Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 1301
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 07, 2012 - 09:24 am: |    |
120307
WHY IS IT ?
by Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT
Cincinnati, OH
If you were to put a random group of construction “people” [architects, engineers, construction professional, etc. in a large room, and mention the word specifications, I’d bet the topic would be esoteric [and increasingly so], mysterious or flat-out baffling to the vast majority.
Why?
Why is it when they are “contract documents” [with the drawings and Agreement] they are not fully understood. Yet the overwhelming number of people dealing with contract documents have barely a passing or less] understanding of them. Contract documents are NOT separable, or used piecemeal, but yet those involved with the work are at a loss to apply and correctly use the specifications information.
The answer to the same as it is for status and knowledge of the Agreement-- no basic instruction of the content, intent, creation and interrelationship with the other CDs. Of the three premium documents required for projects, TWO are readily used with relatively little [or actual] no instruction, and basis for understanding and correct use their content. Sad!
Just discovered a book called, EDUCATING OF THE ENGINEER FOR 2020. Interesting and from a very reliable source.
[from the National Academies]. This is a follow-up to a similar study in 1996 which included architects. A national overview by a national agency both booklets carried high credentials and reliable information. Of course, both are sad tales of educational ineptness and mis-direction. The former, however, does work with a truer eye to the future ad a better overview of the current situation and the expanding litany of needs. As engineering technology changes so MUST its educational programs.
Maybe that what is missing for architects—a mis-directed view of the future based o the current highly visionary and bizarre work [read-- “signature architects”]. All too many architectural curricula are wanting and rife with only the highly subjective and/or experimental course work-- both, quite denuded of technology [BIM is NOT construction technology!] and fundamentals of construction practices, materials, systems, methods, etc.. And this has a direct and imposing bearing on the work of the product representative, their presentations, literature, etc.. Also, as well as on the construction professional and all those who must contribute knowledge, services [incl. engineering services] and products-- and have an obligation and responsibility to their product lines and staffs.
The specification at once cannot be a defined and integral part of the contract documents [referred to in the Agreement and General Conditions], and a non-plus set of words to be ignored, disregarded, violated, or sublimated.
It is frightening clear, at this juncture that no one s sure just how specifications will evolve [or disappear], but no matter as the rational [even if faulty] is required. This requires early and deep review and study and almost immediate establishment of instruction covering specifications at the basic level and the transfer of newly gained knowledge to them. It they are to exist, why? in what form? and what do practitioners of the future need.
An in-depth study like these and by a similar panel of expertise [no regulators, academics, society members, etc. and other with highly singular perspectives and biases] is long overdue. It really should include how the concept of professional registration is being violated, [and its possible result] and definitive solutions, universally applied and continued or allowed as individualized decisions [i.e., new requirements]
Sorry, but I just don’t know why it is as it is-- Why do we allow it to continue? No sense trying to figure out why it was allowed to happen-- CHANGE IT! |
4specs.com Home Page