Specification "Guidelines" in lieu of...

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

Author Message Dale Hurttgam, NCARB, AIA,LEED AP, CSI Senior Member Username: dwhurttgam Post Number: 20 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 01:32 pm:    We have been experimenting with a concept where we would use a "Guideline" for each Spec Section in lieu of an "Office Master". We will retain a core of 20 +/- architectural "Office Master Sections" for Sections that have many office specific adjustments, and the balance will be "Guidelines". The basis of our specs is MasterSpec. The guideline would give key office specific criteria to convey office preferences when editing any given specific section. The concept is that the "Guideline" will be easier to maintain and update than "Office Masters". It will also leave the full gamit of spec section options available to utilize on any given project. Also, the "office preferences" are readily available to quickly review and access when you look at any given Section "Guideline". Has anyone used or tried a concept like this? What was your experience with it? Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 484 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 02:26 pm:    a lot of universities, health care consortia, and public agencies use this exact concept. They have sections you are supposed to use in whole for critical issues; then a spec sheet for other items. Keeping them updated is still a chore -- it requires the continual feedback loop that keeping spec sections updated requires. And, you have to remember to check to see if there is a guideline that is applicable to your spec section. it is a little tidier and easier to handle because of less paper involved. I've work with University of Washington; Seattle Pacific University; Marriott Hotels; Hilton Hotels; Starbucks Coffee; City of Seattle; Kaiser Hospitals; Providence Hospitals and there are probably a few others I've forgotten that use exactly the system you describe. Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS LEED-AP Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 123 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 05:33 pm:    I have found that following guide specs makes it much easier for us as design professionals to comply with recommended material choices than if we had to use the owner's masters. I have helped a couple of companies develop guides for architects to follow in design of their facilities. It is a much more effective way for them to get consistent quality of construction than to develop a full set of masters that require continuous updating. We are working now with a large company that requires us to use their masters and submit markups for their review. The masters have not been updated since the Johnson administration. They still include such things as lead-based paint, references to standards that were withdrawn decades ago, and five out of six manufacturers no longer in business. It is a pain to research every single reference and then have to justify every little change. What is sad is that the person responsible for their masters doesn't think they have a problem. The extra effort I have put into their job could easily have included updating 80 percent of their specs, but they were offended by the offer. Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 67 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 08:15 am:    Dale- Do you work for a large or medium size architectural firm, or a different type of firm, or client? Also how many different major project types does your guideline need to cover? The context has some effect on how well the guidelines approach will work. In a large firm that does a few consistent types of projects, using an actual pre-edited full length master instead will pay for itself quickly, but as you begin to handle more and more varied project types, the more you need different versions or extensive bracket options/editor's notes and the more the guidelines aproach makes sense. That's where I start thinking about keeping a guideline, or pre-edited outline spec, for each type. But normally I like to have an actual spec I can pick up and go with whenever possible. One firm I worked for had a sophisticated master system that synchronized office prefs/edits with the latest MASTERSPEC on each install. This was excellent but the drawbacks were when people let it run on autopilot so to speak, and then when it had not been run at all for a few years. Current firm does a wide variety of projects types in 5 offices. We are using outline spec masters for some project types (one notch more detailed than the guidelines approach) and also have many pre-edited full-length or short-form specs for the core sections. There is also a template for writing PPD's in UniFormat. It really is hard though to allocate time to the necessary updating. I try to always fix as I go and it usually is well worth the trouble. Some important pieces we keep as "add-ins" in little files with just a few paragraphs of how we spec it instead of or in addition to MASTERSPEC. In another of our offices these are kept in the same file with the master but are at the end, "reference pages", so you don't have to remember to go look for them. Someone else has occassionally edited right in our normally unedited copy of MASTERSPEC, so I changed those folders to read only except when I'm installing the updates. We actually have too many different approaches being used. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 679 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 08:46 am:    Dale, I've been tossing this idea around for a while for the same reasons you mention, and I truly think you are on to something. At the same time, I've been thinking about all the technical information people in our office accumulate that stays stuck in their own brain. So, I've been experimenting with our internal Wiki site as a place to "store" technical information that I accumulate. When I get a little more critical mass, I hope to get others to contribute. I think the Wiki technology is an extraordinary way to do create office standards because these are never established in a vacuum. Different people on many levels contribute to creating them, and thus the entire firm can build the standard. If "incorrect" information is posted, it can readily be corrected. As it happens, the president of the company is meeting with me and the other specifier here tomorrow to talk about spec production. This idea may come up. Bob Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 164 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 10:00 am:    John, since I'm familiar with Wikipedia, your mention of "Wiki" technology for building office standards is intriguing, and I'd like to know more. What is involved in setting up an internal "Wiki site"? Is it on the web, so multiple locations can access it? Is special Wiki software required, and if so, where does one get it? Does it, as you imply, include a system to track recent changes so they can be monitored and corrected on a regular basis, to catch "incorrect" information? Would it be easy (and/or desireable) to link it to an online in-house discussion group, using software such as that used for this forum (which I think is far superior to any other forum software I've encountered)? Thanks! Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wyancey Post Number: 323 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 10:36 am:    I am in a bit of a fog about what all y'all are talking about and need a picture. Anne, are you able and willing to post a sample of a "guideline?" John, is "Wiki" an internal forum for information exchange? Thanks Wayne Colin Gilboy Senior Member Username: colin Post Number: 88 Registered: 09-2005 Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 10:44 am:    I have been considering a Wiki for 4specs for collective specification information for about a year. This would be in addition to the discussion forum and would probably start with much of that information. I think there are 500+ Wiki computer programs available plus several web sites that offer a Wiki as a service. I was looking for an open source program that was easy to install and maintain. I wanted to avoid proprietary formats and programs for the long haul. Asking around the discussion forum on the web host for 4specs, they suggested: http://www.pmwiki.org/ This is a Wiki with simpler than average set up and programming as it is not mySQL driven and uses PHP with a flat file database. While PMWiki could not be used for Wikipedia with 200,000 entries, it appears to have more than enough capacity for 25,000 entries which should be more than enough for most architectural applications. I mention PMWiki as most IT people would gravitate to a mySQL driven program and I think this should be faster and simpler to install and maintain and customize. This is for your IT people if they are interested: http://www.pmwiki.org/wiki/PmWiki/FlatFileAdvantages For the 4specs Wiki I would probably copy some of the discussions to the Wiki to get it seeded and started. If there is some support I'll try and get it started so people can play with it and see how it works. This might help specifiers get their collective office knowledge started using this as an example. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 186 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 11:01 am:    Hmmmmm interesting. We are moving our office to Sharepoint. Within Sharepoint we will have "pages" for projects that using document management will store all production files and e-mails for the project. We will also have "pages" for various subject areas within the firm Specs and references being two of them. This would not be a wiki I believe but I KNOW that several firms besides us are heading this way. Besides several large software companies use Sharepoint as the base for distributing their product within a company (BST accounting software, which does our timecards etc. uses it.) PS I heard an old timer state; "We don't need no stinking pages!" I wonder what he meant? Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: don_harris Post Number: 118 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 11:21 am:    Treasure of the Sierra Madre. When Humphrey Bogart and Walter Huston are accosted by bandits posing as federales, they ask to see their badges. The bandits respond..."Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges" John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 681 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 11:30 am:    Don, that quote was from "Blazing Saddles," if I recall, as they were gettin' the posse togther. As to the questions posed to me about our wiki site: Wiki is a collaborative website, most often associated with the online encyclopedia www.wikipedia.org. Our wiki is on our intranet. Anyone logged into our office network has access to it. The software was installed by the IT department, but I can't tell you anything about what they use. (I could try to find out more.) One of the inherent things about a wiki is that you have to be logged in to edit it, and that it keeps a detailed log on who, when and exactly what was changed. But, the wiki "culture" is that you don't "undo" changes by going back in history, you add to the page as necessary. Wiki also has a forum connected to each page, which is separately accessed, if you want to have a discussion about the content of the page. That feature is not really used in our office, but I suppose it could be. Editing wiki pages is a bit crude, as you need to use some basic "codes" to make it look the way you want--no wysiwig here. But, only a little bit of experimenting gives you enough knowledge to be successful. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 187 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 11:58 am:    Treasure of the Sierra Madre came first, I want a movie trivia thread! (singing) I get no kick from champagne... Some get a kick from cocaine I'm sure that if I took even one sniff That would bore me terrifically, too Yet, I get a kick out of you! Anything Goes (1934) by Cole Porter Anonymous   Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 12:33 pm:    Hewo Shewif Mawc, and John, it was the raiding party, not the posse! Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 486 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 01:13 pm:    I've worked in two offices that use sharepoint, and as usual, the issue is not really storing the information but getting people to use and contribute to it. ZGF has sharepoint across all four offices, and typically, there were contributions to the "Sustainability" page only by the sustainability people, and I was the only contributor to the "Specifications" page. if you look at the 4specs forum, there are limited contributors. Arup has a fairly detailed information sharing program that they invented... but then again, they have several thousand people in their multiple offices. I've had conversations in both offices about requiring project managers to contribute their "talking points" regarding projects to the the site as part of the project closeout, but no office wants to mandate that type of participation. also: if your office has Outlook, you have a medium right there to share information. you can set up project folders that people contribute to. Again, the problem was that people simply didn't contribute. I don't know what the answer is to that problem -- because its the participation that makes the tool incredibly valuable. Dale Hurttgam, NCARB, AIA,LEED AP, CSI Senior Member Username: dwhurttgam Post Number: 21 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 04:19 pm:    Thank you for all the response and input. We are a large office with 3 major locations across the country (via merger). At the present time, we are all using MasterSpec and have access to the same templates, but we have not done active integration of the spec process across the board between the main locations. We also are looking at moving toward the architectural specifications being edited by the project architects - happens now on a limited basis by those who have an interest and experience in this area. Sections for the engineering disciplines are edited by the project engineers. With expansion, projects are more varied and also "regional" aspects will need to be addressed. Along with having a core of "masters" to go along with the guidelines, the system that we are looking at would be flexible to incorporate various "pre-edited or partially edited" Sections for those Sections that are very repetitive across the board.