How do you train or "grow" a spec wri...

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

Author Message Susan McClendon Senior Member Username: susan_mcclendon Post Number: 61 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 03:17 pm:    I've just finished reading the very interesting thread on how people learned to be spec writers. Not neglecting the critical importance of practical experience and subject matter knowledge, I am interested in how to deliberately train someone to write good specs. Assume that they are willing and assume that you want them to shoulder part of your workload as soon as possible -- assume that you have so much business that you are turning away work ;>). Assume that you can't afford to spend a lot of time correcting their work, so learning by trial and error would not be very effective. What would you start with? Would you tell them to read the PRM? How would you test them? Would you test them? I write this after much thought about the spec writer "shortage". It seems to me that the shortage is not new, that there has always been a shortage because there never has been a training school -- we all learned "on the job." So, how can we making learning on the job faster and more effective? There are a lot of firms that do their own specs who would like to know. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 662 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 03:30 pm:    First; Indulgence, pleae from the strident CSI folks. Hear this out. I firmly believe that pre-PRM there is a need for fundamental [even pre-CDT] instruction to merely understand what specs are, what they look like, and how they function. It was quite enlightening to staff in our office when I wrote a specs handbook much in this direction [and our office nuances]-- many simply didn't know antnyghin about specs. Also, did a 6-session [one hour each] lunch hour course on various isolated aspects of specs-- superficial perhaps but informative. As I noted on another thread I have blocked out a Specs Primer much to the point of all this [at least David Wyatt thinks it has value]-- an introduction in simple tems; a guide; a preliminary view. Just can't find a publisher. Then, one can be weaned in the office specifics and in the CSI-preferred methodology with all of the many many good points. We do need, though, to instill the thought that there are many solutions and many variaitions from strict CSI guidelines, BUT we need to understand those basics prior to "doing other things". Any help? Oh, I do not see this or intend this to undercut CSI, but there are many things that can be done-- there is need to have some instruction between zero and CSI, I think; have a lot of material to share if any one is interested. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 215 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 04:04 pm:    I read Hans Meier’s Book in college and then self taught by having to push my way through his “Library of Specifications” and a spec using Spectext and then using SpecLink. Questions were answered by friends. Email and the web helped a little even back in 1997. The PRM is great but with the exception of Division 1 does not really deal with specs it deals with the whole process. Should it be read of course but not as a sole source spec writing text book. I have not read all the way through but so far like John Regener’s new edition of Rosen’s book. There are some CSI members who have taught courses in spec writing. Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 218 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 04:06 pm:    Before one selects a specifier candidate, a selection process should take place. It seems to me that the first thing a specification writer candidate has to have is the proper attitude. First, they have to want to be a specifier, secondly, they have to have a deep desire to learn, and thirdly, they should be self-motivated. All other skills and technical knowledge will come in time with the proper attitude. Bosses can "force" someone to write a specification from the many available sources on the market and from manufacturers, but generally they are not a good spec - passable at best - usually fodder for the contractors/estimators. A well written specification will most often be acknowledged only when the bids come in and when a project is completed with only minor change orders. When one starts looking deeply into any given technical topic, there are a surprising number of references and educational sources out there if they are only sought after. CSI documentation and chapter involvement is, obviously, the first and best starting point. After the basics, I would suggest assigning each candidate a select number of divisions to “master,” then letting them expand their horizons as they develop. Assigning young specifiers Divisions 1 thru 14 is bit overwhelming starting out [even though a majority of us on this board most likely started with all the divisions]. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 759 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 04:31 pm:    I believe the want, desire to learn, and self-motivation are important generally to success in whatever endeavor. Other important skills or "intelligences" (with the idea that there are many) are perhaps more important. I think a good specifier has to be: * Particularly detail oriented. If nothing else, specs are a myriad of details and if you don't pay some attention to all of them, you will miss someting. * Inquisitive, and not satisfied with a broad-brush take on the product/assembly. Or, at least know you're doing it beacuse you have to given project exigencies. (Holding one's nose and moving forward.) Inquisitiveness is why you study that ASTM standard a little more carefully, because you wonder if it is really getting you what you want. * A bit more left-brain than right-brain viewpoint. Those who are the true designers (right brain) in the profession are less likely to find interest in specifying. The specifier's brain is sequential, logical, analytical and objective. You know, nuts and bolts. * Skeptical. * Interested in a lot of different things, since there are a lot of different things you need to spec. With great respect to my many friends who are independent consultants, I believe that training in specifying takes place most effectively in an architectural firm. Here, they can get their feet wet in specs, learn incrementally, do a bit of CA. I would imagine it being very difficult for a specs-only firm to make effective use of a trainee, and for the trainee to be fully engaged in what they're doing. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 599 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 04:32 pm:    I actually started out just doing interiors projects so that the only "waterproofing" I did was for interior tile projects. After four years, I started taking on some exterior assemblies. When I've trained people, I've also started them out on interior renovation/remodel projects. a novice can't do too much damage on a job like that; they have few consultants to worry about, the project scope is generally smaller and the project turn-over is faster (as compared to a 2-year 1-million square foot hospital project); and they can get the construction questions faster. a new specifier has to work through a certain number of projects -- they need to see the variety of interpretations available for "standard" language, and the variety of results that one gets from writing the same things over and over again in order to develop a sense of judgement about what is necessary and possible. small projects, and smaller scope will allow someone to do that. A specifier really needs to get a sense of the relationship between the documents and the built result, and that only happens when projects get constructed. