Computerized Master Specs

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

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message Daniel R Heaton Junior Member Username: drheaton Post Number: 2 Registered: 02-2005 Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 05:24 pm:    Has anyone figured out the e-SPECS Linx release by Interspec & ARCOM early this year? ... I am trying to figure out what in the User Manual works, and what I have screwed up, and what does not work. -Dan Anonymous   Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 10:13 pm:    Maybe you should try their online tutorial and tech support first? Daniel R Heaton Member Username: drheaton Post Number: 3 Registered: 02-2005 Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 03:57 pm:    What online tutorial? I did email and call support at ARCOM and Interspec before posting on June 26th. They are helpful. Interspec provided a patch for me on Friday. I want to talk to a real user who does not work for Interspec or ARCOM. Fair enough? or do you work for one of the 2 firms, Mr. Anonymous? And yes, I did read the manual. Thanks, Dan Brian K. Wolf, CSI, CCS Junior Member Username: briankwolf Post Number: 2 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 09:23 am:    My understanding of the new SectionFormat presented by the Institute is that the initiative goes beyond just Section content; it proposes file sharing, naming, posting, linking, etc. - all very software demanding. With this in mind, a simple word processing file is not going to fit the needs which SectionFormat represents to be the desire of the profession. It seems to me that SpecLink is more powerful and more of an adaptable instrument for the specification professional - and also in a better position to satisfy pending changes in the SectionFormat. I recently attended a local chapter meeting presenting SectionFormat; the meeting was also attended by a representative of Arcom. The representative's comments at the end of the presentation was indifferent in the least. Generally, it was implied that it was fine for CSI to work on such an initiative but there was no incentive for his organization to implement it. It was further added that CSI creates such changes, but firms like his are stuck developing it and training the users. My opinion, of the attitude expressed, is that Arcom is satisfied with their level of subscription and they are not interested in the evolution of the product (to match the changing "wish list" of the profession) other than the regularly scheduled update to keep up appearances. I have been displeased in MasterSpec in the amount that it differs from the CSI Manual of Practice and arguably conflicts with AIA Documents (ie. capitalization). MasterSpec certainly has had enough time to better conform to the Manual of Practice; and they do bear the AIA copyright. When you look at the changes in SpecLink over the years, there seems to be a greater emphasis at meeting the Specification Writer's wishes such as being able to convert their files to MS Word documents and MS Word documents into there database format, etc. I am pleased to read the positive comments regarding SpecLink in this thread. I am in the process of convincing my firm to make the move to SpecLink for its capabilities and apparent ability/desire to evolve and conform with the growing demands of Spec Writers and CSI initiatives. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 548 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 10:14 am:    Brian, I think you are off the mark in a number of places. - SectionFormat is not at all about "file sharing, naming, posting, linking," it's about the organization of a Section. The task team's charge is to take into account BIM and a few other future trends, but it is not about computerization per se. - Whether you think so or not, ARCOM could very well find itself in the position of defending changes to SectionFormat that it has to implement into Masterspec. A (hopefully) small portion of their subscribers are likely to call ARCOM and complain about newly organized Sections regardless of why it is done. I'm sure that BSD Speclink and other commercial specifications systems will also deal with that issue. - In my opinion, ARCOM is very interested in the evolution of their family of products. That's why they teamed up with Interspec to product e-Specs Linx. The content is produced by Masterspec. If you call them up they'll explain that family of products to you. You might find you like them. - If you have found places where you think that Masterspec conflicts with AIA documents and with the Project Resource Manual (the MOP has been replaced, you know,) you should bring it to their attention. They do care about this, and it is an occasional topic of conversation at meetings of the Masterspec Architectural Review Committee (of which I am a member.) If there are differences with the PRM, I'm sure they are not an accident. Obviously some specifiers will prefer Speclink and others Masterspec. Competition always keeps companies working hard to improve their respective products. Brian K. Wolf, CSI, CCS Member Username: briankwolf Post Number: 3 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 10:50 am:    John, Perhaps my opinion of Arcom's interest in the wishes of specification writer's is skewed by the attitude of the Arcom rep during the local chapter, especially after he introduced himself "as perhaps the most important person in the room." Yes, I am aware of the PRM vs. Manual of Practice; odd habit. Yes, I do know that the proposed SectionFormat is not all about the computerization. But the SectionFormat is also more than reorganizing section content. I recognize and agree with your earlier comments in this thread regarding the Evaluations (I won't call them Green Sheets out of habit, for fear of being corrected). And I will take your suggestion of evaluating the Interspec products. However, my understanding of Linx is that it is an editing tool contained to one particular section; as opposed to, linking editing choices across multiple sections. If you need some examples of conflicts with AIA documents, another thread on capitalization points out the needs of trained specifiers to modify MasterSpec; I do not think these professionals would do so if there was not a need to correct conflicts. And if you look at the current SectionFormat, the differences with MasterFormat are relatively apparent. But as you expressed, they are not an accident; so I will accept that there are valid reasons. Anonymous   Posted on Saturday, April 28, 2007 - 10:04 am:    Bought E-specs Linx (after being a loyal Linx user for years). Returned it after 90 days for a refund. Called Arcom and gave them an ear full. Just my opinion - but I believe it is flawed and full of bugs. It generated terrible output that ignored many of my choices. Then there's the formatting problems on top of the technical content - caused a lot of extra work to clean it up. When and if they fix it, I do intend to buy it again, because if it worked properly it would be a superior product to plain Linx. But don't get any fantasies about a CAD drawing generating a specification in E-spec Linx. That's not Arcom's problem - it's just an idea that will never work until architects are educated to the level of specifiers. After all, most of what specifers do is to figure out what is NOT on the drawings but needs to be in the specs. W. Dean Walker, AIA, CCS, SCIP Senior Member Username: wdwalkerspecs Post Number: 13 Registered: 08-2006 Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 11:07 am:    To the anonymous person. (Wish you had a name) I was considering ordering E-Specs in lieu of Linx when my subscription to Masterspec comes due in the fall, but will stay with Lynx. I fully agree with you regarding what we have to include in the Specs. Many time I state that I have included information - which my client will have to eventually (hopefully) put on the Drawings. Having sat on the Masterspec Review for 5 years in the late '80's I remember well how we argued about what number should be used for a new section. There were those who felt that we should not stray from CSI - while others of us thought that it was more important to get the section written than to worry about what number is had to have before it made avaliable to the subscirbers. I was in the latter. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 555 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 01:26 pm:    I've seen demonstrations of e-specs LINX at Arcom meetings (note: I am on the committee this year and have been for the past 6 years) and I don't think the product is "there" yet. it advertises 70% specs, but at best its about a 50% spec; it needs to be well coordinated with the drawings and some high level person in the office needs to do the coordinating. Arcom has a partial ownership in the product, and that gives me some assurance that it will improve as a product but for a non-repetitive project or a complicated project, it just isn't going to do the job. W. Dean Walker, AIA, CCS, SCIP Senior Member Username: wdwalkerspecs Post Number: 14 Registered: 08-2006 Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 01:47 pm:    Very interesting Anne. Non-repetive, complicated projects make up my client base. How is the Review Committee these days? If you have been on it 6 years - why don't you chair it? I was on it from '85-'90, and chaired it the last two. I realy enjoyed the experience as I was working for a large Architectural Firm at the time Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 466 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 01:52 pm:    She does chair it. Vivian Volz, RA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: vivianvolz Post Number: 91 Registered: 06-2004 Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 06:10 pm:    We're evaluating e-SPECS in its Revit incarnation, but as part of that version we get essentially the same functionality as the e-SPECS Linx product, plus the ability to read data from the Revit model. We're not prepared to comment at this time about our experience, but plan to make a recommendation to the firm regarding adoption by late summer. We're especially interested in how we will manage our firm's spec masters within the e-SPECS database. We think it will help us manage the regional differences and different project types more efficiently than with word-processing file masters. Our masters are based on ARCOM masters and will continue to be if we adopt e-SPECS. What we like about the database idea (and please realize that we can't comment on the actual implementation) is the ability to add our own logical connections within the masters, above and beyond the relatively conservative ones that ARCOM and e-SPECS program in. It's these additional connections, I think, that will make the difference between a 50% spec and a 70% spec generated in the checklist interface. In principle, it lets us make our masters smarter. Since we also live on non-repetetive, complicated projects, whatever we can streamline, we should! That way, we can spend our time fine-tuning what's special, instead of editing the toilet partition section again for the umpteenth time. Russ Hinkle, AIA, CCS Senior Member Username: rhinkle Post Number: 24 Registered: 02-2006 Posted on Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 07:18 am:    Database programs like E-Specs, SpecLink, and Revit are tools that are helping us keep up with the changing demands of the architecture buz. Everyone talks about the 3d capabilities of Revit and other BIM programs. What I like is that you only have to manipulate the information once as it only exists in the files once. The door may show up in 3 locations on the drawings (plan, elevation and schedule) but it is just 3 views of the same information. Detail call outs are all automatic. This leaves me time to spend to figure out the important stuff! At my last place of employement I used SpecLink and loved it. It allowed me to take the tedeous tasks, automate them and then spend the time on the unique features of the project, making sure the drawings and spec's worked together, etc. Using databases to link drawings and spec's will help us eliminate the busy work and focus our efforts on good design and good technical practice. Anonymous   Posted on Friday, June 22, 2007 - 03:57 am:    Trust me, it's really buggy software. They are working on it, but it's not really reliable yet. The other issue is whether or not one should expect it to interface with Revit drawings to produce a draft specification that is useful. Many specifications requirements do not necessarily show up on the drawings - there's a human element that the specifier brings to this process. Also many architects copy details from previous projects, so Revit would generate an incorrect draft from those drawings. Seamus McGrady (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 - 09:26 am:    Anonymous' comment about copying details to produce specs is NOT how e-SPECS works. View a webcast to undestand better the integration and coordination. Also, refer to the user testimonials and success stories from users at e-SPECS.com. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, February 11, 2008 - 12:45 pm:    Does anyone use E-Specs (Linx or Pro) or SpecLink with an interface to Bentley Microstation? ARCOM's products seem to interface with Autodesk product only? Thanks Wayne Jerry Tims Senior Member Username: jtims Post Number: 9 Registered: 04-2005 Posted on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 - 11:12 am:    I participated in a SpecLink webinar concerning BSD's next major software release a few weeks ago, and the subject of interfacing with BIM was very briefly discussed. It's "in the works", but I got the impression there's still a good ways to go. If you're really talking about Microstation, instead of BIM, then as far as I'm aware, there's no real interface between the two. (We've been using SpecLink for about 10 years, and Microstation (and its predecessor from Intergraph) since 1983.) Wayne Yancey (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 - 02:33 pm:    Jerry, Our Seattle office is exclusively Microstation but our satellite offices are AutoCAD. The plan is to add some AutoCAD seats in Seattle. Jerry Tims Senior Member Username: jtims Post Number: 11 Registered: 04-2005 Posted on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 - 03:03 pm:    Wayne....it looks like we're actually starting to phase out of Microstation (sadly). We recently secured a couple of jobs that require us to produce them using Revit. So that appears to be the direction we're headed. Fortunatly, the SpecLink folks are working to provide an interface for both Revit and Bently Architecture. Oh how times are a changing!