Beef Stew

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1408 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, June 26, 2013 - 08:18 am:    130626 BEEF STEW by Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT Cincinnati, OH Hearty! Chunky! Stick-to-the-ribs! Filling! Appropriate any time! Thick! Flavorful! Varied contents! Beef Stew? Naw!!-- specifications! Man, that’s so obvious!! These ain’t no soufflé, baked Alaska, angel food cake, or a smooooth Chardonnay! They’re not even Bud Light-- being more ale or bock. Oh, maybe it is a stretch, but gee, whiz, specifications are impressive documents-- ask any spec writer! They do have many of the attributes as beef stew [including product data to flavor and thicken the stew], while some may dispute their “taste” and results. The idea though, is that specifications are so often mistakenly cast as “those other documents”, or “unnecessary evils”, when in fact they are, “THE documents” [ask any spec writer]. Sure, we migrate to the drawings to “see” what’s going on, but to know all of what is involved, you have to go to the specs. It’s a real wonder how specs have fallen to such a low level of regard when they do contribute so much, and really function as primary documents when any assessment of a problematic project is engaged. Certainly the completed project stands as a tribute to the creative mental process of the designer and the handicraft of the contractors, but still the design concept is brought to its reality via the facilitating aspects of the specifications-- no specs; no project. Of course, projects “can” be produced without specs, but the work then becomes matters of unsubstantiated information, varied opinions, faulty or purposely faulty and misdirected memories, and verbal instructions that too often go awry through misunderstanding, ambiguity or by being incomplete. In the drawings there is a prevailing need to be quite clear-- avoiding “linear spaghetti”-- and meticulous detail to show specifically and distinctly what is to be done. In these efforts, the natural tendency, and unspoken direction is to minimize complexity, and associated notation in full acquiescence to clarity and completeness. Following this path, of course, produces quality drawings, but at the same time implements, by default, the need for appropriate, strong and carefully crafted specifications-- the essence of “complementary and supplementary”! This is not to call for any sort of revolution or to stake claim for the specs to the re-eminent, overriding document, but rather to merely re-set the “claim” each document has as its established place, and true function. Maintaining this truth and relationship goes a long way to producing better quality and more highly coordinated projects with far less effort require to resolve issues, make interpretations, and issue Change Orders. Where we try to concentrate too much information, or create new scenarios before the presentation of information, we tread on dangerous ground, fraught with new and many old maladies. Simply, we can’t and are ill-advised to get “cute” with contract documents! We need to not only advocate, but to consistently require good stable procedures in our production, and a strength in our documents that directly reflects good, wholesome beef stew in one’s stable and healthful diet. Even in that metaphor we see variety, but still a firm and strong basic element that, at times, needs to be re-visited. Hey, please, get me a spoon-- this “stew” is too thick for a fork!! Oh, boy, we know where the beef is!!!!