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 760 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 05:12 pm:    Ironically, I started out the complete reverse of Anne. The first specifications I wrote were for waterproofing and roofing projects at a firm specializing in that field. It's been all downhill from there! (Just kidding.) David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 245 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 08:48 am:    I would like to add to John's list above a few more desireable traits: * Good organizational skills. A major part of the specifications production process is management of all that information that is compiled and accumulated from various sources. * A somewhat decent command of the English language. Know how to spell, and understand that missing or incorrect use of punctuation can completely change the meaning of a sentence. And I would reiterate the need for some CA experience. Seeing first-hand how one's specifications perform under real world conditions can be very enlightening (and humbling). Susan McClendon Senior Member Username: susan_mcclendon Post Number: 62 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 08:56 am:    Let me pose my challenge in a different way. Can you distill one nugget of wisdom from your experience to impart to a willing and able candidate who doesn't want to learn by [trial-and-]ERROR? In my opinion it would have to be a principle that transcended specific products, contract types, construction knowledge, etc. Or, from another point of view: what characteristics make a spec BAD. Obviously, not using 3-PART format doesn't necessarily make a spec bad. Using 3-PART format can make it better, but it might have been adequate without that. Conversely, what makes a spec adequate -- just enough? Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 663 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 09:04 am:    "Always convey directly usable information"! Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED™ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 624 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 11:43 am:    Being able to express what someone else (the "first party") requires in language that the "third party" can understand. A specifier is a translator from design language to construction language. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 322 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 12:02 pm:    "what makes a spec adequate" It's a matter of judgment and balance. It's application of the four C's: Clear, correct, complete and concise (no particular order of importance). "Adequate" is measured by applying these benchmarks and then judging whether the spec is appropriate, sufficient, etc. What is adequate for one project may not be adequate for another. For a project of limited scope, where quality is not the highest value, a shortform spec may be adequate. For a project of simple design but huge quantity (for example, the roof of a 300k sf distribution center), a highly-detailed, 30 page spec may be appropriate and anything less would be inadequate. How to impart the critical thinking necessary for making these judgments? In my case, it was learning "attention to detail" through military training plus mentoring under a knowledgeable and detail-oriented architect who put on me a real sense of responsibility for what it meant when I drew details and made notes on the drawings. I believe that specification writers need to work more closely with designers to draw out from them what is the design intent and what are the design decisions to express that intent. From that, the specifications writer can craft appropriate specifications and the "deciders" can learn what they need to decide. One tool that I see as beneficial is a listing of key design decisions to be made for each spec Section. For example, are there wood doors on the project? Are the wood doors stained-and-varnished or primed and painted? If stained-and-varnished, what is the hardwood species? ("We want the doors to be green" is one answer I got to these questions that was not adequate ... and had nothing to do with the color of paint). This would help desigers to understand what are the full range and depth of necessary decisions. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 602 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 12:15 pm:    I think having an understanding of what the point of the building is and how its constructed -- which requires some experience. is this a monumental building that your grandchildren will be in awe of? is this a facility built for 3-years of use while a campus is being constructed elsewhere? is this a hotel that will have every finish replaced in 4 years as part of a design update? is this a hospital that has to stay in operation? I used to know one spec writer who basically wrote the same spec for every project: long form, carefully edited, impossible to understand, and using the same products that he had carefully researched 10 years before. his product simply wasn't appropriate for every job. I knew another spec writer who crafted every project manual as though it was being submitted for spec competition -- and blew every budget (and time constraint) he was given. I think the most important question is simply "what are we trying to do with this project?" John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 324 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 02:34 pm:    I'd like to add a twist to the discussion about how to develop a specifications writer. What about the occasional specifications writer? That is, the project architect or project engineer who has 3-4 projects per year rather than the full-time specifications writer who sometimes has 3-4 project manuals in a week. The stakes are the same for the occasional and the full-time specifications writer. The four C's still apply. Professional judgment is still essential. How does the occasional writer learn to produce specifications? My opinion is that being a competent specifications writer is part of what it means to be a competent architect or engineer. Occasional practice vs. full-time practice means greater experience for the latter. But as it has been pointed out earlier, there is a shortage of full-time specifications in many communities and there are some specifications sections that are typically written by consultants rather than by the (architectural) specifications writer. I believe there are some tools (resources) that can assist the occasional specifications writer. One is a set of appropriate master or prototypical specifications sections. "Appropriate" means taking commercially-marketed specifications such as ARCOM's Masterspec or CSRF's SpecText and "pre-editing" them to suit regional construction practices, typical project requirements (building type, etc.) and office standards. This is a task that one person in the firm or an outsourced specifications writer can do. Then, the project (occasional) specifications writer can edit the specifications to suit project-specific requirements. Another tool is the computer-assisted specifications system, such as ARCOM's Linx and BSD's SpecLink. The specifications writer interacts with the program by providing decisions. The program edits the text accordingly. As it has been pointed out in other discussion threads, this does not usually result in a completed specification section. The result is an 80-90 percent complete spec that still requires input of "user-generated" text such as Code citations and inclusion of information for products that are not in the database of the specifications program. In fact, this remaining 10-20 percent is where the "heavy lifting" of specifications writing takes place. The user still must know how to competently write construction specifications to complete the editing. Ignoring BIM, with its intoxicating vapors of automagic production of drawings and specifications derived from simplistic design decisions, there will