Archive through May 20, 2005

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

Author Message Doug Frank FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 102 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 02:56 pm:    I’ve been a MasterSpec subscriber for many years now, and fairly content with the product. I don’t actually “Use” it; it’s a tool that I use in creating and maintaining my own in-house masters. Over the past few years I’ve been looking at the BSD speclink system with increasing interest. After spending about an hour with a BSD rep in Chicago at the Show, my interest is even more piqued. I really like the database platform concept, since I’m now managing about 5 separate Master spec formats. Have any of y’all used or are using speclink,, and would you be willing to share your thoughts with me? Obviously I’m not trying to start up a competition-bashing forum here, and I’m sure Colin doesn’t want that either. If you’re uncomfortable with a public posting, perhaps you might e-mail me directly at dfrank@fkp.com, or 713-821-9295. Thanks for your input. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 105 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 03:07 pm:    I have and use both. Speclink has spectext short language vs verbose Mspec language. Mspec CAN be better for some things like their overkill sealant section testing testing testing (for large projects) vs speclink pickit, useit. period (better for medium to small projects.) I like the concept of a database and the fact of NOT using Word. No formating nightmares etc. BUT it's not as easy to share with your consultants... I'm on a deadline so More later. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 26 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 04:30 pm:    Doug, I've been using SpecLink in this office (except for DoD SpecsIntact jobs) for three years. It has several advantages over whatever else is out there -- too many to list -- but the features I like the most are these: 1. If you really want to, you can develop and maintain office or building-type masters in SpecLink, but you really don't need to, because any past project can serve as a basis for any other. The reason: You can't ever delete master text. It's still there, underlying your edited version in its original form, even though you edit or hide it, or overlay it entirely with your own replacement text. You can always get any or all of the master text back if you want to. So, every job is a master. That's a realalistic approach. 2. Updating the database every quarter is easy - virtually automatic -- but it never overwrites your own edits and customized text, it only revises the master. Best of both worlds. If you so choose, you can update any project spec painlessly. (Or leave it as is, and not update it, if you prefer.) Because of these features, you can keep developing your own versions of sections indefinitely, without having to start over with each update. Editing is easy -- basically checking boxes to select or deselect desired paragraphs, "turning them on or off," as it were. Once a section has been edited once, it can usually be adapted for similar projects by just clicking or unclicking a few boxes, and a few minor edits. 3. You can toggle at will between MF 95 and MF 2004, and SpecLink will automatically renumber, rearrange and re-coordinate section references in the whole spec (Try THAT with anything else!). Though I haven't used this yet (we still use 95), I look forward to that convenience. However, MasterSpec can still serve in the way you use it -- a reference and resource. So you can still benefit from that subscription. Russell W. Wood, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: woodr5678 Post Number: 31 Registered: 11-2003 Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 05:00 pm:    I used SpecLink and now use MasterSpec and would recommend SpecLink over MasterSpec in a heartbeat. SpecLink applies outline format automatically, no more docs going out of format. Speclink allows universal changes, such as Owner name, project name, Arch name, font type, page formats, etc. Also, Speclink follows CSI Page Format. Also, SpecLink automatically creates a Table Of contents Contents. Need I say more? Anne Whitacre, CCS CSI Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 200 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 07:34 pm:    actually, Masterworks does all of those things as well and also provide a number of reports that will list submittals or other requirements of the documents. I have no comment on SpecLink since I have never used it, but one real advantage that Masterspec has is the review committee: its formalized (meets regularly), representative of various parts of the country and practice types and has a lot of history behind it. The research and resources in Masterspec are very valuable. The MasterWorks utilities do provide a lot of functionality to the specifications that may be passed over by people who are not familiar with that program. Masterspec is not a database program, but it does have batch editing capability through Masterworks, as well as report functions, table of contents, header/footer change; format/typeface change and other global changes. