| Author |
Message |
James M. Sandoz, AIA, CSI, CCS, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: jsandoz
Post Number: 48
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 05:00 pm: |    |
I know I’m preaching to the choir and I apologize up front to all the product representative who do their jobs with diligence and propriety for having to read this tirade (please know that I am not targeting you) but I am getting sick and tired of being asked “how can I get my product included in your ‘spec’.” So far this week I've had two such requests. The latest was from an individual who wanted me to give the name of the project manager so he could pester him directly.
In the first place I write SPECIFICATIONS not “specs.” A spec is a small bit of dirt that is irritating when it gets in your eye much like an unsolicited phone call asking the above question when you are working on a project deadline. Second, when I, and other responsible specification writers I know, create specifications that name products we do it with much careful consideration of the qualities and past performance of those products. Included in the performance consideration is the previous responsiveness of the manufacturer and its representatives to the inevitable problems that occasionally occur with any product.
My firm does have a process by which a representative can submit his product for consideration on a project. I believe it is spelled out in a Division 01 section titled “Substitution Procedures.” I generously reveal this amazing instrument to those who call wanting to be included in my “spec” but I guess the mechanics of complying with the requirements found in it are just too difficult or inconvenient. The section is two pages long. I guess it must be easier to make an intrusive phone call and beg or cajole the specification writer and hope for the best. By the way, how stupid is it to think that I, considered by project managers and designers to be a “necessary evil” with emphasis on the noun not the adjective, have final say on what product(s) are considered for a project. My advice is sought and considered (I think) but ultimately I have no authority regarding final selection of almost anything.
The answer I would like to give those time pirates who call whining to be “included in (your) spec” would be to first ask if he or she is a member of CSI (remember it is an individual not a corporate membership). If that response is negative I would tell that person to first join the organization then inform himself or herself regarding the proper way go about representing a manufactured product or service. I would suggest that preparing for and passing the CDT and CCPR exams would be tremendously helpful in attaining that goal. After that I would tell the purported product “rep” (a fabric with cross-wise ribs) to become familiar with the substitution requirements of our firm and follow them.
Any product on our master list of accepted manufacturers is there because the manufacturer has a history of providing products that successfully meet the needs of our clients. If a product is not on that list the only way it can be included for a current project is to follow the requirements defined in the “Substitution Procedures” section.
As it is, I am compelled by diplomatic necessity to offer a toned-down version of the above which simply refers the offending party to the substitution procedures section of the project manual. |
Richard Baxter, AIA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rbaxter
Post Number: 89
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 06:13 pm: | |
I hate to rain on your tirade, because I feel your pain, but you bring up a few issues that I want to address.
First, we actually do write (or more commonly – edit) “specs”. The American Heritage Dictionary defines “specs” as an informal form of “specifications, as for a building to be constructed.” So, unless we demand strictly formal conversation with manufacturer’s reps, we should not be so offended by the term ‘specs’. (“Rep” is also in the dictionary as an informal version of the word “representative”.)
Second, we architects and specifiers have to understand that the current state of our economy is threatening the jobs of thousands of sales reps and the well-being of their companies. Reps that cannot show progress fear for their jobs. The least we can do is allow them to market their products with us for 15 minutes. It is a small matter to let them know that we intend only to specify proven products that we are sure can meet the same requirements as the products already on our lists. If our specs are sufficiently clear as to the performance we demand, we have much less to fear from adding others to the list.
Third, substitution procedures often are not an extremely effective means of adding new products to future specs. Substitution procedure may cause a new product to be included for a particular building, but the news of this new product does not always get back to us specifiers. If we do get the news, we still might not be informed if there were problems with the product or the manufacturer. And, if the product works well, but fails a few years later, even the architects might not hear about it.
Fourth, every product that appears in our specs was at one time a risk. Every manufacturer has had to prove their responsiveness and product quality at one time or another. Companies or reps that were responsive in the past might not be the same in the future.
Perhaps it would be best to create a document similar to a substitution request and call it an “office master product approval” document. When a rep asks if they can be part of your spec, just hand them the form. When they comply with all the requirements on the form and fill it out to your satisfaction, add them to the approved product list. The form could include a checklist of things that will get the product permanently removed from the list. Then, if they ask again, you will be able to answer why they are not on the list. |
Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP
Senior Member
Username: redseca2
Post Number: 171
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 07:35 pm: | |
When I get a cold call from a rep about "how can I get my product included in your spec" I often spend the few moments that they are on the phone to open up the appropriate MasterSpec Section to see if they are at least listed in the "acceptable manufacturers" article.
For our large medical projects, that is a very imperfect, but minimum threshold I want them to meet. If they are included, I tend to realize I might learn something here I do not know. But if I find a long list of manufacturers and they are not on it I usually cut the call short and ask them to e-mail me their web links and brochure PDF's. |
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 980
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 - 07:45 am: | |
How about some simple "rep re-training"?