continue to be the need to train architects and engineers in production and use of construction contract documents. That is, the material covered by CSI's CDT, CCS, CCCA and CCPR programs still needs to be learned and learned especially by those involved at schematic design and design development phases which are gaining in significance under design-build and phased construction (multiple prime contracts). The development of specifications writers requires some formal training, I believe. What is that formal training? I have a personal interest in this education and training process because of my book: Construction Specifications Writing: Principles and Procedures. I’m trying to develop an instructor guide and other learning tools to supplement the book. How can the basic information about specifications writing be best learned? Should there be courses in undergraduate architecture, engineering and construction management curricula? Should there be face-to-face education sessions produced by the extension programs of colleges and universities and by professional associations? Should there be distance learning programs such as "webinars" and learning-on-demand online sessions? Where does mentoring fit in? How is a written work product (spec) evaluated when there is professional judgment to be considered (more than one "correct" answer but probably one "best" answer)? Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 194 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2007 - 12:56 am:    How much time you spend writing specifications is irrelevant. You still need to spend the time and energy to educate yourself. As somebody who's job description includes activities other than writing specifications I still consider myself a specification writer as well as several other things. Architects who have other responsibilities are not typically classified as ocassional architects. While master specifications and automated editing tools are usefull tools, all too often they become a crutch and an excuse not to understand what the specification says. Rather than talk about full time and occassional specification writers I believe the focus should be on the different expertise that each brings to bare. Some are generalists and others have some technical exertise in one or more areas. For example I have come to realize that while there are some parts of Division 1 I do not have a lot of experience with, my involvement in structural specifications has given me a better awareness of issues related to testing and inspection and some submittal issues than most specification writers. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 327 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Sunday, July 29, 2007 - 03:07 pm:    Mark Gilligan: Experience does matter. The amount of time spent (experience) does make a difference. Tasks I only do occasionally I don't do as well as the tasks I do frequently. And as I spend more time on some tasks, I benefit from experience with the myriad of little details involved in the tasks. Over time, the experience grows and productivity and accuracy are enhanced. The key point I was trying to get to was, how does someone gain knowledge and experience in order to better prepare construction specifications? Certainly, architects and engineers are capable of preparing construction specifications and no special certification is required. But the knowledge and experience represented by the certification is beneficial and should not be minimized. I supposedly am licensed to commit architecture upon the people of my state, including calculating the size of structural members. I know that I have had little or no experience doing so in the past 30 years. The expertise of structural engineers has been used instead. Given enough time and simple guidelines, I could probably do the calcs for a simple building. If I was required to do engineering on a regular basis ("frequently" or "infrequently"), I'd need considerable instruction in order to do it expediently. Thus, my question: how does someone learn to write construction specifications, from the basics to the sophisticated? Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 195 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Sunday, July 29, 2007 - 06:34 pm:    I was wrong in saying that the amount of time you spend is irrelevant. The point I wanted to make was that doing something full time does not necessarily make you better than somebody who does such work only part time. Some individuals have done the same task for 10 years and have not learned anything in the last 9. If you want to be a good specification writer there is no one path. Sure you should be familiar with the PRM but you also need to educate yourself in other ways. You gain the knowledge by practicing and learning. You need to search out opportunities to get feedback and to learn. You need to question what you are comfortable doing. You will be molded by your experiences. Part of this process is to become a subject matter expert in some aspect of your work. As you struggle with how to incorporate the information from manufacturers, codes and standards in your specification section you will find that the PRM and other sources do not have all of the answers and you will have to find a solution. It is during this search for a solution that you will learn. Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 221 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 04:51 pm:    "Practice does not make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect." ............Vince Lombardy Jonathan Miller, FCSI, EIEIO (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, August 06, 2007 - 07:01 pm:    1-1/2 years ago I stumbled across a person who had the qualities of a potentially good specification consultant. What struck me was the attention to detail and the completeness of their answers to me. This person was a client representative who shortly after went on his ownas a subcontractor. I lured this person into working for the company I was with at the time by first having them come in one day a week for 4 months and then hiring them full time. Over the 4 months they studied for the CDT, took and passed it, and I had them doing real work that I reviewed with them, having them do their own corrections. I have since moved on and lost the daily contact to help this person continue to grow. I can only hope that they also move on so they can really take what CSI is really all about to heart. Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, LEED-AP®, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 94 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 01:59 pm:    The factors that helped me the most to grow as a spec writer: Having an opportunity to take primary responsibility for specs on some projects (simpler projects at first, like Anne describes), and having an excellent mentor available 1 desk over from me (who is not micromanaging but not detached either), as well as many other contacts I have made, many through CSI, who I can call on for help with a wide variety of technical questions. Also lots of in-house continuing education programs, active involvement with CSI including bi-region conferences and the annual convention, MasterFormat training, and honing of computer skills, all helped me to broaden my experience beyond my original background, which is design/build experience and a degree and license in landscape architecture. Along the way I also had a valuable opportunity with a mid-sized A/E firm to troubleshoot and help develop a system for management of spec masters, implement new master content through a review process, review some submittals, help with product selection and research, and manage technical resources. Helping the CA's to answer field questions on the technical side has also been a great way to learn. A certain humility comes along with each new level of education and training, discovering