| Author |
Message |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 08:00 pm: |    |
Full Disclosure! I am a Sales/Marketing person for an aluminum glazing systems manufacturer. (Don’t stop reading!)
I hope you will all help me with some feedback on an issue that we are debating in our company.
On our web site, we have a section where we have specifications available for download. I want to make this as valuable to the architectural community as possible but as I review my competitors’ web sites, there seems to be no end to the alternative methods for providing product specifications. By the way, I’ve also read the posts under the “Really great product websites” and there is great information in there but not a lot about specifications…umm…err…specifically. I know not to require log in for download, etc.
Questions:
1. Should we even have specs for download? Everyone does but it also seems many architectural firms already have their own specifications from years of business or use a service that provides them.
2. Assuming we should (which I think is the case) how sophisticated should they be? I mean this from the technicality of the document itself (not our product line). I’m thinking of issues like hidden text, other directions noted in margins on how to edit the spec, etc.
3. Should we have them in both the old and new format?
4. Is Microsoft Word acceptable? Other formats?
5. Any other feedback on this issue as well as the issue of drawings for download would be greatly, truly appreciated.
I have been reading all of the posts for about a month or two now and I will not try to turn this discussion into a promotion or sales opportunity. Colin knows where I live.
Thank you! |
Margaret G. Chewning FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: presbspec
Post Number: 111
Registered: 01-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 10:01 pm: | |
A good specification from a manufacturer's website can be good provided it's not just a listing of model numbers and options by name.
I realize you want to steer the spec product toward your system, but having the Part 2 set up in a proprietary and non-proprietary manner would be a big help on those late night deadlines (which is usually when I'm looking for stuff) in the non-proprietary articles provide technical details such as what materials are used, if there are accessories or extra parts identify them by a generic name and what they are made of, not the catalog number that only applies to your company.
Recommendations on inspections, testing, and submittals that should be used to ensure a professional installation would also be helpful.
provide in SectionFormat using word and pdf docs gives the specifer a choice of how to use the material. Regarding whether to use MF95 or MF04, I'd recommend identifying the documents with both until the MF04 is more mainstream and we are more used to looking for it first.
That's my 2 cents
Good luck |
Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED AP SCIP Affiliate
Senior Member
Username: lynn_javoroski
Post Number: 400
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 09:53 am: | |
Standards that are truly standard and recognized by the appropriate industry help establish qualifications for other manufacturers to meet or exceed. Edit notes in hidden text explaining the various options make it easier to choose the correct ones for the project. Providing specifications that are very technical allows the specifier to choose what to include and what can be safely excluded; this may vary from project to project. Allowing downloads in different formats (MF95, MF04, Word, WordPerfect) again gives the specifier the ability to choose the right one for the project. Make sure that they are well-written, in a CSI way: imperative voice, vocabulary, etc., with Quality Assurance different from Quality Control, for examples.
I agree with Margaret, too, that we are usually frantically searching for a specification, on deadline. If your section is better written than your competitor's, yours will be chosen. And that will give you a slight edge.
Product reps tell me that all they want is a fair chance to bid on a project. A well-written specification should give that chance. |
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 429
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 10:00 am: | |
The good ladies have given you very fine and incisive information. I would add that you can also help your cause by including pertinent building code and code agency approvals, including Evaluation Sheets, etc. Often a design professional in searching for material will have a concern about this aspect; and openly displaying it is a terrific asset for a manufacturer. One caution-- many of these approvals are dated and require perioidic updating, so if possible include the correct dating and update whenever your new information is published. |
Shedrick E. Glass, CSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: shedd_glass
Post Number: 24
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 10:12 am: | |
I agree with both postings above and would add that I like to see installation requirements directed to the INSTALLER.
Including such information makes your spec suitable for installation instructions as well as product data and communicates necessary information to the installer as well as to the spec writer, GC, A/E and others for field observation.
I see such a product spec as a very good submittal also. |
Nathan Woods, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: nwoods
Post Number: 106
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 10:57 am: | |
As the end user of the specs, the guy reviewing submittals, there are a few things I would add.
Like Ralph mentioned, compliance with technical standards is crucially important. It's proper to reference them in the written spec, and essential to have current reports in PDF format available on your website for download. It's getting to the point I can't use anything without an ICC Assembly, UL number, LA Research Report number, etc....
The other thing that would be of tremendous help is to pick your major competitor (ideally, a larger well established MFR), and make sure your technical data and measurements are the same in nature as the competitors. Quite often I get submittals on materials that I cannot compare apples to apples with the information I have on a product I am familar with. If I can't make a uniform comparision, your material will be rejected as unqualified substitute. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 11:20 am: | |
As a seasoned specifier, I never use a manufacturer "guide specifications." I prefer to write my own using my own writing style and language, customizing my master to the project requirements.
