The Confluence

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

Author Message Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1414 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, July 31, 2013 - 08:02 am:    130731 THE CONFLUENCE by Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT, Cincinnati, Ohio Education on a specific topic begins at an established point and progresses as added information and expertise develops. Often highly technical topics require pre-requisite fundamental information, involving a wide breadth of information, with a flexibility of application to varied situations. Students, exposed to varied levels of knowledge and understanding, should be placed in appropriate classes that recognize their current knowledge and understanding -- i.e., incremental education! The concept is to build the process step by step as the individual student progresses in knowledge, understanding and expertise-- and in the case of an architectural /engineering topic like specifications, on a “need to know” basis. This is not a time-oriented process, but rather one that addresses the value of the topic and data to the individual. To provide either too little or too much information, or information with too low or too high a technical content, will lead to confusion, misunderstanding and an individual unable to properly utilize the information, and who perceives it as a waste of time, disinterest, boredom and discarding of the information. Currently, the most egregious need, in the design-documentation sequence, is for fundamental instruction regarding drawings and specifications, and their interrelationship as Contract Documents. Current instruction is sporadic, uncoordinated, and lacking in well-founded knowledge and presentation. It is appropriate to speak in these terms, since there is no denying that design concepts [a primary development of architects] must be documented in a manner that facilitates their construction. Concept and conceptual language and terms need to be augmented and converted to those fully usable by the manufacturers, suppliers, fabricators and Constructors, on all levels. There is no group or agency that directs its efforts solely at the content and quality of contract drawings. Many groups set standards, guidelines, procedures, etc, but do not address pure quality of content. Computerized production of drawings is so prevalent that it obscures the fact that rapid production and ease of manipulation are not valid drawing criteria. It is the depth and quality of construction knowledge, correct application, depiction and purposeful communication that counts foremost! But without a formal instruction in production of contract [working] drawings, the quality has suffered. This is a task that is of grave concern and remains as one part of the detailed scope of this paper. It is also important to understand that specifications are another, but fully equal, part of this discussion. Specifications writing may not become the primary task of the graduate. Indeed, few students and young professionals will engage it full time, while others may never write specifications. Hence, to provide highly detailed, technical specifications instruction too early will serve no useful purpose. Instead, the need is to understand the intent and content, the general legal implications of, and the context of specifications within the umbrella of Contract Documents. Form, style and processing of specifications are not fodder for the education. As expertise in design, and the allied course topics evolve and progress, so too, specifications should be addressed in a generally commensurate manner. This development should have the goal of putting the basic tool of specifications in the bag of professional expertise of the full student body of prospective registered professionals. Specifications can [and should] be developed, coordinated and taught by CSI members to ensure proper context, continuity of purpose, content and application. If nothing more, this will provide the new professional with a sound foundation in understanding and respecting specifications, while being functionally short of actual specifications production-- that and related tasks are better taught in the established preparatory CSI Certification Programs. How does each step in the process impact future work? Some, primarily academics, might claim that this distracts the student from the true nature of their education. Others might allude to the principle that education is not a preparation for employment. Both arguments are shallow. This is acknowledgment that there is a need for information, instruction, discussion and mentoring prior to becoming a Construction Documents Technologist (CDT). That should [if there is to be true change] take place well before the student emerges as part of the professional staffing. This will offer more insight to the young professionals’ work overall and the specifics of document production-- both specifications and drawings. Every design concept comes to the point where it projects an image, and provides some indication of form, function, and interrelationships. This usually is in the form of information that closely resembles school projects-- rendering[s], small-scale plans and elevations, perspectives, models [virtual or cardboard], etc. At this point, the project is an unresolved piece of work, unbuilt, unoccupied, and non-functional. Between this point and the full reality of a completed project lie two major efforts-- proper professional documentation of the work, and subsequent skilled execution of that work. The requisite documentation involves two types of documents-- working drawings [graphic representations of the work] and specifications [written data complementing and qualifying the graphics]. These are a coordinated package in the specific communication of appropriate construction knowledge, information and directions as required by the primary end-users-- the on-site construction and trade workers. The true essence of this is the proper communication of design concept information converted to directly usable construction information, terminology and vernacular which are easily understood by the various product manufacturers and their representatives who must translate the documents to the vernacular of production; and the trade workers doing the actual construction—all together the confluence of concept, information, documentation. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 658 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Thursday, August 01, 2013 - 02:37 pm:    Ralph: I think the argument goes, "If documentation is important, it would be taught in university architecture and engineering schools." They teach Architecure and Engineering, not trade school skills for the practice of architecture ad engineering. Besides, you are supposed to learn to draw and write on the job, from the "old guys" in the office. Of course, now that old guys are not around (too expensive and not up-to-date on 3D CAD and computer-assisted spec programs, as well as culturally conflicted), documents are produced which don't sufficiantly communicate design intent, code compliance, contractual reponsibilities and quality assurance. This not merely a gripe but a lament. Who wants to see failures, unless you enjoy trainwrecks? or make your living from construction claims and litigation? Apparently, the answer is for architects to do pretty good Design Development drawings and outline specifications (materials lists) and then let those who really know how to build (construction managers, general contractors, subcontractors and building product manufacturers and their distrubutors produce da BIM that integrates all the information in multi-dimensional, full-color form for planchecking, bidding, construction, operation, maintenance and reconstruction/demolition. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 662 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, August 01, 2013 - 06:11 pm:    Truth. Architects may be master planners or master designers, but master builders they're not.