once again there is still so much more to learn. Vivian Volz, RA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: vivianvolz Post Number: 93 Registered: 06-2004 Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 06:07 pm:    There's a certain willingness to self-educate that's essential to specifying, so it may be that so many specifiers are self-taught because we *can* self-teach. I'm self-selected, partially self-taught, and mentored with kindness. Unfortunately, I'm not mentored with proximity: my mentor is 5000 miles away across the WAN. Still, my community, mostly my virtual community, is the key to why I keep specifying and keep learning. I wish I knew the answer to Susan's question about avoiding the "error" in "trial-and-error". Probably the nugget I would volunteer is "Don't issue a spec you don't understand." If you are using a master you didn't write and you don't understand what it says, either go find out or go ask someone. If I wasn't humble before I became a specifier, I was humbled the day one of my colleagues pointed out that I'd been routinely retaining a product in our master that's nearly never used, simply because I thought it was something else and hadn't bothered to find out what it actually was. This principle goes deep: don't reference an ASTM you've never seen, don't guess what a value ought to be, don't write a spec for a product you've never heard of until you've researched it. Of course there's a flip side: you can research something to the last detail and blow the budget. I suppose the antitdote to this is to pace yourself: spend the most time on the least-familiar subjects and the highest-risk subjects. This is the part of time management that I need to remind myself... Thanks for asking, Susan! Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 615 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - 12:35 pm:    I agree with Vivian that the ability (and interest) in self-education is absolutely critical. I had to remind a younger colleague that part of his job description was the ability to develop his own resources and answer his own questions -- I was not there to simply be an encyclopedia. I'm still suprised at the number of people I meet in this business who simply aren't curious about anything. I think the best spec writers I know are always asking weird questions and they definitely are masters of irrelevant information. I used to pick two things on every project that I was going to learn "all about" when I was first starting. its impossible to know everything about everything all the time, but one job at a time, you can learn a lot about a couple of things. as you get older, the critical skill is figuring out if what you know is relevant or not.. or whether you have to relearn it. That's a whole different critical thinking skill, and I bet we all know specifiers who are writing specs as though it was still 1982. I honestly think that the "error" part is important in education and the ability to get yelled at regularly by the construction administration people and not take it personally. (of course no one yells anymore except in New York, but that's a change in the industry). I remember one time a contractor calling me and saying "why do you have this blankety blank in the specs because no one uses it and it doesn't work and its been in there for the past 5 years?" and I said "if you had told me this 4-1/2 years ago, I would have taken it out". the communication HAS to go both ways, and developing those resources is essential to doing your job properly. You need to be approachable and curious, and not everyone has those traits. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 885 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - 03:12 pm:    Anne I disagree. I believe that it is the obligation of the senior people to help educated the junior staff. Throughout my career I am very grateful for those people that have helped educate me along the way. In return ("pay it forward"), I help educate those around me. Education of the staff is one of the reasons why my firm has an in-house specifier rather than an out-side consultant. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 223 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - 03:24 pm:    David, I think you missed her point. you must do both. self learning (sometimes the hard way) AND advice and mentoring. Richard Baxter, AIA, CSI Senior Member Username: rbaxter Post Number: 50 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - 04:00 pm:    Marc’s right. No amount of mentoring could possibly overcome the deficit of knowledge that results from a specifier’s failure to actively self-educate. That isn’t to say that senior staff does not bear a responsibility to thoroughly educate junior staff. Likewise, project architects should strive to share the lessons they learn in the field with their project teams back at the office. As easy as it is to e-mail large groups of people in the office, there is no excuse for holding back information when mistakes are discovered in the field. Both the specifiers and drafters depend on project architects to inform them when improvements need to be made. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wyancey Post Number: 374 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - 04:27 pm:    I second Vivian and Anne. Our generation of specifiers are continually self-educating ourselves through reading, forums such as this, specifiers share groups, seminars, conventions, etc. We are deffinitely masters of information but not irrelevant information. I have a huge personal library of soup to nuts. I may not use it's contents very often but what goes around comes around. When that happens, I usually have an answer somewhere in my library. It never ceases to amaze me how little the majority of my former and current colleagues know of fundamental information such as undercuts, steel frames, CMU, brick veneer, AESS, precast concrete, high-performance coatings, etc. Most of the young people (under 40) in my current office are LEED savy, but, with few exceptions, not technically savy. When I receive a question on a topic that I take for granted that everyone should know, it gives me pause for thought that perhaps more do not know the answer. In my current office I use an internal web-based forum to publish such information. However, the number of hits in the forum posting is dismal as best. You can take the horse to water but you cannot.... It is disappointing and discouraging but I press on. In 1973 I started writing one spec section at a time under the direction of a seasoned specifier. I lived and worked in Canada at the time. I took the Specifications Writer's Assocation of Canada (SWAC) correspondence course then took on the larger portion of the specificaitons. This is long before PC's and Macs. My favored technique was cut and paste, redlines, and copious hand written paragraphs, concluded by hand off to a typist. Tools of the trade included scissors, stapler, magic mending tape, triangular scale, red pen, white out, and a ruled pad (preferably a quad pad). In the past I have made some glaring dumb ass mistakes but also won a Merit Award from CSI for a spec written for a complex Canadian project. Like Anne, I prefer my younger colleagues to perform their own research first, and when all else fails, come for assistance and advice. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 616 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - 04:51 pm:    I would like to add that when I said that to my younger colleague, I was at a remote office in all-day meetings, had already answered 8 emails and phone calls (by noon of that day) from that colleague and most of them were questions that he could have EASILY found the answers to for himself. this is also someone who "bookmarks" EVERY email with an ! and electronically requests a receipt when you open the email. I might also add that unless I am on vacation, I respond to every email and phone call within a four hour window. there is not knowing how to find the answer, and then there is just laziness. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 675 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2007 - 07:15 am:    I have a strong hunch [having taught and just observing] that it will be increasingly hard for us to find young people who even know how to self-educate. More and more they will be people who "find" all they need in the computer. No need to research in the library for a paper-- you can find or buy one on the computer and crib it for your work.[and even cribbing may be too much work!] And yes, I think there is also a level of laziness, called "just ask" where a minimal effort gets them what they need. And it maybe that we "feed" all that simply by the project schedules we have to deal with-- i.e., its' easier to merely give the information than to tell them to go look it up. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 775 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2007 - 08:47 am:    Ralph, I do that now! These days there's not much I can't answer from the computer, but you still need to know where to look. And, specifiers have been cribbing for years. How often do you actually type a new section completely from scratch? I think sometimes it's easy to forget how hard it is early in one's career to know what the heck is going on, and how to learn more. Here in my office, most of the young folks are eager to learn and genuinely appreciate it. But also, there's always pressure to get work done quickly which inhibits learning. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 676 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2007 - 11:22 am:    John, I think you are correct, but then two things have stuck with me since college [also known as my "early" or "younger" days]-- Try to know what you don't know! and Knowing where to try to find what you don't know. To me, both of those challenges still remain, but not sure about the first-- most youngsters seem to think they know pretty much all since it is somewhere on the computer George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 342 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2007 - 12:11 pm:    “Hey, it’s gotta be true: I read it on the INTERNET!” I disagree, Ralph. Sure, I’ve run into many who are answer-seekers, not problem-solvers, and probably there were just as many who succumbed to laziness years ago. We won’t find the seed corn for future specifiers in the “tell me the answer” crowd; it will be found among the “problem solvers.” And I think the up and coming generations contain more problem solvers than we sometimes realize. There are many younger architects who are passionate about self-education and who recognize that they themselves are the primary drivers of their own careers. I’ve been privileged to mentor several who impressed me with an inner need to think through all aspects of a problem to find a solution, who have become excellent technically competent architects, and who could become wonderful specifiers, if that is what they want to do. I wonder if we need to do a better job of letting the younger generation in on the dark secret of specification writers: what we do is fun! Specifications is a specialty that can be very rewarding, creative, and challenging. I know I am doing some “choir preaching” here to passionate specifiers, but the profession has seldom given specifiers their due. Certainly, when I was a precocious young architect who knew everything, becoming a specifier was the last thing I ever thought I’d be doing. I’m very glad to be here now, but perhaps if I had some better role models who were more positive about specifications 30 years ago, I might have gotten into it earlier. [For all you old folks, today is the 30th anniversary of the death of Elvis, if he is in fact dead. I know it’s true, I read it on the INTERNET.] Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 216 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2007 - 12:58 pm:    I didn't know Elvis wrote specifications! Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 618 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2007 - 01:04 pm:    and, I might add, that just yesterday one of the young people in this office came to me and asked how they could go into specifications and focus on that as a career. we're going to have lunch next week. (have to go: we're putting out a "bamboo document package " this morning. this would make more sense if it were actually written on bamboo, than being about bamboo.) David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 886 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2007 - 01:05 pm:    Just to put things in perspective....... ""Youth today love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority, no respect for older people, and talk nonsense when they should be working. Young people do not stand up any longer when adults enter the room. They contradict their parents, talk too much in company, guzzle their food, lay their legs on the table and tyrannize their elders." - Socrates 399 BC Vivian Volz, RA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: vivianvolz Post Number: 94 Registered: 06-2004 Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2007 - 02:05 pm:    George wrote: "I wonder if we need to do a better job of letting the younger generation in on the dark secret of specification writers: what we do is fun! Specifications is a specialty that can be very rewarding, creative, and challenging." Hear, hear! Thank you, George: I do think that's the answer! Specifying is problem-solving, idea-chasing, design-focused, satsifying work. It doesn't belong in a back room, or a black box, because it's collaborative. It's the fast track to becoming the person everyone calls with the interesting problems to solve, because it involves constant learning and constant problem-solving. If we talk about it this way, everywhere, the right people will be attracted to it, people who will excel at it. (In the middle of writing this, I got a call from one of the PAs in the field, who prefaced his question with "You're the one we call when we have a weird problem to solve." Made me grin.) Konrad Hee Intermediate Member Username: khee Post Number: 4 Registered: 04-2006 Posted on Friday, August 17, 2007 - 09:42 pm:    To get back to the original question of, "How do you train or grow a spec writer?"... As one who has more recently entered the spec writing field, I would suggest that to "successfully" accomplish this task, it requires distinct but separate demands upon both the mentor and mentee. Since much has been addressed as to the mentees' responsibility and need for self-motivation, desire to learn, attention to detail, etc., I suggest on a very fundamental level, that if senior spec writers want to increase their members, a mentor should be aware of the following: 1. Have a sincere desire to help the junior spec writer develop successfully. The goal is to develop a good if not great spec writer. In short, if one doesn't care, how committed are they to truly help? 2. Be careful not to project one's own strength and weaknesses on to another. This may seem obvious, but a mentor needs to understand the mentee has their own unique set of skills, and that it it is best to work with the mentee's strengths, while providing their own expertise in their areas of weakness. Having unspoken expectations of the other person can lead to a perceived failure on the mentee's part, when in reality, they may have a different approach to working/learning than was initially assumed. 