I wish that the manufacturers would provide sufficient technical data, installation instructions, pertinent codes and standards, current testing data, and whatever else is necessary for a full understanding of the product so I can write a good, solid, enforceable specification section consistent with the requirements of my architect and owner and the project. After all, it's my CCS credentials and my professional liability. I am being paid to professionally and responsibility prepare correct and applicable project specifications (not just one section).
I have to ask - What liability will the manufacturer accept if there is an error in the downloaded document? For the manufacturer it is a "guide spec," they are not the paid professional; they have no way of knowing the project or owner's requirements. The manufacturer is not responsible for coordinating the section with related sections or the drawings or with the project requirements. That's my responsibility.
Being in a rush or on a deadline is not an acceptable excuse for using downloaded spec sections from various manufacturers's websites and pass them off as a coordinated, project specific set of specifications. That's bad planning and a poor excuse.
Most (not all) manufacturer websites, offer "guide specifications" (and I use that terms very loosely) in lieu of posting technical data. There are 1001 and drawings details, but the technical data is limited to a page titled "Specifications."
How does that tell me what I need to know or how to defend what I wrote if I ever have to go into court or into arbitration? Other questions - how long has that "guide spec" been posted; when was it last updated; who wrote it and what are their credentials; is there a date on it? Is the version I used archived on the website for future reference if necessary or will it have been deleted and replaced with no written record of the manufacturer's actual recommendations. Along with convenience of instant data, electronic media has made it easy to not have original copies of data. That makes it difficult if we should ever end up in any legal proceeding or need to produce the original data from which our sections are written.
At many web sites, the "guide spec" is a USE ME very proprietary spec with no performance criteria or physical properties of the various proprietary components. It is often written using the dreaded "The Contractor (or subcontractor or installer) shall..." phrase in lieu of the imperative mood.
I utilize manufacturers's websites. I read their limited technical data and see if there is something new or that I should be aware of, ask my friendly rep about, or incorporate into my masters. I don't rely on the websites or the proprietary data posted. Many sites are product teasers with very little useable technical data.
I know of many spec editors and word processors who use downloaded guide specs. That is their option. I'll stick with the way I was trained. I'll continue to reseach the products and maintain my masters to avoid concern about technical inconsistencies and lack of coordination with the other 90+ sections I wrote using my masters and the architect's drawings. |
Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 295
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 11:30 am: | |
I have to partially disagree with Shedrick. Specifications are specifications, and installation instructions are installation instructions; and the two should only have a slight overlap.
I hate to receive specifications as a submittal. I have two reasons: 1) they are usually unedited when submitted and typically contain every system, component, finish, etc. that the manufacturer provides, and 2) they may have Part 1 and/or Part 2 requirements that are in conflict with my specification.
A manufacturer's guide spec written in nonproprietary, or even semi-proprietary, language complying with the standards of CSI, are very useful; especially for a product that isn't specified in one of the available guide spec systems.
I agree installation instructions should be directed to the installer, but specifications should never be directed to the installer--only the contractor. Installation instructions are step-by-step directions on how to install that specific product, which may vary from product to product. Therefore, the Part 3 of the specifications should remain as generic as possible, focusing on examination, tolerances, inspection, and basic installation requirements to achieve the desired results. |
Wayne Yancey
Senior Member
Username: wyancey
Post Number: 153
Registered: 05-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 11:37 am: | |
In addition to the above:
Be truthfull regarding the performance requirements your products are capable of acheiving (test procedures [AAMA, ASTM] structural, water penetration, air infiltration, condensation, etc).
Use current CSI section and page formats.
I detest retyping from hard copy. Please provide your sections in MSWord, WordPerfect, or at least MS Worpad formats for easy formatting.
Wayne
PS. Make it easy to download your standard details in AutoCAD or MicroStation. |
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 430
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 01:41 pm: | |
Thinking about this and all the good information above, I have 2 other thoughts--
1. Don't write a lot of "manufacturer's information" into the spec; You can add such information in another format, but don't make me edit out a lot of extraneous data.
2. Suggest your firm hire a good specifications writer/consultant to write appropriate Sections for you. Will get good /best practice specifications results and without bias. An investment that will pay dividends in good will. |
Richard Baxter, AIA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rbaxter
Post Number: 24
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 02:03 pm: | |
I like what has been written so far. I know I’m repeating much of what some of you have already said, but these are the things I would like to see in manufacturer’s guide specs:
First, manufacturer’s specs should learn CSI’s SectionFormat and PageFormat. Their specs often claim to be using a CSI three-part spec, but then fail to put the appropriate information in the appropriate part of the spec. I often find the entire product described in part 1 and then find it all described again in Part 2. Part 1 of the spec should not mention any specific product names or model numbers.
