Who has converted / converting No. 2

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

Author Message Dale Hurttgam, NCARB, AIA,LEED AP, CSI Senior Member Username: dwhurttgam Post Number: 13 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 03:41 pm:    We will be discussing this in our office again in the near future, and I would like to get some input on what is happening in the industry with respect to conversion to MasterFormat 2004. There was a thread for this previously, but it strayed away from the topic. We are a large firm and our policy had been that we would convert if it became necessary from a client driven standpoint - otherwise as it became more common practice. So far we've only had a single discipline project where there was a client requirement for compliance. In our area, I am only aware of one firm that has totally switched over. So my question is - how many firms have converted to MasterFormat 2004 - most,limited, certain regions? Our organization has multiple locations - in the Detroit/Michigan area we are still MasterFormat 95. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 465 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 04:17 pm:    My company, which has offices in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and California, made the committment to change over at the beginning of 2006, unless the client requested that we not. So far, all the projects I've done this year have been in MF04. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 620 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 05:26 pm:    We have converted to MF04, although a handful of projects are still in MF95 as we work through open projects. New ones are all MF04. I hear that some firms around Boston are not converting, but I have no real data. I'm an in-house specifier for a full service A/E firm, and all disciplines are converted. I personally think that waiting for clients to ask for MasterFormat 2004 is like waiting for a client to ask for us to use the new 2005 AAMA window standard rather than the 1997 edition. HUH? (Independent specifiers are be a different story, of course.) Just take the leadership and do it! Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 285 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 07:27 pm:    As an independent specwriter - we have yet to convert, all our work is in the private sector, our clients - architects and developers prefer the 1995 version...additionally for us changing to 2004 means more sections per job, more work, more time, none of which our clients are willing to pay for as of yet, when that mentality changes, we will follow the pack, for now the old version is the best version for us. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 764 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 08:37 pm:    My firm "officially" converted on January 1, 2006. This date was set by many of the specifiers in the Puget Sound area. We informally agreed to set this date since we have not received direction from Institute and someone has take the plunge. Anyhow, I am still struggling with the conversion process a year later. MasterFormat 1995 is so entrenched in our office from specs to binders to filing, etc. The firm's business manager had a talk with me the other day about my quarterly labor reports. It seems that I have been spending an excessive amount of time this year on "Master Specification Writing" (overhead) instead of billable work. I explained that most of the time was converting over to the new system. He wanted to know when I would be done with the conversion. I said a few months (I lied). Anyhow I really wonder if anyone here can honestly say that their specs are better and more coordinated now that they are using MasterFormat 2004. I can't. My specs are not better, just different. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 74 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 08:51 pm:    I converted the beginning of this year. (I am an independant) I have had no problem w/ any of my clients, except for a few public projects. I took the time to give a 1/2 hour presentation last december to my major clients and gave them a handout. One of my MF95 jobs recently had 5 different consultants provide "division 17" sections... an argument for the new MF04 if ever I saw one. The other consultants I deal with are slowly converting. As a member of CSI and as a spec-writer, I guess I feel it is my responsibility to lead the industry, and educate the industry, not just to dig my heals in an resist change. And you know what, it really doesn't take any extra time to do the jobs in the new format. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 223 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 12:24 am:    I began converting a firm prior to going independent this past year. A major client interrupted our conversion due to their accounting issues. I've done several library conversions for clients since going independent. The advantages of MF04 are apparent when handling PME documents; that alone is worth the price of converting. The added level of detail, and the more dedicated Levels 4 and 5 of MF04 will no doubt pay off over time. We work with a number of manufacturers, and we produce guide specification documents that can "go both ways," but we recommend leaning toward MF04, as we expect the advantages will become apparent over time, despite the hesitance to change that seems to be common at the moment. Doug Frank FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 163 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 08:40 am:    I decided to be proactive and sent a letter to all of our consultants back in July 05 to inform them that we’ll be switching all of our projects to MF04 as of January 1 2006. I agree that waiting for a client to request it is not the way to make it happen. I’m happy to report though that there are some major client-types (institutional, government, and commercial) in Texas that are now requiring 04 on their projects. Since January we’ve done all new projects (with a couple of exceptions for on-going work) in 04. We have three offices and projects all across the country. There have been a lot of glitches in the process however including stuff like some MEP and Structural consultants giving me specs with section number and title updated but internal references still reading the 97 edition! Overall though, the transition hasn’t been too painful (except trying to learn the new numbers after 25 years using the “old” ones). Understand that it’s the Numbers that are old, not me ;-) David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 187 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 09:07 am:    We too were proactive in the switchover to MF '04. We did a mass-mailing in April 2005 to all consultants the we had a record of in our database, to alert them that all projects issued after August 1, 2005 were required to be MF '04-compliant. We also offered free in-house training to bring them up to speed on the new numbers and divisions. To date, we've issued up to about 50 projects or so under MasterFormat 2004, with no known problems or repercussions from the Contractor's side. And we, too, have had a few projects where we still carried over the '95 numbers (works-in-progress, prototype projects, client demands, etc.). Other than an occasional instance of the consultants forgetting to address the cross referencing, as Doug mentions above, the consultants have been pretty compliant about the update. The consultants may grumble at first (and maybe even more so behind our backs), but as soon as they see the benefits of the expansion, the flexibility, the removal of a lot of the guesswork (MF '95 had thousands of titles with no assigned number, leaving it up to the user to assign, hence no uniformity), the more they seem to like it and are more accepting. Another pro-active initiative we took was to NOT ask the owner - much the same way we do not ask if we could upgrade to a new version of CAD software, or how to number the drawing sheets, or if we should number details on a sheet from the