There have been several efforts at getting reps to better understand specifications processes and how they can best fit, whether through better [more user-friendly] web sites, clearer documentation, more direct-reading literatute [with needed information up front and free of glitz and nonsense], etc.
So why not here, suggest and urge the use of, "Would you please explain to me how I might get my product[s] considered for use in your specifications"?
Now you may say that is the same thing, but it certainly comes from a different angle and perspective and is far less controntational. It, by implication, shows that the product could or could not [a call that is not the rep's] be a good fit, and eliminates the "pushy" approach that the specifications writer has somehow ignored or otherwise "wronged" the rep.
Can we talk? |
James M. Sandoz, AIA, CSI, CCS, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: jsandoz
Post Number: 49
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 - 09:17 am: | |
Richard, as I said, it was a tirade born of frustration. I will conclude this missive with more on the reason for that frustration.
I failed to mention that we do have a procedure similar to that outlined in your last paragraph and yes I do treat reps, even those who make cold calls, with respect and courtesy. After all, as Ralph suggests, the golden rule always applies.
By the way Steven, I do exactly as you suggest and it is always amusing when I see that their product is, in fact, included and that person has obviously not bothered to read the specification but had "heard" that his competitor's product has been selected for the project. The requests I usually get are to be included on a specific project and they usually come after bidding so they actually are substitution request. Moreover, they come to me directly and not through the General Contractor. The requirement that such request come through the GC is usually spelled out in the Conditions of the Contract and, in any case, it is just good practice.
Some of those who have not yet realized their full potential as product reps don't seem to look beyond what is immediately in front of them but I ackowledge that, somewhere in the backs of thier minds, it is implied that inclusion on one project will grant their product inclusion in the master specification. This may or may not be an erroneous notion.
I'm a pretty formal dude and, while I can accept abbreviated terms like "specs" and "reps" and misused words like "plans" to mean Drawings and "studs" to mean light-gage metal framing system in conversation and routine written communication, I see the word "specs" tossed around too casually in places where I believe it is proper to spell it out and, in some cases, capitalaize it. I believe that causal usage shows a lack of respect for the concept of written specifications and laziness on the part of the user. Some may claim that I have a chip on my shoulder but truly it seems to me to be an ongoing struggle to get some people to understand the importance of well written and diligently adhered to specifications.
As to my frustration: I agree that substitution procedures may not be the best way to have new products included in future specifications. Yet, the information required in a substitution request is exactly the same as I would want to see, at a minimum, from a product representative who is asking to have his product included in my master specification. Too many reps have simply called and asked to be included without offering to back up thier request with any documentation beyond some cut sheets which offer little useful information. That is the reason for my frustration.
Richard, your response to my post reinforces my assertion that enhanced knowledge of the product rep's role through participation in the CSI certification process will ultimately be worth the effort. Indeed these are difficult times for product representatives (I've had acquaintences with long histories with a single manufacturer let go in the last several months) so, if business is slow, there is no better time for reps to increase their effectiveness by the method mentioned above.
It would actually be a great help to architects, engineers, and other designers if these requests for inclusion came with the type of documentation we would desire. I can think of no one better suited to supply that information in a complete, consice, clear, and correct form than the person representing that product or service. |
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 981
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 - 11:08 am: | |
Slightly off the main track, but still an added form of frustration.
Rep talks to client [who used his products previously] about new product; in turn client tells our Lead to incorporate that product in the new project; product name, etc. is murky, and when inquiry is made for information, the rep relates that the product is just 2 months on the market and their literature is not yet received from the printer.
The project goes out next week! Specifications? Specs? or "Just a mention"? Allowance? Change Order? Firm "maybe"? Blind hope? |
Dale Roberts CSI, CCPR, CTC
Senior Member
Username: dale_roberts_csi
Post Number: 67
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 - 11:21 am: | |
A quick note as I have a lunch and learn today that will take me two hours to get to the architectural office in downtown LA. From the product representatives side. We rarely see the actual specification. Occasionally we see the section that relates to us. You are the most reliable contact we have regarding the specifications. The most difficult part of being a product representative is justifying our jobs. Sales representatives have sales numbers. How do track how many specifications you are on? |
Doug Frank FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: doug_frank_ccs
Post Number: 233
Registered: 06-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 - 11:54 am: | |
Two things about Dale’s post that I have to reply to.
First, Dale, let us specifiers help you justify your job. I’ve said it a hundred times, and several of those times on this forum, that I rely heavily on my local product reps to provide me with product information that is accurate and applicable to my specific needs. My most valuable asset is a network of friends and acquaintances in the product rep business that I have come to know, and most importantly, trust! The odds of getting into my specs, and staying there once in, improve significantly when I know and trust the local product rep. Believe me when I say that a cold call from someone I don’t know has little or no chance of getting anywhere near my master spec.