Second, manufacturers should worry more about obtaining our trust and stop trying to fool us specifiers into cutting out or impeding competition. Architects generally want competitive bidding. If the product or components of the product are significantly unique, that fact can be pointed out in a comment to the specifier and the product or component can be specified as a basis of design option.
I have much more respect for a manufacturer when I see components mentioned in their spec that are not provided by that manufacturer, but that the manufacturer knows are offered by other manufacturers. It tells me that perhaps the manufacturer can be trusted and is willing to be honest with me. The more proprietary the guide spec, the less I trust the manufacturer. They obviously just want to sell their product. They don’t care what I, the architect/specifier, want.
Third, as mentioned, specs need to be written as direct commands to the general contractor. Too many manufacturer specs direct their comments to the installers and subcontractors. Too many talk about what shall be done instead of just telling the General Contractor what to do.
Fourth, manufacturers should try to put themselves in the architect’s shoes when they write their guide specs. I see so many guide specs that are written from the manufacturer’s perspective. For example, specs should not say “such and such shall be installed by others”. Architects don’t care who installs it. That’s the general contractor’s business. Architects just want it installed correctly, by someone who has experience, and who is approved of by the manufacturer. Nor should the spec say, “manufacturer will not be responsible for such and such.” Architects hold the General Contractor responsible for everything.
Finally, I want to see product components described as generically as possible rather than just indicated as some model or series number. The model number can be included as a basis-of-design option, but I like to know what I am specifying, not just that some manufacturer says this component is necessary. I like to see comments to the specifier that explain what the component is for and why it should not or cannot be deleted from the spec. Comments should be written as if we specifiers don’t have a clue what the required or alternative product components are.
I know it’s a waste of time expecting manufacturers not to continue to do what they think will make them the most money. But I will continue to avoid using manufacturer’s specs that have the traits described above. |
Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED AP SCIP Affiliate
Senior Member
Username: lynn_javoroski
Post Number: 401
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 02:10 pm: | |
As to Ralph's #2 suggestion, find a SCIP member in your area and hire that person to write your specifications. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 02:14 pm: | |
I agree with all the above in some fashion or another. A couple of other thoughts that maybe helpful.
1) Doing a lot of public bid work I really appreciate reps who know their competition and give comparision data in a positive way. A rep and product data/specs that clearly acknowledges the competition and is not scared of it gets my vote everytime. These are the reps who are trying to do right by the project not by the products they rep. One of my favorite reps will tell me if their products are right for the particular condition or not. If not he says check out X, Y, and Z. As a result I would say that such a rep wins the project that they are right for 80% of the time. Probably because they know their competition very well.
2)I really agree with Ralph's comment about hiring a good specification writer. Also remember that if you decide to go with a consultant that uses a spec program as a base the manufacturer should purchase a license with that spec program. I thing that the spec programs do give the manufacturer a good idea of national perspective and information that will help them answer questions that architects/engineers and spec writers are asking. It does not mean that the manufacture should use these spec programs right out of the box. They need a professional. |
Michael D Chambers FAIA FCSI
New member
Username: sbamdc
Post Number: 1
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 02:49 pm: | |
While guide specifications are very useful and to be encouraged. They have limited value due to the previously mentioned fact that most specifiers only use guide specs for reference.
Consider offering to review project specifications before they are put out for bid. It is a significant service and one that allows manufacturers to get a heads up on new projects. The review must be accomplished in a very non-biased and impartial way but most specifiers appreciate having useable industry input.
There are a number of articles on these topics at my website www.mcaspecs.com that may be of interest.
Good points and great discussion. |
Robert E. Woodburn
Senior Member
Username: bwoodburn
Post Number: 122
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 03:48 pm: | |
Sometimes I already have a master section that covers a certain type of product (excuse me, type of work results), but I need to add (or substitute) text that applies specifically to a product not included. What might be most useful in this case is not a full spec section, but a set of the essential articles or paragraphs to be inserted in Parts 2 and 3. Perhaps also a concise checklist of essential characteristics and installation guidelines, to make sure those are covered.
What I appreciate least is the "stealth proprietary" spec, one that masquerades as a performance spec. However, they are ususally easy to spot, with a list of test standards and results so detailed that their main effect (and purpose) is to exclude all the competition. Their main benefit to me is that they tell me that this manufacturer is more interested in increasing its profits through deception than through helping other building team members find the most appropriate and cost-effective products, thereby making those manufacturers easier to avoid.