upper left corner or lower right. As far as we were concerned, these were tools of the trade, and our interpretation of "standard of care" meant that we use the best and most current tools, formats, and resources available at our disposal. Russ Hinkle, AIA, CCS Senior Member Username: rhinkle Post Number: 12 Registered: 02-2006 Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 09:21 am:    Before switching jobs last April, I had converted the office masters to be able to do either MF04 or MF95 using Speclink. I found it to be fairly simple to switch back and forth depending on project requirements. Where I could I pushed for the new and want specific reasons for not using the new system. Speclink gave me the ablity to pick the projects to learn on and not burden the more difficult projects. I am curious if the tools people use(or have grown attached to) are making a big difference Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 116 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 10:22 am:    I too am an independent consultant and do almost entirely private work with private developers. I alerted my clients to the pending change at the end of 2005 and did a conversion of my master. At the beginning of 2006, I started proposing using 2004 on projects. My projects have been about 50/50 during 2006. The 1995 projects relate mainly to MEP engineers being slow in converting. This seems to be changing. I expect they will almost all be 2004 during 2007. I would strongly disagree that projects in 2004 require many more sections, more work, and cost more. I have found no substantial difference. I think I ended up subdividing one Division 01 section because of the movement of substitutions. The change in the organization and numbering does not change fundamentally how we prepare specifictions or the amount of work involved. I would second (or actually it looks like third, fourth, or fifth) the concept of being proactive in how you do your work. You will not be identified as a leader in your field if you are the follower waiting for your clients to make your decisions for you. You will probably have a long wait. Kenneth C. Crocco Senior Member Username: kcrocco Post Number: 67 Registered: 04-2003 Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 12:25 pm:    I don't remember when I've seen so much agreement among a group of specifiers. I can ditto Bob above almost to the word and most others' previous responses. MF04 is an improvement and it works. To wait to do the conversion until a client requests it would be very difficult for me. I like to get my feet wet before someone asks me to swim across the lake. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 507 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 12:41 pm:    We converted starting August 1, 2005, and have had a good run. We are A/E, so the conversion was an in-house exercise. No complaints from our staff , the few consultants we use or from our clients. We did stay with '95 and 5-digit Sections where project scope expanded and the same contractors were utilzied. We are "weaning" away from even doing that. Tracy Van Niel Senior Member Username: tracy_van_niel Post Number: 195 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 03:00 pm:    My office is in Columbus, Ohio and we are fully converted to MF04. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 243 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 03:18 pm:    Dale- Like yours, our organization is large with multiple offices, but rather than letting the decision to convert be client-driven, we have gone with the proactive approach for many of the same reasons expressed above. We've set January 1, 2007 as the date for all offices to use MF04 on all new projects. We are allowing MF95 for ongoing projects, and may continue to use MF95 on subsequent phases of previous projects, but other than those two exceptions, the intent is to fully convert to MF04. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 286 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 03:52 pm:    Well I always was the black sheep in the group - seriously, based on what I have heard I will start the conversion process next year, however we have heard specifically from several clients who do not want to change, and although I understand the premise of leading your clients in the right direction, but this is a competitive world, and your best clients are always your existing clients (as long as they pay their invoices) - keeping them happy keeps them loyal, year after year. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 75 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 04:34 pm:    Jerome: I highly doubt any of your clients will leave because you are using the new MF04. To be honest - where will they go? Most spec writers have converted/are converting, and most are so busy they can't take any new clients anyway! Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 287 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 05:04 pm:    Oh contrare, some of those clients have hinted at bringing in an in-house specwriter...four years ago we lost our biggest client to such a situation...it took a lot of marketing to rebuild...apparently you are not providing services to Florida developers or architects, its a different world down here. I have a number of out of state clients who treat our relationship much differently...granted I have been fortunate to remain busy, but in the private sector that could change at anytime. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 288 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 05:17 pm:    After MF04 was adopted, several of our CSI colleagues called to tell us how important it was to convert to MF04 - for a small firm we do an enormous amount of work and they wanted to add our office to their arsenal of converters, their arguement was that if we did not convert we would be looked at as behind the times...that has yet to happen, when it does, when a prospective client tells us no job, because we do not provide MF04 format, perhaps then the bell will go off. I disagree with the notion that there would be limited work involved...our specs are customized for work in Florida, we use Masterspec as a database only, our specs are based on over 15 years of work in Florida on some of the highest liability projects, i.e. the dreaded condominium. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 76 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, December 14, 2006 - 11:51 am:    If they can find someone to hire as an in-house spec writer... can you let me know who it is? I have been looking to hire someone for 3 year, and I know several other firms that have been looking for at least that long. Seriously, it took my assistant about 2 days to convert the numbering system for us. I'm just saying, it's really hasn't been a time consuming endeavor. I have turned away some public projects because they want to use the old format and the projects dont start until Mar 07, and I said that I won't be producing Project Manuals in an outdated format in 2007. So, I lost the job. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 466 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, December 14, 2006 - 11:59 am:    "Oh contrare"? I always thought it was "au contraire" - or are we just so annoyed with the French that we won't use their language in any way? Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 375 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, December 14, 2006 - 12:01 pm:    Oui...oops, I mean, yes. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 424 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, December 14, 2006 - 01:06 pm:    we're in process in our offices with MF04. The Seattle and Portland offices are doing all new work in 04; the LA office tends to remain oblivious; and the DC office is more 95 than 04 at the moment. I figure it will be about 2 years before we're fully converted. Our projects are big -- usually in the office for close to 2 years before they leave the shop, and the turning radius of them is a few months long...