Poll: Specification Software

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

Author Message David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 844 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 12:44 pm:    Let's take a quick poll and find out what everybody is using to write specifications. 1) What specification software do you use? (i.e. Speclink, MasterSpec, SpecText, etc.) Sharon Lund Senior Member Username: sharon_l Post Number: 10 Registered: 11-2005 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 12:46 pm:    MasterSpec Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 432 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 01:01 pm:    MasterSpec - for all outline specs and majority of all other specs. Speclink - for small renovations, T.I.'s, and minor new construction. Steve Pirozzi, CSI, CDT Member Username: spirozzi Post Number: 3 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 01:14 pm:    Currently only using ARCOM Masterspec but we will hopefully be adding BSD Speclink shortly for the database approach and three linked levels of detail. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 691 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 01:17 pm:    Masterspec, combined with our own masters to handle special kinds of work, and Massachusetts public work (filed-sub bids.) William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 656 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 01:22 pm:    Internally created office master custom to the office. Bob Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 170 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 01:23 pm:    I use SpecLink whenever possible. It's the easiest way to produce specs, easiest to keep updated (retaining customization without having to re-edit each update), and easy to toggle between MF95 and MF 2004. Some owners require using their own masters (usually Word documents). USDoD work usually requires SpecsIntact software & UFGS masters. We use MasterSpec primarily for reference (for evaluation data, etc.), since it's bulky, verbose and inefficient as a production tool. Never used SpecText. Though like Speclink it's much more concise than MasterSpec, it lacks the database advantages of SpecLink. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 845 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 01:35 pm:    I too use an internally created office master that was developed by my predecessor and me using SpecText as a basis. I am seriously looking at MasterSpec as a way of cribbing information to help improve our office masters. Jim Brittell Senior Member Username: jwbrittell Post Number: 35 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 01:35 pm:    MasterSpec Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 212 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 01:44 pm:    Similar to David - Internally created office master developed by a predecessor. Use MasterSpec as a reference to create new sections or upgrade existing ones. Looked at BSD Speclink, but haven't had the time to thoroughly evaluate it. Mark R. Jones, CSI, CCS New member Username: mjones Post Number: 1 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 01:52 pm:    Used Speclink up to 2005 Currently using MasterSpec I prefer Speclink for its database capabilities, easy editing, and more concise language. David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 217 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 02:01 pm:    Office masters derived from MasterSpec, and supplemented with a few hundred additional sections. MasterSpec also used as a resource, and to keep our office masters current. Margaret G. Chewning FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: presbspec Post Number: 122 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 02:16 pm:    SpecText in Word Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 250 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 02:41 pm:    In-house master, Word. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 532 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 02:45 pm:    MasterSpec base, modified to office master format, supplemented by countless original sections; Word as processor, macros to make life easier - footers, table of contents, etc. (developed by others, not me). Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 499 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 03:00 pm:    Masterspec, with Word as the word processor. Some custom sections, probably more as I go along. Lynn-- those macros you like are probably all available in MasterWorks: that sub-program does submittal lists, table of contents, global replacements and the like. Marc Chavez has both MasterSpec and Speclink -- and has opinions about both of them. John Hunter Senior Member Username: johnhunter Post Number: 20 Registered: 12-2005 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 03:57 pm:    Masterspec for Word, with a fair number of custom Sections developed for our practice areas. However, we've begun looking at implementing eSpecs for Revit - we're in the evaluation process right now. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wyancey Post Number: 334 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 04:00 pm:    Software - MSWord Database: Inhouse masters derived from MaterSpec; some derived from SpecText. Use MasterSpec as a reference to create new sections or upgrade existing ones. Use MasterWorks for tables of contents, gobal header/footer, reports, search and replace, etc. Native MasterSpec has too many levels of paragraphs and redundancies but also some very useful boilerplate language for creating that "never been written before" section. Konrad Hee Member Username: khee Post Number: 3 Registered: 04-2006 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 04:04 pm:    We use MASTERSPEC with Word. Masterspec or MasterSpec? Arcom seems to capitalize the whole word everywhere... Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS LEED-AP Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 127 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 04:20 pm:    30 of our offices subscribe to MASTERSPEC and use it as the basis of in-house masters. Almost all wordprocessing is MS Word, with one or two "stragglers" still hanging onto WordPerfect. We also do a fair amount of work in SpecsIntact, but the requirement is waning is some districts. Richard A. Rosen, CSI, CCS, AIA Senior Member Username: rarosen Post Number: 10 Registered: 08-2006 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 04:23 pm:    MasterSpec and Linx Ronald J. Ray, RA, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: rjray Post Number: 71 Registered: 04-2004 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 04:25 pm:    Wordprocessor: WordPerfect Internally developed office masters, with MasterSpec used as a resource Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 213 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 04:46 pm:    As for word processing - We use both Word & WordPerfect. Our in-house specs are in WordPerfect and most of our consultants use Word - thank you Bill Gates! I have no intention of giving up WordPerfect. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 290 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 05:09 pm:    MasterSpec with only a few dozen customized office masters. MasterWorks for macros. Word for word processing. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 227 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 07:37 pm:    MasterSpec, MasterWorks, and Linx. I use Word and make extensive use of templates and styles. I have a subcription to SpecLink and like its database features, but find that it is much too terse in some sections. Formatting control, especially with regard to page-breaks, is difficult at best. I maintain probably 20-some-odd in house masters for stuff not covered in MasterSpec. Dale Hurttgam, NCARB, AIA,LEED AP, CSI Senior Member Username: dwhurttgam Post Number: 23 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 08:08 pm:    Architectural - Combination of Arcom MasterSpec and Office Masters primarily created from MasteSpec. Looking to support the MasterSpec Sections with Office Guidelines for each Section for which there is not an Office Master and utilize LINX for editing. Engineering Disciplines - Primarily Office Masters created from MasterSpec. Jeffrey Leemhuis, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: jrlbarch Post Number: 7 Registered: 07-2005 Posted on Friday, March 30, 2007 - 11:28 am:    Microsoft Word Office masters derived from MasterSpec for much of our work including MEP. This is supplemented with our own masters developed for historical restoration and preservation work. MasterSpec also used as a resource, for keeping office masters current. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 246 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Friday, March 30, 2007 - 06:33 pm:    MASTERSPEC with LINX and MASTERWORKS in MSWord. Smattering of masters as needed, but with LINX it's easier to generate narrowscope sections for projects than it is to maintain masters, so I try to keep masters to a minimum. Used to maintain a Big Hairy Macro to do my page formatting; now I just use MASTERWORKS Wizards and multifile tools. Scott Michael Perez AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI, LEED AP, NCARB Advanced Member Username: sperez Post Number: 5 Registered: 01-2007 Posted on Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 02:13 pm:    BSD Speclink and MSWord Doug Frank FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 175 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 09:08 am:    We have an in-house master that I created using MasterSpec as a guide. I use the MasterSpec subscription as an update source and guide for creating new in-house masters. I use Masterworks for some formatting and bulk printing. Word processing is in MS Word (but I still miss my old WordPerfect 5.1) We also have Spec Link but I haven’t figured it out completely yet. Seems like it’s going to be a big task to get it customized to our way of doing things, but worth it in the long run due to its database capabilities. Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: don_harris Post Number: 123 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 10:09 am:    MasterSpec, using their Linx and MasterWorks. MS Word for so long now that I've probably forgotten how much better WP is. I'm also use macros for formatting documents from the internet and from some consultants. Karen L. Zaterman, CDT Senior Member Username: kittiz Post Number: 31 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Thursday, April 05, 2007 - 07:19 pm:    BSD SpecLink as in-house master, in development. We decided this was the easiest for our Engineers to learn -- and they are coming to accept it. Word for some projects (Civil projects requiring a "Greenbook" format and DOT). Most of our branch offices also use this & I often provide them with RTF files from our BSD/master to use. The DOT (Caltrans) requires a Word macro. SpecsIntact for NAVFAC projects. Looking at MasterSpec & SpecText for resources & cribbing for further Master development. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 44 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, April 05, 2007 - 08:50 pm:    Our own masters kept as simple MSWord files that are constantly updated with MasterSpec, peer reviews and lessons learned. Julie Root Senior Member Username: julie_root Post Number: 81 Registered: 02-2004 Posted on Friday, April 06, 2007 - 12:20 pm:    Steven - Would you be willing to share an example of how you document peer reviews and lessons learned in the file? Do you do it with editor's notes or is a seperate page in the file? Do you put notes in the margins? Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 45 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, April 06, 2007 - 01:40 pm:    Julie, We document by modifying the actual text. I try to limit editor notes, margin notes, or other items that will need to be removed each time the document is edited. I prefer adding to the specification document over removing. There is a brief note occupying the header space giving a very basic description and reference to projects this version came from or was used on. Because our projects tend to fit into some re-occuring catagories, we have evolved a library over the years of multiple versions of each spec section pre-edited for the common situations. This is about "design responsibility", "references", "submittals", "quality assurance" than the materials or products, so that I usually have versions for: California - OSHPD California - CBC Western States - IBC The other big determiner, often building envelope related, we be "design-build" versus "fully engineered" versions. Julie Root Senior Member Username: julie_root Post Number: 82 Registered: 02-2004 Posted on Friday, April 06, 2007 - 01:49 pm:    Thanks Steven. If the text is modified is there anyway for a younger person to understand what the lesson learned or the preference of your firm. We have been having lots of conversation lately about how to spur interest of the younger generations in specification and materials so I am curious how others motivate learning. I think I will start a new thread. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 46 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, April 06, 2007 - 03:42 pm:    Julie, Thanks for your comments. I do not blame just the "younger" people because across the age spectrum in our firm I know that a majority would far prefer a day at the dentist to a day with their spec. I guess that is reflected in my previous comments about not including edit prompts in our masters, because the reality is that they just slow down the set of people in the firm doing the editing. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED™ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 546 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, April 06, 2007 - 03:56 pm:    Our edit notes and project notes are automatically written in hidden text so that if they are left in, they don't print. Sometimes, they direct the writer/editor to the AIA evaluations, or they may explain why certain things are written the way they are, or they may direct the editor to choose between options, or whatever is pertinent to the article or paragraph. They can be a great help IF the editor takes the time to read them. We also keep track of updates in edit notes - changes in companies, standards, references, etc., are noted at the beginning of the section. It's a good use of the computer's features - a text box (hidden as well) surrounds the note to call attention to it. It's a way to communicate to the next user some useful information that isn't for publication. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 699 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, April 09, 2007 - 08:46 am:    We have found that if the editor's notes are hidden, they don't get read because most users seem to have hidden text turned off on their displays. Our practice is that notes are not hidden, and you must remove them during editing as you read them or otherwise address the issues they reference. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 48 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, April 09, 2007 - 01:06 pm:    Along with being ignored, hidden text may pop up at inappropriate times. I actually once visited a project site that was long into CA, with spec edits being handled by our on-site CA staff, only to find all of the hidden text turned on for the versions of the specs available to the Contractor! They also had all of the MS Word "track changes" options turned on so that the top half of each page was a sequence of revised headers! Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED™ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 547 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, April 09, 2007 - 02:19 pm:    The above posts illustrate the reasons for training staff to read edit notes, to take advantage of their software features, to delete edit notes (whether hidden or not) as they edit, and to avoid sending/posting active documents! Contractors should receive hard copies or PDFs. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wyancey Post Number: 345 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Monday, April 09, 2007 - 04:32 pm:    Lynn, I would love to have your well trained and obedient staff! Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED™ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 548 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, April 09, 2007 - 05:01 pm:    Ahhh...we are all spec writers. Most of the architects don't have rights to the documents. Anonymous   Posted on Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 10:01 pm:    1. MASTERSPEC w/ Word, MasterWorks, and some good custom macros for where not fully satisfied out of the box 2. a good number of predited office masters 3. outline, full length, short form, PPD 4. I'll be honest, at least anonymously, who has time to always edit from MASTERSPEC. too often time constraints, after we've spec'd all they've been able to tell us, force using a few sections from the last similar project, but I always take a good look at what's missing and what doesn't belong 5. LINX 6. SpecsIntact on federal work - intelligent links built into the xml, but it's clunky to use and content is often old or too generic...it's sort of a love-hate relationship 7. looking at e-SPECS for Revit Steven T. Lawrey, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: lawrey Post Number: 67 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 12:49 pm:    Office master in SpecLink. I create custom sections in SpecLink, complete with built-in links. FYI, SpecText formed the original text of SpecLink. At some point CSRF (publishers of SpecText) stopped supplying their text to BSD (developers of SpecLink). Now BSD employs specifiers to maintain their text. I have compared our specs to those of a local independant specifier who uses SpecText. Both are concise and much of the standard text is the same. Recently, I attended a discussion and demonstration of e-Specs for Revit. On the surface it seems to hold much potential and be quite powerful. I'm waiting for the debut of SpecLink-E so as to "kick the tires". Sooner than later technology will force me to evaluate these CAD-linked applications versus our traditional methods of producing project manuals. Has anyone implemented e-Specs or other similar applications? Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 512 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 02:19 pm:    the text for e-specs is currently the short form of Masterspec; the intent is that all the versions (short, long, outline) of masterspec be available for use with E-specs. the real issue with E-specs (as I see it) is that you need a very knowledgable person on your staff to monitor the linkages. E-specs will link a specific drawing module to a specific specification section and/or module. However, that's as far as it goes. if you make modifications to the drawing, those modifications are only grossly picked up in the specifications. if you do fussy stuff or have a variety of stuff, you're going to still need to edit the specs. E-specs says that they will provide "70%" specs just at the first pass. For the types of projects I used to do, I would say its more along the lines of 50% at best. the program will compile the file of spec sections for you and do gross editing (along the lines of LINX); but not much more than that. if you do very complicated projects, you're going to have to do a lot of custom editing to make that system work. if you remember keynoting (I don't know anyone using that system anymore) you'll remember that to make it work, you have appoint a very high level person in the office to monitor that the right keynote goes to the right detail, and that a keynote is focused enough to actually provide specific information. I don't see e-specs as a tool that can be used very well by an inexperienced staff member without a fair amount of supervision. David J. Wyatt Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_csi_ccs_ccca Post Number: 55 Registered: 07-2005 Posted on Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 03:30 pm:    Anne Whitacre raises a very important point about the need for experience. The producers of the truly good systems (MASTERSPEC being an exemplary model)do not claim to make specifying easy, but an appallingly high number of architects believe that it should be easy and that a system can do their thinking for them. Ironically, therefore, one of the greatest impediments to professionalism in spec writing comes from inside the house, so to speak. Right on, Anne! Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 72 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 06:07 pm:    Keynoting has been working very well for the regional firm I currently work for, and the medium sized firm I previously worked for. In fact, I have only seen a few projects that did not use #'s on the drawings, and they always had more issues with inconsistent terminology (gyp bd here, drywall there, Sheetrock somewhere else even though we tell the new folks don't name products on the dwgs...) Yes it requires some specifier input early in process, and people to be thinking about what they are drawing, but those are VERY POSITIVE things to have happen. And a good system can show a cheat sheet for the contractor in the corner of the dwg sheet what the #'s mean, or you can toggle #/note, or just note, or just # in the keynotes. From those of you who do not keynote, I would like to learn more about what the alternatives are. How do you keep consistent terminology? Do contractor's have problems figuring out whether casework is in Div 12 or Div 06 or in some cases both if AWI custom grade and modular might both be used on the same project? In our office we realize there is some risk of giving them the wrong section# when keynoting the [old-fashioned] (sic) way but with good systems it comes up very infrequently. Some of our other offices do not currently keynote like we do, and Revit will change our processes or theirs some, so we are trying to decide which way will win out. John Carter (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Saturday, April 28, 2007 - 08:52 am:    Masterspec - been using it as long as I have been an independent consultant (7 years). I have a few non-Masterspec masters (for California work, DSA and OSHPD) but the bulk of the masters I use are Masterspec. Also use Linx software to edit some of the Masterspec files. John Horner, PE, CCS (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 04:06 pm:    Office Masters modified using Macros to work with MasterWorks in MSWord. Use MasterSpec as resource and reference for maintenance and updating. Also use UFGS (Army, Navy, NASA guides) for primary reference but find Masterspec far superior. UFGS is not usable as editable text with any commercial software. Have used SpecsIntact extensively but find it to be extremely awkward, unconventional, archaic, and difficult to learn. T.A. Gilmore, AIA, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: tgilmore Post Number: 10 Registered: 04-2007 Posted on Friday, July 27, 2007 - 08:46 pm:    SpecLink for project manuals and Excel for outline specs (office master, one file, separate worksheets for each division, edited using autofilter). Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, LEED-AP®, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 95 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2007 - 01:19 pm:    John H: Try the PDF's on the UFGS website if you want to copy and paste. They're much better than pasting from the native .sec files. Go to http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/browse_org.php?o=70, then scroll down. I too have found the UFGS specs to be useful even for non-military projects on occassion, usually when I need to sift out overly-proprietary content of some existing spec. Being very performance/descriptive based, it is a good way to look at which broad requirements an Owner might consider to be important on an institutional project. I definitely prefer MASTERSPEC when needing to start from a wide range of possibilities or for updating a pre-edited office master.