3. To expect that a mentee must "figure it out" is not as effective as providing guidelines and resources. The mentee still has to do the work, but if a senior spec writer has processes and steps, why make someone flail in the wind? The goal again, is to develop a good spec writer, not to make the path more difficult for a novice. This doesn't discount the fact that the mentee needs to work hard, but the goal is to bring the mentee up from where they are currently, to another level. Is it necessary to require a novice to reinvent the wheel? (i.e. is the goal to encourage or discourage new members?) Or would it be more effective to give them a basic framework to build upon and then let them explore ways to improve and develop as they acquire more understanding and their own expertise? 4. You need a certain amount of proactive involvement. Active engagement will help the process more than a simply passive approach. This does not mean micromangaging or providing continual oversight, but by again, providing expertise. By being reactive only to the issues and subjects raised by the mentee is not really training. Initiation by both parties is necessary, as the mentee will not know all there is to discuss or address in the first place. 5 . If you are not seeing the desired results, than ask yourself if you are communicating effectively to achieve those results. Or perhaps explain to the mentee what your expectations are so they have an idea of how they should be developing. Or another approach could be to help in identifying what is preventing the mentee from achieving a certain result. Whatever the case may be, communication at BOTH ends is key. I do not believe anyone would willingly enter this field and not know the amount of work and learning that is needed. At the most basic level, there must be a desire to self-educate, grow in knowledge and expertise. It is the responsibility of the more experienced to make it all the more accessible and attractive. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 888 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 12:55 pm:    Konrad, That was a excellent post! Thanks. You really emphasize that in order for proper knowledge to be exchanged that the teacher has to be willing to teach and the student willing to learn. Effective communication is the key! Susan McClendon Senior Member Username: susan_mcclendon Post Number: 63 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 02:27 pm:    I sincerely appreciate all this interest in this topic. This was not a rhetorical or idle question on my part. We currently have a specifier position open and would pay a competitive salary, but we have had so little interest that we decided to hire some assistants for me. Assuming that entry level people could not possibly have any construction qualifications, we looked for people who were curious, eager to learn, and intelligent -- several of your recommended qualities. Now I must decide WHAT to teach them. This is not exactly the same as how to grow a specifier, but the information-knowledge requirements are very similar. The first thing I am teaching them is about reference standards -- what they are, how to read them, why and how we use them, and how to read the spec to see whether it uses them correctly. There are two reasons for proceeding this way -- we need to keep our references to standards up-to-date, so they accomplish a vital job while learning, and after reading a lot of your comments, I realized that it might be impossible to teach someone how to write specs before they learned how to READ them. It's the same principle as expressed in a book I heard about on NPR last week -- it was by a fiction writer about "how to read like a writer." Reading good books to study how they were written would help the reader learn how to write better. So, maybe the first part of a course on specifying or spec writing is SPEC READING. There are way more spec readers in our industry than there are spec writers. If we taught how to read specs, sort of like the "Contractor's Guide to Change Orders," ambitious spec writers would learn from it too, just as the change order book has benefited A/E's who paid attention. So, any ideas on how to teach SPEC READING? David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 889 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 02:49 pm:    The best way to teach "spec reading" is "spec using". I strongly believe that architects, engineers, specifiers, and other professionals involved in the construction process should go out a pound a few nails for a while and actually use the documents that they (or more likely someone else) wrote. One of the problems I see is that our specs are becoming more and more "academic" instead of a tool that a contractor can use to construct the building. I have done some construction administration and found it to be very valuable to the way that I write specifications. Christopher E. Grimm, CSI, CCS, LEED®-AP, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 96 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 03:07 pm:    Our local BEC chapter did an awesome event called the "Window Flashing Rodeo", where we grouped into teams, studied the various code requirements and installation instructions, made a shop drawing detail, then on the weekend flashed and installed a window, and watched it either pass or fail the ASTM E 1105 spray test. Designs that passed the test generally had a good head flashing and also sill pan to allow for the possibility that the window itself might actually leak due to the positive & negative pressure cycles, usually at the meeting bar. These kinds of hands-on educational opportunities, as well as construction site visits, some manufacturer based training programs and factory tours are good to seek out. Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 224 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 05:15 pm:    Amen, David. Now if we can only get spec users to give us positive/negative feedback on a regular basis, it would be a nice world. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 277 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Friday, August 24, 2007 - 07:27 am:    "Show me the money." One of the reasons for the specifier shortage is of course that firms have been routinely offering positions that pay what they call a "competitive salary." (No offense intended, Susan.) The reality is, the salaries offered to specifiers in the past have not been truly competitive in the bigger picture. What the phrase has meant is "We're offering just enough salary to attract someone while not offending the design staff" or being "consistent with our interpretation of the AIA salary survey." Recently it has started to occur to firms that a specifier position commands a premium in the marketplace. However, the realization came along too late to lay a foundation of upcoming technical expertise in design firms, and we're now playing catchup. It is a common trope in corporate and human resources management that ""they" want recognition and cool projects and blue jean Fridays more than they want money." This self-serving belief obviously hasn't resulted in an increase in specifiers. Once the kids stop being kids and have kids, they learn that titles and blue jeans and cool don't pay for soccer uniforms and class trips and braces. A known premium on salaries over a long period of time does help generate interest in certain demanding fields. It's not everything, but it is certainly something. And young people looking for how to get ahead in a world with a lowering standard of living and widening wealth gap pay attention to compensation. They get tired of sharing apartments or commuting two hours a day and extending their student loans. So show them the money, and they'll show up at your desk one day asking "How do you learn to do this stuff?" John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 329 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Friday, August 24, 2007 - 10:51 am:    From my experience, "specifications writer" is equated for salary purposes with "senior architect". That is, since a specifications writer does not have managerial responsibilities nor