Let me also put in a word for WordPerfect versions of downloads, as well as MS Word. There are still a significant number of us specifiers that prefer WordPerfect to Word, probably a higher percentage than in the general computer-user universe. In my case, it also happens to be our office standard wordprocessing software. |
Jo Drummond, FCSI
Senior Member
Username: jod
Post Number: 7
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 08:31 pm: | |
I prefer that manufacturers have a "guide spec" to download. It's up to us as spec. writers to know how to edit it. Sometimes I might use only 4 lines out of a 4 page spec., but having those 4 lines in spec. format, and maybe spec. language is a time saver.
Also the guide specs. and all the literature for that matter, should be accessible without signing in or registering.
I won't register at a manufacturer's site. If one requires it, I go to another manufacturer. |
Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED AP SCIP Affiliate
Senior Member
Username: lynn_javoroski
Post Number: 402
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 02, 2006 - 08:50 am: | |
As an aside, yesterday I went to a manufacturer's web site (by request from the architect). According to the site, CSI 3-part specs were available, but when I clicked, I was redirected to Sweets, where I needed to either log in, complete with password, or register. The log-in/registration didn't work for whatever reason, and I was unable to obtain the specification I needed. In frustration, I called the manufacturer who emailed me the spec I needed.
But I spent valuable minutes attempting to log-in/register, call the company and explain what I needed and why. I lodged a complaint about having a "sub handle the work that the contractor should do", and mentioned that if the manufacturer would just put the technical information including the specs on their own web site, I'd be a lot happier.
Moral of the story: have the information on your own site, don't link to another. |
Tracy Van Niel
Senior Member
Username: tracy_van_niel
Post Number: 183
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 02, 2006 - 08:56 am: | |
Because I only use manufacturer's specifications as guides for creating or modifying my own master, I would prefer to just have them available as a .pdf since I don't plan on editing them.
I also agree with Jo, I don't want to have to register at a website to use or print the specifications.
And, because of the type of work that my office does, I need to be able to list more than one manufacturer for an item ... if the manufacturer was secure enough with their own worth ... it would be nice to know what products THEY consider to be equals to their own. After all, if their product is not base spec'd or listed as an acceptable manufacturer for a particular project, then they are trying to be approved as "equal" to the other guys, right? |
Mitch Miller, AIA ,CSI, CCS, MAI
Senior Member
Username: m2architek
Post Number: 87
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 02, 2006 - 09:01 am: | |
I too, do not like when manufacturer's require a log-on. It requires too much time, and then to find out that the information isnt what was expected!
Additionally, I agree with Tracy, what a wonderful concept to have manufacturer's be secure enough to offer VIALBLE EQUALS! |
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 432
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 02, 2006 - 09:36 am: | |
New kid, just asking-- is the information posted here part of the Product Rep academic program, so these comments can filter back to the manufacturers?
Realize each rep is individually limited in what they can do, but perhaps several can move corporate mindsets. |
John Carter (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 28, 2007 - 09:48 am: | |
Manufacturer specifications can be a good resource. At least they tell me what materials the manufacturer uses and what standards they meet.
What NOT to do:
NO PDFs. Word Doc files are good.
NO logins.
Do NOT write the specification sections in "catalog" style. Avoid using phrases such as "available in 12 colors" - no one ever says things like that in a spec.
YES, include editors' notes that explain your product options so that we can understand the choices and edit the section.
Most of us specifiers are going to download the spec (as Jo said earlier) and use about 4 paragraphs of it and paste them in to our own sections (but not always - if you write it well I might just use it).
AND HERE's WHAT MAKES ME CRAZY:
An architect will call you (the manufacturer) and discuss specific details about what they want on their project. Then they will call me and tell me to call the manufacturer's rep because they know all about the project. By the time I call the Rep, they don't have a clue what is required and they just email a "boilerplate" spec to me. What we, the specifiers, would like you, the manufacturers, to do is to edit that spec to reflect the discussions with the architect. |
Jerry Tims (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 11:39 am: | |
I realize it's been months since the last post on this subject, but here's another thing to consider. Make sure the spec/technical information is FAST and EASY to find on your website. Truth be told, if I'm specifying a product I've never specified before, and I go to your website and start trying to find the information I need, well, if I can't find it in 2 minutes or less, back to 4specs (and one of your competitors) I'll go. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 01:43 pm: | |
And another: DO NOT require that potential downloaders are requried to go through any rigamarole to get the spec from the web site. It infuriates me when manufacturer's web sites require that I register by uploading all sorts of BS information before I can gain access to technical documents. I routinely skip this process and MOVE ON TO A COMPETITOR'S web site. Take note, reps. |
|
4specs.com Home Page