Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 1230
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2011 - 08:48 am: |    |
110201
REFLECTING FOR A MINUTE
by Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT
Cincinnati, OH
By pure circumstance I laid the specs book I was reviewing next to the Bible on the coffee table. Odd, I thought afterwards, but yet there is a grand comparison between the two-- similarities in some aspects very close and parallel. Hmmmmm!
Of course, the bible pre-dates my spec [I didn’t cut and paste that far back!] but the overall concept of both runs close-- they each are trying to set a course and direct a path olfaction for a successful end. One perhaps more personal, but still a formula or plan outlined for set forth to good purpose and lasting use.
Specs, I submit, are roughly as old as the Bible, it is just that early-on they were not written [think of the reproduction house that had to chisel-cut 100 copies for distribution in Biblical times!!!!]. So, at that time they simply had to be verbal instruction accompanied by gestures, motions and direction-pointing-- hands on! But still, what specs do with words only [for the most part] today WAS necessary and was done in ancient times. Project information changed over the centuries if you think of how complex the drawings had to be for the stone cutting on gothic cathedrals and the massive amount of information required for them [compared to Biblical work alone].
Yet despite all these years, all the discussion and innovations that has occurred, the legitimization of specifications as one of the Contract Documents, there is still rigorous on-going discussion. Why? And, too, we might add that while the specifications have been improved many fold by such as we, there is an embedded mind set [among many worldwide] that specifications are, 1] unneeded, 2] cumbersome, 3] overly restrictive, and 4 punitive, overbearing, mysterious and fraught with “traps” meant to ensnare the contractors. And Owners see them as unnecessary added cost!
We, the overall, from beginning of time congregation of spec writers evidently have failed-- not in our work but in presenting ourselves, our work and our cause in a distinct and convening manner-- more of accepted necessity with full understanding, impact, compliance and use. Since the mid-1920s [and even before] there has been an open and active push for better, simpler and more streamlined specifications. Although, as you well know, much progress has been made, even though, construction methods and materials and systems and equipment and electronics have been increasingly complex and convoluted, we still tend to flounder in some areas; quibble in others, and flat dispute and argue in still others. the parts we’ve missed and evidently will continue to miss-- is the one where we are more public with our effort [within the construction industry and elsewhere] and the development of future specifications practitioners to form a pool of available personnel. This, of course, is encased in an effort BEFORE CSI expertise in the academic and allied fields. This new effort would foster better understanding, more innovation, and a more concerted use of the documents by eliminating the foolish game-playing over words, who-does-what, and the other tomfoolery of construction.
Oh, yes, the simple task of remarketing and expanding CSI to non-members too, who in turn can make our members look better and produce better projects.
For example, if we use the example of Professor Goldwin Goldsmith in 1935, specifications were taught in colleges [in his case, Texas; this was not true in every school but a good point to start from and expand] ] and was a rigorous and important experience for the students. Now goldsmith’s book was re-printed until 1961, but since he died in 1962, there has been no “refreshment” of the text. BUT, the real point is what has happened to Goldsmith’s direction, instruction and intention since then.
Or course, CSI has been created and developed, but on a different premise and with no direct relationship to his idea of teaching the topic in the schools. Some firms were able to create and foster highly innovative and influential policies and procedures, many of which exist today in CSI’s philosophy, teachings and documents. All well and good, but Goldsmith’s concept, to me, needs, vitally!!!!! to be re-created and installed in a universal manner, not for CSI [who can do-- and should do the task!--, etc.] but for the good on the professions and construction industry!
But what remains is the lack of insight, lack of foresight and possibilities, lack of understanding by both CSI and the schools, no professional direction and support, lack of concerted effort nationwide for a universal course synopsis, a result that lingers, unnourished, benign, neglect and rather summarily dismissed. But deeply capable of making an important impact! Shouldn’t we at least try with a new energy and fresh synopsis? |
4specs.com Home Page