specific project design responsibilities, the salary is diminished in order to keep the pecking order in a firm consistent with a perceived hierarchy rising from drafter to job captain (senior architect) to project architect to project manager (responsible for simultaneous projects) to principal (architect-of-record). In fact the specifications writer typically does not fit into this hierarchy because the specifications writer is not merely a technical writer but is also a technical and design resource person, a mentor, and an embodiment of the firm's corporate memory. The specifications writer is involved throughout the office, on multiple projects at various stages of design development and document production. This means there is a quality assurance value in what a specifications writer does. The independent or outsourced specifier may have an easier time getting to be recognized as a resource. Coming and going from the office of the client architect, the outsourced specifier's activities are less visible and a perception of expertise seems to develops about the specifications writer. That is, the principles and staff of the client architect don't see the specifications writer at work, keyboarding and printing documents, and looking a lot like a clerical person. (I've known several in-house specifications writers who have chafed mightly over this issue.) Being perceived as someone who does "clerical" work holds the specifications writer's salary down. I know many specifications writers, both in-house and outsourced, who diligently work at being resources and mentors. It's what breaks them out out of the "clerical" image and into being perceived as a valued member of the design team. Anonymous   Posted on Friday, August 24, 2007 - 11:47 am:    First, I apologize for the anonymous posting but, in case I write something that is too personal, I hope not to insult any more sensibilities than need be. I know this thread is about "growing specifications writers" (notice I did not use the term "spec writers”) and I think Phil Kabza and John Regener both bring up a tremendously relevant point about the specification writer's compensation and position in most firms. Who would want to do the extra work required to be a truly effective and valued resource to a firm if his or her work was not valued accordingly. Phil’s third paragraph especially rings true to me. Self-serving is not a term I would associate with any of the excellent specification writers that I know and I know a few. In fact, they are the most generous and giving of their time and knowledge among all the people with whom I am acquainted. Several years ago my wife received a raise after being with her employer for only a short while. She is not an architect or engineer. The raise was substantial (about 15%) and was made more or less across the board to all the professionals because the company had been experiencing a significant incidence of “talent harvesting” by its competitors. A market adjustment needed to be made and it was. As an amusing aside, she told me shortly after that she was worried she might be getting paid too much. At the time she may have thought herself an unproven entity to her employer and ripe for being let go if things tightened up. That never happened. At the time I placed one hand on each of her shoulders, looked her squarely in the eye and said, with a stern voice, “Don’t ever worry that an employer will pay you one cent more than he believes your work is worth.” More recently, and after the latest grass-roots salary survey came out on 4specs Discussion Forum so I had a good data resource, I was offered a position with a firm at a compensation level I knew I would probably never achieve with my then employer nor most other similar firms in the region. I took the offer because I thought the work would be interesting (it has been), I have children who are about to start college (one against his will) and I did not want them starting off with tens of thousands of dollars of education debt, and I believed that the level of respect and value placed on the work I would be doing would be reflected by the compensation I was being offered. I was correct on that count as well. Again, I ask the question: How much can your work be valued if it is available cheap and what is to keep younger professionals from seeing this and having it influence the path they take as they develop their careers? I would like to point out that I make an effort always to write or say things like “value of one’s work to his employer” instead of “what he is worth.” The value of a person’s humanity should in no way be predicated on what he contributes to the economic bottom line. As an epilog I’ll add that my last employer asked me what it would take to have me stay. I made a proposal but he shook his head and said that the company’s fee structure just would not permit that for the position I held and that, if he did consent to it, morale in the office would suffer because a specification writer was making so much more than the project managers. I said that information would certainly not come from my mouth but he correctly replied that it would come from somewhere. All in all it is a sad commentary on our profession. Most project managers should probably be better compensated as well. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 330 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Friday, August 24, 2007 - 02:53 pm:    So, to bring the discussion about value and compensation back to the primary point that started this thread, in my opinion it takes wanting to be a construction specifier in order to want to train to be one. That's an obvious statement but I think it is essential that a person identify with being a construction specifier and then proceed to be one. I think the motivation to becoming a construction specifier is closely tied to one's identity. And that identity is influenced greatly by positive role models who make being a construction specifier honorable, gratifying and maybe even sufficient to make a living. Reinforcing or clarifying identity is helped by the gathering together of construction specifiers. Personally, it is why I enjoy meeting with other specifiers at the annual SCIP meeting and also CSI region conferences where there are "Specifier Forums" open to all specifiers to attend. These are opportunities for specifiers to discover that we specifiers are not weird ducks but swans. It's where the idiosynchrocies of being a specifications writer don't feel out of place. How do you grow or train a specifier? Invite, encourage and welcome those who express any interest in being a construction specifier to get to know those who have chosen to be identified and work as a spec writer. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 278 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 02:32 pm:    There's a very thoughtful article by Jeremy Edmunds in the current AIA National Associates Journal that addresses the general issue of compensation in the profession - it gives some context to the more particular issues in this thread related to attracting young people to the speciality of specification writing: http://www.aia.org/nwsltr_nacq.cfm?pagename=nacq_a_0708_pc_edmunds Anonymous   Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 01:19 pm:    Susan, where is your office located? Susan McClendon Senior Member Username: susan_mcclendon Post Number: 64 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 10:07 am:    Atlanta, GA, and yes, we require physical presence in the office. Contact info at www.bsdsoftlink.com. By the way, guys, you all really got off the track. The question is not how to incentivise someone to want to become a specification writer. It's how to teach -- really teach -- and what to teach -- someone who already has the motivation, no matter what the motivation is. So, you have a willing and presumably able person -- what do you teach? Subject