Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 1268
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2011 - 09:07 am: |    |
111102
SSSHHHHH!!!!!!.............BE VERY QUIET!
by Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT
Cincinnati, OH
Have you heard [read] it? It¡¦s out there, more and more obvious and coming from more sources and being more openly and forcefully expressed by more and more people, They all see the same basic situation [in slightly varied forms, but in mutual intent, approach and results]. It is as if there is a growing discussion; as if a new truth has been discovered-- or, WAIT ! Could it be that more people are onto the same conclusion, for the same reason, and it lies in the resurrection of an old principle [not something new; but something old being more fully coming back to mind as reality set in, a problem is being revealed again.
With this, though, the egg not the ¡§chicken¡¨ does come first-- the egg? = the drawings! Oops, aren¡¦t the drawings the root source of information for, on, in and influencing the specs???? So the ¡§package¡¨ we NEED TO ADDRESS is the drawings AND specifications. And the massive ¡§trove¡¨ [???] of construction information we need to be able to draw from the deep well of construction knowledge has entered into our minds. [And not all from the internet! CAD/BIM, etc. or the previous work of others] and is essential, from fundamentals to the sophistication of flexibility and adaptive uses to meet varying conditions.
And that ain¡¦t in the curricula today-- why not? How can that be? How did it come about? Why? And for heaven¡¦s sake why do we continue to ignore the obvious as the expertise of our profession and work? And why is not CSI doing a little something to include a minimum orientation of drawing intent, content [construction info] and their interrelationship to the specsƒÎ
It is almost biblical that these two documents are SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY! That means they BOTH exist and relate one to the other. In that relationship doesn¡¦t it make sense to have equality and a level of information required to solidify the relationship and provide all necessary data to the contractors-- yielding a quality project via our expertise and properly executed documentation?
Recently Ms. O'Sullivan and Mr. Scarborough wrote blog entries regarding production of specifications-- and in something other than mediocre [Mr. Scarborough's word] form. Points well made! In addition, we suggest, you will find that they both address the matter of depth and breadth of construction knowledge. They see this, of course, as a major contributor to quality specs, BUT we would like to add the drawings-- both the concept of the drawings, and the quality of content. The point being, that the two documents exist in a manner that ties them together and hence the same construction knowledge is valid, useable and necessary in both.
Legally and functionally there are three Contract Documents. One we are not trained to fully understand and operate [the Agreement] and the other two that have a strong and important relationship. So how do you do your work or train others to do their work, that lies ahead, when you don¡¦t even address the topic or make a minimal [but hopefully productive] effort? Most unfathomable!! And surely CSI can develop a quality program based on the documents it publishes [about drawings] plus suitable augmentation.
Many of us can or are teaching, and I am sure many others with experience can bring construction information and knowledge out into the open. To me, it is not a matter for discussion! It is a matter far too long ignored and excused. By damned!! Architects and engineers doing buildings and construction MUST KNOW what "tools¨ they have at their disposal and how these can be fashioned to. IT IS A MATTER OF CAN DO¡¨ and more shame on us if we don¡t [with your head in the sand, where is your other end?] |
4specs.com Home Page