Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 1233
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2011 - 08:13 am: |    |
110223
FLEXIBILITY: A VITAL SPEC WRITING TECHNIQUE
by Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT
Cincinnati, OH
If you lined up a rank of spec writers, shoulder to shoulder, other than the variation in their physical appearance, what would you notice? Oh, come on; Open Up! You answered “nothing” with a puzzled look on your face at the stupidity of the question. Look deeper- how many of the writers do you know? In talking with them over time, what have you learned about them?
Some are strident, I bet. Some are humorous; Some cynical. Some visionaries. Some dower, angry, even nasty [on their best day]. Some are pleasant, insightful, helpful, willing, open, inquisitive, implacable, meticulous, steadfast [in mindset and method]-- and yes, others are, by golly, FLEXIBLE!!!
And to hedge no bet, venture to say none are what you would characterize as “wishy- washy”, for their mere position and status, indicate experience, knowledge, care, intelligence and dedication. They know what they are doing-- and why!
Now the BIG question-- do they all do things in the same way? A cappella, now, in unison---- NO! And bless them for that.
Look, we all have been trained differently; educated in dissimilar ways; seen varied experience; and have been provided with very individual attitudes, and perspectives and biases!]. We are different folks, doing SIMILAR chores [i.e. writing specs] in various scenarios, for different clientele, with differing resources, and expected results [successful projects being the expectation here, but also the common goal].
We also have come to know, through various things, that perfection is unattainable, and unnecessary. Even the courts recognized that perfection is allusive and not required, unless we are stupid enough to sign a contract requiring the same. So we do our best-- individually, as we see the task and the solutions best suited to our circumstances.
Now came CSI with the audacity to produce the 16-Division format [the first format]. How much harangue was raised when that came out? [I’m old, but can’t remember that]. But it became the widely used and pre-eminent “standard”-- THE way to do things. Those flexible to do so, adopted it and adapted it to their way. It gained favor; it worked for all.
So why now is there the continual harping on the unfortunately concocted downside of MF04? It is not perfect [sorry, Dennis!] But it is good, IF you approach it with a full understanding of its roots and mission, a very flexible mind, and with a mindset to “see how it shakes out”, in lieu of how “it shakes you up”. It is a program; a plan, a system of sorts; a direction; an assist; a treatment but not a cure; a step for betterment [OK, argue that all you want. but you only show-- your lack of flexibility]
Simply, if your commercial project does not require Division 35 work, don’t include it or even reference it! The principles of CSI and use of MasterFormat are NOT mandatory and no member, President, officer, Fellow, long-time member, major influence, Director, etc. can MAKE YOU use them. They are excellent, well-founded, highly astute and recommended, but if you have a circumstance or policy that differs you must be able to be free. Flexible, innovative, adaptable, not what the needs, at your elbow, might be. No system necessarily will fill those needs every time! Too many folks are afraid and stumped by the mere process and guidelines-- they freeze and flounder where rudimentary understanding is missing.
Adapt! Use what you see as fitting to YOUR needs and system. Don’t concoct for the sake of concocting [there is no CSI award for that anyway – it's not one of the CSI "C"'s]. Take it easy, whether you are still in process of converting or in the throes of making more adjustments to your converted system.
Wishy-washy says you may or may not do it; maybe you’ll do that-- maybe not; could be we’ll go there at some time later...... .......................... No, we need to do better, now, in early contact, teaching of overall fundamentals , refinement and such, before we get into the big game-- we can help ourselves and our situation.
Flexible says we’re going to do it, by moving and adapting as we see our system needs. And if your clientele varies and you need 2 or 10 systems, they each should be flexible within their own context. Why does the tree in the middle of Kansas survive the tornado? Firmly rooted in the ground! AND filled with flexure strength................ read “FLEXIBILITY”!
It is not just being different to be different; it is simply that, to succeed, you must the past, the development [not all the nitty-gritty details, please] of specs and how they evolved to where we are today. All the same at root levels, but each really difference to varying reasons
Teaching a singular system [“you do this, this way, ALL the time!”] is inappropriate and misleading-- and gravely short changes the student[s]s. To say we do this “in our office” is appropriate so long as you add the caveat that others do things differently. The ability to flex, adapt, and reconfigure is vital, since leaving one office and going to another does not guarantee similar procedures and approaches. Here the possession of broad-ranged construction knowledge, full understanding of how the entire process works and can be “adjusted” as necessary, is crucial to correct development and documentation.
We and our organizations are good at what we do-- it is the open, obvious other things that need doing. And we could do this if we chose not to ignore it, or try to move forward from the wrong point |
4specs.com Home Page