matter? Skills? Don't just tell me he/she learns by doing -- not only can I not do it that way, but most firms couldn't afford to let such trainees lose on real projects to learn by trial-and-mostly-error. Margaret G. Chewning FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: presbspec Post Number: 138 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 11:08 am:    Susan, I'm a single person shop, but if I had to "raise" some specifiers I believe I'd go about it as follows: There are 3 skills/qualities that are necessary in the specifer candidate before you try to teach him/her specifications. First is a good handle on written language (in our case here, English). Whether journalistic prose or technical English doesn't matter as long as they can communicate clearly in writing with structured ideas and conclusions. Second is curiosity about how things work. The kid that takes clocks apart to figure them out is a good example. Third being a self starter and being reasonably organized in keeping track of information gathered. These things in place in the candidate, start them with SectionFormat, Chapter 5 of the PRM, and reading/reviewing other specification sections comparing the written sections to the SectionFormat to see where the information conveyed logically fits into the SectionFormat outline and why. If the person does not understand how to read working drawings, a "blue print reading" course would not be out of line. There is (or should be)a logic to the location of information conveyed on the drawings also. It's also paramount that a specifier understand how the building and it's pieces/parts go together in order to give the correct information in the specifications. After the person(s) are comfortable with an understanding of how the construction information is logically organized, set up a team to produce a Project Manual. A senior specfier heading it up and dealing with Div 01, and the "intern" specifers working on the research and writing of various sections with review by the Senior Specifier. As the intern specifier gains skill in specification writing, they can take on more material, work with the Sr. Specifier on Div 01 to learn the legal ramifications and how a project works in the field. (doing some CA work helps with this.) I realize this would take some effort, but to teach there needs to be a mentor of some sort. I was fortunate in having a mentor in my boss, who unfortunately was not a specifer, but got me Hans Meier's Specifications Handbook. Between the two, a whole world opened for me. I hope this is a help. Margaret John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 331 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 10:11 pm:    Susan: The material in CSI's CDT, CCS and CCCA programs is the basic content of a construction specifier's knowledge base. The CDT/CCS/CCCA material provides the standardized principles and procedures for specifications writing. I believe the traditional way for this material to be learned is through local CSI Chapter-sponsored CDT exam preparation classes and through CCS/CCCA study groups established by several certification candidates who wish to study together. CSI's exam preparation materials are helpful. CSI's materials are based on the Project Resource Manual - CSI Manual of Practice. My book, Construction Specifications Writing: Principles and Procedures is focused on the practice of specifications writing and, with the major revisions in the 5th edition, is consistent with the CSI Manual of Practice. Phil Kabza's (SpecGuy's) CDT and CCCA exam preparation programs are also very helpful. Regarding how a specifier learns construction technology in order to make the specifications suitable for bidding and "resulting" the work under the contract, that's a huge matter. It would be helpful, I believe, for someone to create a bibliography of resources for learning construction technology, including publications and education programs. This bibliography would be a task beyond the means of an individual to produce. Perhaps a new discussion thread should be started to identify construction technology resources for specifiers that could serve as a start for developing the list of resources. Christopher E. Grimm, CSI, CCS, LEED®-AP, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 98 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 10:25 am:    Perhaps a page on 4specs could be dedicated to construction industry references/links/resources - best if we could all make postings there, but would need it to remain organized by division/section#'s - or some sort of wikipedia like environment. MASTERSPEC Supporting Documents come very close to doing this already, in the references/links section of each of the "evaluations" Susan McClendon Senior Member Username: susan_mcclendon Post Number: 67 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 11:07 am:    I don't agree that the CDT/CCS programs etc are training programs -- they are verification that someone has learned the stuff the CSI way. I have conducted CCS workshops for CSI chapters and exam preparation materials don't constitute instructional materials. It's a much longer process. Margaret's description is closer to what would happen in real life. I guess I'm being a pest, but what I'm looking for is specification topics that transcend construction materials and technology. Subjects like submittals and how you deal with them, substitutions and all their different ramifications, actual techniques for coordinating the documents, and other issues that most of us learned the hard way, by making mistakes. Concise explanations of these things would be very valuable to novices. In another thread, Colin proposes to develop a wiki for specs -- this sort of thing could go in that as well. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 232 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 11:15 am:    Here Here. I agree with Susan, I like the CDT/CCS/CCCA class(es) but they DO NOT teach you to be a spec writer. In fact they teach almost NOTHING about WRITING specs. they teach: administration of the contract, the roles of the players AND, some information on type and process. - not how to do it. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 632 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 01:07 pm:    I agree also about the partial irrelevance of the CDT/etc classes. the content of those classes is the framework, but they don't teach you anything about how to research something; how to determine what is fair about a change order request; what the contractor's concerns are; or anything else that actually happens on a job site. You can't learn this job from a book or a class; you have to work on projects. You have to either do CA or really talk to the people who do CA --- every day. You have to approve change orders, figure out where your documents didn't work and then get up and do it again the next day. James M. Sandoz, RA, CSI, CDT, LEED AP Senior Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 24 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Tuesday, September 04, 2007 - 09:28 am:    I think Ann just elucidated the "secret of life" when she wrote, "You have to . . . figure out where [it] didn't work and then get up and do it again the next day." In every profession, every craft, indeed in every task, no matter what the extent of prior preparation, one only truly learns by doing. Indivdual preparation is important but we must still involve ourselves in the "profess" part of our profession and be effective mentors to those with less experience. I know I am preaching to the choir here but I offer these words as encouragement to many of you to keep up the good work. It will bear fruit. Not so long ago all I knew and thought about specifications was that they were thicker than a large city's phone book and not as interesting. My knowledge and thinking has changed radically thanks to some excellent mentors.