specs with the Revit plugin allows the Specifier to get a list of families that have been modeled. The Specifier can then 'bind' Sections to those families, starting to populate the Model with 'intelligence'. The better the Revit user is at selecting the right family designator, the better the Specifier can make an educated guess as to how to populate the model. For the partition example, the Specifier will still need to look at the partition schedule to see what STC, fire rating, etc applies. Remember, the idea is to facilitate information exchange. It's not providing every detail unless the Revit user is going to model every nuance (which reasonably shouldn't happen). Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 197 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2014 - 07:07 pm:    Ron, I totally agree with that, but I feel that CSI and AIA are so ingrained that they will not ever really get to where they need to be. Smaller specs, to where they actually can be reviewed by the architect in time to meet deadlines. Flexible. Some projects do not require the separate book, they just need to be on the drawings. PPDs! Just ask Ken. There are many other things to make the specs more receptive to someone reading them. I don't want to get into that discussion in this tread. Trevor, you are reading the marketing Kool-Aid. Both Autodesk and eSpecs talk about how it could be. The trouble with building it all into the model is mainly the designers that build the model will be overwhelmed with decisions that they do not need to make at that time. All he needs to know initially is that there is a wall. You will also hear a lot about 3D printing and no need for shop drawings, but I personally feel that gets the industry into producing product and not instruments of service. The accuracy of the model from the architect does not meet that standard of care for construction. Our liability insurance does not cover these risks. Only the courts will determine that in the future. Direct to fabrication adds all new risks. Shop drawings are fabrication drawings. If there are no shop drawings, then who bears the burden of the E&O? Contractor, Subcontractor or the architect? Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1238 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2014 - 07:40 pm:    Alan: Who cares what the AIA thinks or does. :-) CSI is slowly going through a transition. Our board meeting this month in Alexandria will hopefully bear out some of the transitions that the Institute needs to take in order to stay relevant in an everchanging construction industry. The board needs to look further than just a year or two into the future--preferably five to ten years. Then, determine where CSI needs to be and invest now in that future direction. It will require hard decisions--some programs may need to be terminated, some narrowing of the Institute's focus, etc. In other words, we need to reinvent CSI. The brand revitalization project was just the beginning. We cannot be the CSI of the past: people have changed, professions have changed, the industry has changed--thus, CSI needs to change. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 777 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2014 - 09:08 pm:    It's time for a revolution! If you have heard my spiel, one my points is this: "The main reason we've been doing things the same way for the last hundred years or so is - we've been doing things the same way for the last hundred years or so!" Specifications have not kept up with the changes in AIA documents or BIM; they're massively redundant and still paper-centric. Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 248 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2014 - 08:34 am:    Trevor, Welcome to 4specs! Thanks for asking questions! I also recommend you talk with Beth Stroshane and her sidekick Marc Chavez. They have assembled a presentation that would answer many of your questions. - Robert E. Woodburn, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bob_woodburn Post Number: 89 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2014 - 12:46 pm:    With all due respect for the sensibilities of others--not to mention the ingenuity of the developers of e-Specs, SpecLink-e, LinkMan-e, etc.--I can't help but suspect that the widespread focus of some (not necessarily those on this forum) on adapting the specifying process to BIM--as if that were a panacea, or preferable--or even practicable--is misplaced. I can't think of any jobs in over 23 years of specifying where I got all the data I needed--or even a reasonably comprehensive table of contents--from traditional drawings, or their pin-bar or CAD successors (some even lacked material notations when I got them). Checklists were some help, a good starting point. Person-to-person dialog was essential. And when that was not possible, I resorted to mind reading, otherwise known as educated guesswork. Can we get all our spec requirements from CAD? How's that working out? How is BIM really any different, at least currently? And if, ultimately, detailed product attributes get embedded in the model--more than sizes, shapes and a basic descriptions--should not the source of that information be the specs, instead of the other way around? IMNSHO, what we need are better links between specifiers and the minds of designers and project managers--links parallel to those between their minds and those of the BI model builders. The best sources for spec information--there are usually more than one on any job--are just people, the decision makers. With the right approach (better than mind reading, which historically hasn't worked very well), we should be able to get access to that information before it even gets into the building model. After all, from a spec viewpoint, the building model is just a "middleman"--and an artificial (and partial) one at that. My two cents... John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1581 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2014 - 01:22 pm:    I agree. I don't see the work of preparing specs, when more integrated with BIM, being a matter of getting information from the model as putting information into the model. I also foresee that, given the challenge of the huge data files that modeling generates, there will be a "specifications model" that links to the building model using data exchange formats. Producing something like a specification that we know today would be a report, much the way a door schedule is a report generated from data in the model. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 792 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2014 - 01:49 pm:    I agree with Robert and John. Even with the 'database' specs and frankly the great advances available from e-Specs and BSD, integration of specs with BIM is not even close to where it needs to be in order for us to see it as 'hand-in-glove'. Then again, people in the design and construction industry still have no understanding of what the BIM is, why we need a design BIM vs. a construction BIM vs. a facility management BIM, why it is impractical to model everything during design, especially when we need it during SD and DD (CD is too late), why the PPD needs to become a more primary means of communicating design intent, etc. Can someone please create a working crystal ball and get it over with? Ok, sorry. After thousands of years, design and construction is again in its infancy. We have a great opportunity. I pray that we don't screw it up. Forums like this, and those who are participating in these discussions, are possibly our best hope. Tony Wolf, AIA, CCS, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: tony_wolf Post Number: 67 Registered: 11-2007 Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2014 - 02:00 pm:    The drawings and specs won't be integrated until we have one program that handles both--and the professionals who can manipulate such a beast, which will have the combined brains of this forum [and perhaps those of an equivalent BIM forum] built-in and connected to an "information please" button as a program feature. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1239 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2014 - 02:25 pm:    Tony: I disagree (somewhat). One program is not needed, although one program could conceivably do it (eventually, depending on hardware performance). Contractors use a separate program to estimate based on data in the model, schedulers use a separate program to schedule based on data in the model, etc. Specifiers, could use a specifications program using basic data in the model to build, as John states, a "specifications model" that attaches to the building model. You could still have one model (building and specs), but two programs: one for the designer to build the 3D component and provide basic tags, and one for the specifier that reads the model and allows additional specification information to be directly added to the model. Of course, the appropriate "tags" (read "keynotes" for the paper-based method) are required in the building model for the specifier to link the requirements in the "specifications model" or add to the main building model. The discussion between designer and specifier still remains. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 521 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2014 - 02:29 pm:    Systems are not panaceas. Solutions will not appear by magic; they will depend on experienced people who know what questions to ask. Bob Woodburn and Tony Wolf nailed it: "The best sources for spec information...are just people, the decision makers", "and the professionals who can manipulate such a beast". BIM may be able to facilitate design and construction, but they won't replace thinking. Robert E. Woodburn, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bob_woodburn Post Number: 90 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2014 - 02:32 pm:    Ken, for the working crystal ball you need to contact a member of CMIP (Consulting Magicians in Independent Practice). They can help with mind-reading as well, not to mention meeting impossible deadlines. Most projects could benefit from the services of a consulting magician... ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 793 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2014 - 02:54 pm:    I've considered joining the Alliance of Sorcerers and Knowledgeable Members of Enterprise (ASKME), but I worry that we would all just end up preaching to the choir. I've vowed to give up preaching but reading the above thread it would appear that I broke that vow. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1844 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2014 - 03:07 pm:    I do have a magic wand. Jonathan Miller, FCSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: jmma_specs Post Number: 19 Registered: 04-2009 Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2014 - 03:36 pm:    It appears that linking specifications to drawings can be a case of too much information too soon in the process. What should be currently possible is defining attributes and each outside influence on rooms, spaces and objects like walls. Attributes like: exterior/interior wall; wet area; daylight area, etc. Outside influences like code required fire ratings, sound ratings, vapor and insulation ratings, etc. This would be far more helpful to me as a specifier to write performance and reference standards specifications along with analyzing which products meet the project requirements. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 803 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - 09:09 am:    I've had a number of people ask about Linkman-e. Does anyone have any real experience linking BSD to any BIM modeling software? How does it work? Is it effective? Scott McIntosh-Mize Senior Member Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi Post Number: 100 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Thursday, August 07, 2014 - 04:12 pm:    Ken, there are plenty of LME users out there (based on the number of subscriptions sold). I guess they just don't read the 4specs Forum. anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, March 25, 2016 - 06:21 pm:    Scott, An LME "subscriber" does not necessarily a "user" make. You may have indeed sold several subscriptions, but the use of the product is most certainly very different among subscribers - ranging anywhere from no use to something only slightly more. I have taken a hard look at LME and decided against it, because it isn't anything that the firm i work for could ever get any real benefit from (and we are a big firm, fully BIMified, and have a full-time specifications department that is quite invested in coordinating specs with the BIM inasmuch as is practical to do so). The bottom line is that neither LME nor eSpecs Revit plugin does much of anything and both fall well short of the promises that were made that these products offer any sort of automatic spec production based on what populates the model. It's garbage in, garbage out (those that have played with/used either of these two products will know exactly what I mean by this). Scott McIntosh-Mize Senior Member Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi Post Number: 104 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2016 - 11:59 am:    anon (Unregistered Guest), Thank you for your candid feedback. Yes, I work for BSD, but have little or nothing to do with LME, and didn't advocate for it in any way (except to point out that it exists). I'll share your feedback with the appropriate persons, but since you've commented anonymously, you're unlikely to receive a response. You could share your concerns and opinions directly with our LME sales staff or software engineers, but I suspect that you've already done so (or are not interested in doing so). Thanks again.