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 359 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 09:09 am:    I did a very thorough evaluation of Speclink vs. Masterspec a few years ago. One huge advantage of Masterspec is the evaluations (we used to call them "green sheets"). These are very useful, and at the time of my review, Speclink did not have nearly as much information. In addition, Masterspec is soon to drop its current version of Linx in favor of a newer system called "e-Specs Linx". This new system will apparently incorporate many of the good database features of Speclink that Robert Woodburn mentions. (Personal disclosure: I'm a member of AIA's Masterspec Architectural Review Committee.) Ronald J. Ray, RA, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: rjray Post Number: 37 Registered: 04-2004 Posted on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 09:23 am:    I have noticed over the years that MasterSpec copies more and more from SpecLink. I dropped my subscription to MasterSpec a last year. Like Mr. Frank, I used it as a resource to develop my own office master, not as a basis for writing specifications. I found it too general and with too many errors for my use. I’ve researched SpecLink quite a bit over the years, and suspect someday I will be a subscriber. In my opinion, it’s advantages, as numerated by Mr. Woodburn, make it the superior commercial specification system on the market, miles ahead of its imitators. Brett M. Wilbur Senior Member Username: brett Post Number: 30 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 09:57 am:    Mr. Bunzick et al, You bring up another interesting point: what about these specification programs which claim to integrate with CAD, like e-specs, and as I (mis) understand it, ADS is also moving in that direction. Self-generated specifications. Very interesting. Still a lot of manual labor though I presume. I suspect we are seeing the beginning of a total industry movement towards OmniClass as it integrates with BIM, or vice-versa. Anybody have any thoughts about that? Randall L. Cox Senior Member Username: randy_cox Post Number: 18 Registered: 04-2004 Posted on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 10:26 am:    Brett, There is a thread for that discussion "ARCOM and e-spec partnership" at http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/23/1504.html?1111011836 Brett M. Wilbur Senior Member Username: brett Post Number: 31 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 10:34 am:    Thanks Randall, I'll check it out. Didn't mean to step on previoulsy stepped on ground. I've been loooking at SpecLink for about 6 months, but I'm a little wary about pulling the trigger until I see which direction the industry is going. The more I study the more I realize I don't know, and the more I realize there are several viable options. Part of the problem is talking my firm into making major software shifts. May not be practical. P.S. I emailed Doug Franks, I have a specfication software comparision matirx I put together earlier this year. If anyone is interested in a copy, email me at wilbur@pbkarchitects.com Thanks, Brett J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 75 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 11:36 am:    I looked at SpecLink several years ago and was very intrigued. I do like the database concept, and the capabilities that Rob Woodburn mentioned are very attractive. With all due respect to Ann Whitacre's observations, the capabilities are implemented with much greater sophistication on SpecLink than they are in MasterWorks. I have been using Links for a little less than a year now, and it really helps in generating what I have called a "pre-edited master." However, SpecLink's database design means more flexibility and less processing. I did have the following concerns (which may or may not be currently relevant): 1. BSD seems to have become a very substantial company; however, what happens to your specs should BSD cease operations is a concern. The current setup requires periodic renewal; should those renewals stop, what happens to the stuff you have not put out to word processing files? 2. Output format is .rtf; a file format that is more portable among various word processors. However, I am not sure that such files are encoded with styles and formats to make them intelligently editable in Word or Wordperfect. I make extensive use of advanced word processing features available in Word; the one that is the most useful is automatic paragraph renumbering. The last time I checked, headers and footers were "manually" inserted on each page instead of making use of automated header/footers available in most word processing software. This renders the resulting files editable with the requirement for ongoing coordination of pagination (ugh!). I would hate to think that I had to go back to the database to make minor changes. I must make clear that I have not tried this recently so don't know if this remains true, but it is annoying. I first used MasterSpec in the late 1970s and have been a hands-on editor since then. I would suggest that those less familiar with advanced word processing will probably find SpecLink much more flexible and useful. I am comfortable with the structure and format, and actually prefer a more verbose spec (I have notice that current versions of MasterSpec are much less verbose than previous versions). I have long felt that the evaluation sheets are worth the cost of the subscription. If I were to switch over to SpecLink, I would suggest that my firm continue its MasterSpec subscription in order to maintain access to what I consider to be an extremely valuable resourse. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wyancey Post Number: 8 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 06:37 pm:    I would encourage all (if you have not already done so) to tap into the power or MASTERWORKS that is bundled with each update of MasterSpec. It automates many useful functions as described by Anne plus offers many useful formating options to delete white space between paragrpahs. It is easy to learn and the help desk is a phone call away and, FREE. We have our own master guide spec (starting from MasterSpec) that is purpose made for our market niche and type of service provided. We have a "best practice" policy and specify around products with a proven inservice track record, realiable trained installers, and realiable product representation. Cost is in the mix somewhere. MasterSpec is full of example language (needs streamlining) that is useful from time to time. I seldom create a spec for a product that we do not have a guide spec for. The paragraph styles in MasterSpec are excellent and easy to modify to suite clients page/section formats. Beats creating my own. The evaluations are an excellent resourse (See Peter Jordon posting above). And finally, don't forget the spec coordination and drawing coordination sheets at the end of each section. My take on SpecLink (after only a hosted online demo) is it is targeted for the design professional who is new to spec writing, or dabbles in spec writing, or reinvents the wheel for each project and starts from scratch each time. I have also used SpecText, Canada's NMS Masterspec, Specsintact, and prefer the AIA MasterSpec everything included model to the fill in the blanks model. I would stay clear of Specsintact altogether. I prefer to do my own thorough reading to determine what stays and what is deleted to coordinate Parts 3, 2, and 1. I still do not completely trust the automation provided by SpecLink. I also do not trust my e-mails to arrive at their destinations with out requesting a return receipt or phone call. I most likely need more time to see the power of SpecLink to appreciate it's benefits regarding improved productivity. By the way Peter, we crossed paths at Media Five Limited in the early 90's. I was there from Jan 90 to July 92. I still stay in contact with Alan Holl and Ann Matsunami. David Axt took over from me at MFL. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 107 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 07:55 pm:    Well, not to get into arguments. BUT I've used Speclink on a 50 million dollar convention center, a 20+/- million dollar music library (see Architecture (november issue cover) and a several million dollar shops/office building amoung others. I'm not a neophyte and I don't start from scratch each time, and the links that are in SpecLink work well and you can override them if you want. As I said before there are a few paragraphs that mspec has that are real usefull. And god help you if anybody not up to speed with mspec messes with the header or footer or without knowing styles modifies one. Masterworks is a good tool and the styles work well. But I cannot tell you how much time I have spent fixing sections that have been messed up by engineers or other people in our office. Now to be fair to Mspec most of that is not their fault it's Microsofts. MSWORD is very touchey especially with styles. I have NEVER had a formatting problem with SpecLink. That's the short version. PS I like the eval documents but most of the info is pretty general BUT do I want to compile it myself and turn it into HTML. NO WAY. It's worth a thousand dollars just to have it available. I just don't use the sections. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 108 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 07:56 pm:    And while i'm at it. You cannot judge a spec system by an online demo. You have to use it for a while. I use both systems weekly. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 28 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 08:39 pm:    Most design professionals want a simple, easy system for spec preparation. To accomplish this, some firms -- even many MasterSpec subscribers -- actually do what might be called "sourdough" or "sour mash" specs (since they use a previous job spec as "starter"). For some projects this seems to work pretty well; it's perfect for near-identical projects replicated in quick succession, and almost as apt for projects that are only similar. You just mark up a copy of the most similar recent job spec, add a few paragraphs or sections and have someone make the changes on the computer (or edit it directly, onscreen), and it’s done. This is especially efficient for often-repeated building types. It’s not the way most master systems are intended to be used (they’re really “guide specs” to be edited into an office master, to be further edited for each job), but it’s a common approach. We save time because we don't have to "start from scratch" on each job. There's a down side, of course. By their nature, these