Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 1247
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2011 - 09:21 am: |    |
110622
IS THERE NO WRONG ?
by Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT
Cincinnati, OH
If you could collect all 13,000+ of us [in CSI] and have each of us write a Project Manual [sorry, the words just still seem to fit!} the chances are we would come back with 13,000+ different but fully usable specifications! Is there no “wrong”?
Different approaches [same intent]; different words; different materials/systems; different formats [AHHHH, did he really say that????]; different fonts; different references;……………etc… Chances for identical [and perfect] manuals is most remote if not an improbability. Really, though, "perfect" is more of an academic exercise to meet a certain theory or stated principles. Specifications may not be perfect [who’s the judge?] but still be fully capable of portraying the project in terms of the 4Cs and in information conveyed.
When we moved into our first house, I asked my wife’s plumber uncle, “Uncle, what do think of the plumbing work”? “Any leaks?”, he replied. When I said no, he quipped after a quick look, “Great job, then!” He didn’t even know who the plumber was, nor did he look over the entire system! Now with all the plumbers in the world surely like us [spec writers] things are done differently [for whatever reasons] but still work well and function appropriately! Oh, if you choose I can go back to a really old saw of, “There are many ways to skin a cat!” [Back, back you animal lovers; that’s the old saying; I didn’t say it first!!!]
We see the quest for uniformity so very often. One person wants to be different and really creates a trend fad or fashion that others pick up. With some personal mutations, we again have same-but-different in whatever; trousers with waist bands well below the waist; baseball caps with bills in back; mini-skirts-- all different, true, but to the same basic concept of “standard”.
The persnicketiness of military uniforms is about as close as we come to uniform uniformity! Even then, slight variations and differences occur, even in units that appear to be clones. Is there no wrong? Are we free to do whatever we please? In most instances there is some sort of limit or exactness that we accept and meet-- it is common, well-accepted- serviceable, and sensible. In a sense, there's no reason not to do it.
But in some more rare instances, it is prudent and sensible to do things differently. This is the prevailing method when, as now in our world, we have mandatory standards [and can disobey them!] and “suggested” or preferred standards, where what is available is highly advisable but is not [and should not be] portrayed as some sort of absolute-- inviolable, punishable or stigmatizing!
Often, like with CSI documents, ideal concepts are displayed in various forms. Authors and committees who create these feel they are the best-ever and well, OK, perfect. But in reality we all need to understand that while such instruments are highly advisable and of exemplary credentials we can still adjust them as we or our circumstances fit better. And this will not reflect on the organization or impugn or besmirch it. We need to accepting, forgiving and ready to say that such adjustments are understandable and the best result is applauded.
Be it patience, understanding, flexibility, openness, or whatever, we all can be proud of the groups’ accomplishment, but where adjustments are made that pride is not in peril and the use of the majority of the program, document or service is admirable.
We have no authority to be anything else or to rigidly enforce or be scornful of different mutations.
There is no wrong! |
4specs.com Home Page