Archive through June 15, 2006

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

Author Message Russell W. Wood, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: woodr5678 Post Number: 63 Registered: 11-2003 Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 02:48 pm:    Every great artist wants to create at least one indisputable masterpiece. Such as a Mona Lisa, a Guggenheim, a Gettysburg Address, a Sgt. Peppers. As Specification Writers and Architects....what is your masterpiece? Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 158 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 03:10 pm:    I was told that Thurgood Marshall listed his children on his tax form as his two greatest assets. If I exclude my daughter who is doing fine but still a work in progress, I must admit I have not written one yet. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 116 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 05:30 pm:    The best definition of art I've heard is "ART is the USE of SKILL" -- i.e., how, or how WELL, one uses the applicable technique, presumably to accomplish a given purpose. By this definition, a "masterpiece" would be an instance of the superb use of skill, resulting in outstanding or exemplary success at accomplishing the intended purpose. (It need not involve innovation, unless innovation is essential to accomplishing the purpose, which is sometimes, but not always, the case.) One needs to ask, "What is the purpose?", "What are the available techniques?", "How well was the purpose fulfilled? and "Was that success attributable to the skillful use of the appropriate techniques?" So, what is the purpose? Clearly defined, unequivocal requirements? Bids in the budget? A tight bid spread? A minimum of addenda and change orders? A client impressed enough to realize that the specs were a significant factor in achieving a successfully completed project? A spec that fully conforms to all recommendations of CSI's latest formats and PRM? Winning a spec competition? All of the above? (or all but the last two...?) Are these realistic goals? One or two at a time may be, but if all are considered together, are they even achievable? Personally, I am gratified when I can put together (or distill out) a well-worded sentence or paragraph -- succinct, clear, easy to read, and easy to understand. And I seek that result as often as time permits, which is not very often, so I focus those efforts on key, unique or new provisions. I suppose you could call me a miniaturist. My masterpieces, if they can be called that, are a very small part of my output, usually limited to critical wording where the purpose can be definied as concision and clarity--a few polished gems mixed into the aggregate, and just as likely to be noticed... My two cents... John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 538 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 08:42 am:    I've written some project manuals that were very thorough and I was extremely satisfied with. I've re-written some confused and uncoordinated general conditions for public owners that they were extremely satisfied with. I've done some forensic studies of "troubled" buildings that were very gratifying. But, all my masterpieces are photographs. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 166 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 09:23 am:    Our end product is the building, not the specification or drawings. So is our masterpiece a well-prepared project manual, or is it a building that was built the way it was designed, with a minimum of problems and change orders, that we can take pride is saying "I wrote the specifications for that project"? Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 403 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 09:36 am:    Mr. Metzger-- Individually, your masterpiece is the Project Manual. Collectively, as a mamber of the project team, your masterpiece is the completed buiding. My masterpiece-- could well be the very next thing I do! Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 84 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 11:41 am:    I would submit that one of the problems in our age of ever growing specialization is that we put so much emphasis on our own specilized activity or responsibility that we loose perspective on the real goal of the project team to produce a sucessful project. We spend too much time defending our own turf and looking upon other project team members as enemeies rather than as team members. To go back to the old Pogo quote: "We have met the enemy, and he is us." We need more people to spend more time and energy in improving how we can work togeher to produce project masterpieces. We need more people looking at the big picture. Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 134 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 03:16 pm:    Bob: How do you suggest we translate this to the overall CSI picture? With the right people, the right motivation and desire, the right perspective, and good leadership can we produce a masterpiece? Ron Bill Coady CSI, CCPR New member Username: billcoady Post Number: 1 Registered: 06-2006 Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 06:18 pm:    Jeez, Marc, you took the words right out of my mouth! Couldn't one definitiion of a masterpiece be "something that is a constantly evolving work in progress"? Art, music, structures, even people? They all are judged from many perspectives including social and historical. Your daughter is your masterpiece and is being judged (positively) at this point in her life. Having a dad like you who is proud of her will serve her well as she grows. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 675 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 07:01 pm:    "My best project manual......is my next project manual." - David Axt "I am careful not to confuse excellence with perfection. Excellence, I can reach for; perfection is God's business." -Michael J. Fox Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 85 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 07:40 pm:    Ron Your questions seem to be an invitation to get on my bandstand. I am giving in to the temptation - so here goes whether you want it or not: The concept obviously fits very well into the CSI picture because CSI is the one organization we have where all the parties to the design and construction process are represented. It is this fact that has always attracted me to CSI and why I have maintained a high level of involvement in the organization for so many years. I don't get much enjoyment or satisfaction out of sitting down with a group of people that only represents one segment of the industry. Since I have worked on the A/E side, the owner's side, the general contractor's side, and been a spec consultant, I have experienced quite a few of those types of meetings over the years from a variety of points of view. In my experience they often degenerate into a complaint session about the other parties in the process. Everyone feels better afterwards because they had a chance to air their complaints but most often they do not result in any positive steps to improve the process. That is not to say that common groups of people should not get together and discuss common issues. There is certainly value in this and it is valuable to learn from each other rather than learning everything the hard way. My point is that to improve the process you have to engage others besides your own peers. The great thing about CSI is you can't just blame the other parties for everything because they are also sitting around the table and will defend their positions. CSI provides a location for forums where all parties to the process can come together to contribute to ideas and programs that can improve the process and industry. No matter what we are responsible for in the design and construction process, our actions will have major effects on the other parties. It is the continuous supplier/customer chain. You are the supplier of some information, service, or product that is passed on to someone else in the process. That party is your customer. That party then adds something to the information, service, or product they receive from you and passes it on to the next party and in so doing becomes the supplier to the next customer, the next party in line. And so it goes on and on. The quality of the project at the end will be the result of the summation of the quality of all the steps along the way. The more each supplier understands the needs of the customer (the next party in the process), the better the supplier will be able to meet the needs of the customer. The better the customer understands the capabilities of the supplier, the better the customer will be able to adjust the process. This process starts at the very beginning as the owner determines the criteria for the project all the way down to the bloody end of the completion of the punchlist items and taking care of warranty items. A successful project (maybe a masterpiece) will be the result of more quality supplier/customer transactions. A problem project will be the result of more poor supplier/customer transactions or maybe a few critical problem supplier/customer transactions - all the steps in the process are obviously not of equal value. The point of this is that you can't look at your own responsibilities in isolation from the other project team members. The total process has to be seen within the context of the continuous supplier/customer chain. To a good job of improving your service or product, you must have a thorough understanding of your customer's needs - that means listening to them during some good communication. The other complicating factor is of course that the process is constantly evolving so that it is not a static situation. What worked well on this project might not work so well on the next project. Do all the people have to be the perfect choices for project and have the highest of qualifications and experience? Do you have to go through the project without anyone making a mistake or error in judgment? No I don't think so. In my experience every project will have some problems - the secret is how well the project team is able to work together to overcome the problems. Some of the parties involved are going to have some weaknesses that other have to help overcome. Some of the parties may lose some critical personnel that make the jobs of other more difficult. These are just a couple of examples. On one project you may be the party helping others and on the next project you may be the party needing help from the other parties. On most projects there is probably some give and take of that among all the parties on a continuing basis. I think the most overriding factor for successful projects is having the success of the project be the most important driving force in how all the parties make decisions on the project. It does take very good project leadership to inspire that sort of commitment. It also means that the project team members have confidence that they will be treated fairly by the project leadership. In my definition of a successful project, all the parties involved feel good about their participation and contributions and also receive appropriate compensation. If you interested in pursing this subject further you can read a couple of related articles I wrote several years ago: Total Team Approach, Specifier, Nov 1997 (http://www.csinet.org/s_csi/doc_specifier_article.asp?TRACKID=52BKMM9F6VTZEW46RZBGZZZWYK7KL3GG&CID=938&DID=9000) Working and Playing Well with Others, Specifier, Aug 1998 (this issue was not in archive on CSI website)