specs "evolve" from project to project, departing further and further from the source. And since regularly-issued master updates are seldom incorporated (because they overwrite your previous editing, which then has to be done over), they tend to get more and more outdated. Progressive deterioration in accuracy and currency are inherent. Another weakness may actually be more serious. Once provisions are deleted as inappropriate for a project, they're "gone forever" – omitted from (and likely not even considered for) future jobs, though they might then be appropriate. Even if you realize you need them, correctly re-importing the relevant text from the master may be neither simple nor easy. The answer is SpecLink, designed from the start to work this way (with a previous job as a source) and to prevent both of these problems (outdated and deleted content). Any project spec can be used as a basis for any other, because the full master text database is always available (though it can be hidden, or overlaid by an edited version, it is never deleted). All sections needing updates can be revised every quarter (not just once every few years on a rotating basis, as with MasterSpec and SpecsIntact), and those updates can be incorporated automatically (globally or selectively) in any spec, new or old, at any time, without overwriting any of your own added or edited text -- so newly-updated sections don’t have to be customized all over again, as with MasterSpec. With SpecLink, you never have to start from scratch. It’s designed from the ground up to let you use any previously-edited spec as the basis for the next one, whether you use a “typical project” you’ve edited as an office or building type master, or another. (Of course you'd use your most similar job.) The advantage is, you don’t have to edit all that text again, you just select or unselect the few items necessary to reflect what's different on the new job. You don’t even have to start from scratch the first time: Several typical pre-edited projects are built in; you can use those. In other words, SpecLink takes the way we really like to work, and makes it really work. Its ability to toggle globally between MF 95 and MF 2004 with a click is unique -- a bonus. Since BSD has now begun its own user advisory panel, that is no longer a unique MasterSpec advantage. And MasterSpec’s “MasterWorks” add-on utilities, though they include many of the global formatting functions built in to SpecLink, still can’t overcome MasterSpec’s two inherent – and serious – flaws, mentioned above. And it won’t be able to toggle at will between MasterFormat versions. SpecLink is superior in virtually every way as a production tool. Doug, as you, Marc and others have noted, MasterSpec’s supplementary material may well be worth the price as a reference and technical resource. But use SpecLink to produce your specs – it’s MUCH better. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 08:20 pm:    One thing I like about Masterspec is that, with one click, you can get to those information-packed support documents for whatever section you are working on. Those documents also include a list of manufacturers and their websites, allowing me to quickly and easily check out the products included in each section. They also occasionally include tables for comparing types of products provided by each manufacturer. I have to admit, however, I have sometimes been disappointed to find that even some of the most commonly specified products are not included in Masterspec’s list of available spec sections. We, for example, have more than once specified manufactured stone veneers, vehicle cable barriers, traffic doors, preassembled integrated door systems, darkroom doors, fiberglass doors, FRP panels, preassembled wood-slat panels, structural glass walls, phenolic lockers and television accessories. Yet none of these are included in Masterspec. I know they can’t include every little custom product invented by every small business in the country, but it seems to me that they could at least put their best efforts into including the products most valuable to specifiers as well as the latest and greatest products available on the market. David J. Wyatt Senior Member Username: dave_wyatt_csi_cca_ccca Post Number: 15 Registered: 09-2004 Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 10:00 am:    It comes down to economics. ARCOM can't address everyone's needs and keep the price for the basic package affordable. Designers will argue, however, that they end up paying one way or the other. Either they must pay for a master guide spec package that addresses more of their needs, or they must pay a professional writer to research the market, ascertain the applicable standards, identify qualified manufacturers, and describe the products that are lacking in the basic guide spec package. A study of the economics of both paths would determine which is the best way to proceed. You might also express your concerns to ARCOM. You will find that the company is very responsive. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wyancey Post Number: 10 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 12:33 pm:    Mark, like I said, "I most likely need more time to see the power of SpecLink to appreciate it's benefits regarding improved productivity." Since we work in the same local, perhaps you could put together a demo of the power of SpecLink for me and other interested spec writers in the Puget Sound? We talked about this during a Specifiers Group Lunch in March but I did not pickup much on the pros and cons. Are you using SpecLink at CW? Some of the updating features (not overwriting user defined paragraphs) sound good. Anne Whitacre, CCS CSI Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 201 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 05:51 pm:    regarding Masterspec and their new sections: Arcom gets suggestions regularly about new sections that might be needed -- both from subscribers and from the reviewing committee. They end up providing between 4 and 6 new sections a year. the LEED sections (and the dropping in of LEED language) is one example of a request that was rather quickly filled. some items are, simply more specialized. Some sections end up being in the "Supplemental" packages and not part of the Basic version. Some manufacturers which may seem "universal" to you actually don't market (or deliver) their products throughout the entire country, and therefore are not listed. I'm on the committee and we try to gage new sections based on their usefulness to a large group of subscribers; some of the items you mention have become more commonplace (fiberglass doors are being used in middle schools now, not just labs) and end up being moved up the list over time. I must admit that I've reviewed a whole lot of sections applicable for K-12 school work that I've never used, and will never use. if there are sections you think would be useful, go to the Arcom web site and send in a comment to them. (www.arcomnet.com) slund (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 02:24 pm:    Great idea Wayne. I'm in the midwest and would love a workshop detailing both systems and the various options available within them. I simply haven't had the time to investigate either one in any depth, and use Masterspec to update my masters only. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 78 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 10:26 am:    After my previous post, I thought I would review the latest demo to see if my comments are still valid. I will admit (again) that I would prefer to have the final specification in word processing format. SpecLink's .rtf output does have the automatic header/footers that I like; however, they don't really support styles (where the automatic paragraph numbering comes in). Their pagination to prevent widows and orphans doesn't really work very well. These objections really should not matter to a smaller office where the final specs are output directly from the database to the printer. I was a little surprised, however, to see how "terse" the listing of manufacturers and products was in the sample sections. While MasterSpec may not have as many sections to cover as many "work results," the sections they do have do a better job of listing applicable manufacturers and specific products. I do realize that you can edit the database in SpecLink to support the products your office prefers to use, but I would prefer to see the list a bit more comprehensive out of the box. It is possible to import MasterSpec into SpecLink and use SpecLink as an interface to work on MasterSpec. Importing the text and outline structure are relatively straightforward, it is the links between paragraphs within a section (if using above, don't use below) and the links between a particular section and other documents and sections in the Project Manual that would take time to set up. It is my understanding that this could be done. In my view, anyone whose typical office duties do not approach full-time spec writing should remember that any specification writing tool requires knowledge of building products and systems as well as knowledge of fundamental contract law. Both MasterSpec and SpecLink can increase the productivity of a knowledgeable spec writer tremendously; however, in the hands of a novice, both can be used to produce something that will not even make satisfactory manure. It would be hard to argue, however, that SpecLink would not be prefered in a smaller office or on smaller projects. Its requirements seem to be less comprehensive, its language more terse, and the interface provides more intelligent support to the spec writer in a hurry. I believe BSD is open to providing SpecLink demos in certain areas, especially when you can get several offices together for the presentation (like before or after a CSI chapter meeting). I would assume that ARCOM would be similarly inclined. I believe that MasterSpec offers me more in terms of indepth support as a primary resource. MasterSpec has been so much a part of the way I generate specs for so long that I would resist using another product as my primary support, however, I will admit that this is largely force of habit. Helaine K. Robinson CCS Senior Member Username: hollyrob Post Number: 142 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 11:23 am:    An excellent statement by JPJ which bears repeating: "Both MasterSpec and SpecLink can increase the productivity of a knowledgeable spec writer tremendously; however, in the hands of a novice, both can be used to produce something that will not even make satisfactory manure."