Second, Never even seen the specification; Yikes ! Without knowing what the actual specified requirements are, how can anyone suggest that they have a product that would be appropriate for my project? I have a huge problem with phone calls and e-mails from reps wanting to get specified on my projects when their product isn’t the least bit applicable. On the other hand, I don’t have any problem with reps who call me on a fairly regular basis to inquire about upcoming projects and whether there’s a place for their product(s) on any or all of them.
Doug Frank FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate
FKP Architects, Inc.
Houston, TX |
Nathan Woods, CCCA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: nwoods
Post Number: 293
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 - 12:28 pm: | |
There are about a dozen local reps in my area (SoCal) that I rely on heavily, because the reps are knowledgable, responsive, and extremely helpful. Guess who's products I use? But I agree, how can a product rep demonstrate effectiveness to their chain of command? All to often I am seeing large companies layoff all their local reps, and keep one person on staff who represents everything west of St. Luis or some similar ridiculous territorial area. They tend to be slow in response, don't have any familarity the contractors installing their product, aren't typically available to visit the project to provide on site assistance. I don't use those products as willingingly or often if I have the choice. |
Dale Roberts CSI, CCPR, CTC
Senior Member
Username: dale_roberts_csi
Post Number: 68
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 16, 2009 - 07:43 pm: | |
Doug, how do I make recommendations without ever seeing the specifications? Example #1 contractor calls me he is working on project x, he tells me about the installation details and that the specification calls out a competitor’s product. I provide him with an or equal or better. #2 specifier or architect calls with a substitution request and ask for my opinion, I never see the specification. #3 architect or specifier calls me, gives me the details and ask for installation recommendation and details and sometimes they even ask for my recommend products. Again, I never actually see the specifications. Even though I have not seen the specifications I do know what products would be appropriate for that project. I hope this takes the “Yikes” out of your comment.
We all hate cold calls both receiving and making them, just remember it could be worse, you could not be receiving any calls. No calls from representatives because you do not have a job or no projects to work on. I am thankful to be employed.
I appreciate your kind words about product representatives. But those kinds of justifications do little for my boss. They want to see projects and sales numbers. Unfortunately I do not see most of the specifications that I believe I am on. |
Doug Frank FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: doug_frank_ccs
Post Number: 234
Registered: 06-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 17, 2009 - 08:12 am: | |
Interesting and insightful comments Dale. Thanks for that. I understand your reply about not seeing the specs and appreciate your difficulties. Yeah, my “Yikes” is somewhat diminished.
I also understand your (and many others like you) frustration about having to justify your job and don’t envy you. Still I would like to think that employers with any degree of sophistication would appreciate the fact that you are actually already in most specs because of your established relationships with your area specifiers. I have happily provided a copy of one of my master spec sections to local reps so they could forward to their corporate execs showing that their products are in my company’s master spec. Of course the simple inclusion of any given manufacturer doesn’t ensure a sale but it’s a lot better than not being listed at all.
Here’s another round of ammo for your job justification gun. Company X terminated their local product representative and decided they could service me just fine from a thousand miles away. There’s a bit of a back-story here that I won’t go into but, I removed Company X from my list of acceptable manufacturers in my project specifications. That company now, if they even learn about one of my projects, has to deal with a substitution request process from across the country. Not very likely to get accepted.
I stand by my previous statement that local product reps are one of my most valuable assets, and I hope your employer understands your value to us spec writers.
Doug Frank FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate
FKP Architects, Inc.
Houston, TX |
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 982
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 17, 2009 - 11:04 am: | |
I agree most heartily with Doug.
It is really too a matter of familiarity! We don't have the luxury and time to deeply research products any more, so we tend to use those we do know about, have used before, or have other confidence in. If any of that comes into doubt, we will bail out.
Mergers and other buyouts have moved many good reliable manufacturers away from us into the gauzy world of the huge and remote companies, who care less about us and our teeney projects [only several $million].
We have ditched some first rate lines, simply because their benign neglect and binders from 1996, their last call is beyond rememberance, and we get no reaction to requests.
Why? Aren't they still in the business of selling their products?
I've been around so long I can remember fairly periodic calls from reps, [and then they wore ties and suits/sport coats], knew their line[s], told the truth, and "got back" with answers.
But things changed, Now too much is vague-- you never know who really you're dealing with, and so many companies have "disappeared" only to still be around??? [Pratt & Lambert still exists, but we're not sure where their market is, and what their products are-- but their rep goes to our interiors people but not the architects-- hmmmmmm]
I sympathize with good reps like Mr. Roberts, but really, it is what is behind them that counts and where the problem, I feel, lies.
WE can help-- some-- but don't confront me with, "Why am I not in your specs"-- you need a new question, friend!
Sadly, we all are victims of this malaise [what else can you call it?]. Oh, yes, giving a damn still counts, here in our office and in many others I bet!! |
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan
Post Number: 323
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 17, 2009 - 01:02 pm: | |
Some of the most interesting presentations I have given have been to product reps on design process and product selection. It is understandable if this process is a big black box even to more experienced product reps. Some firms rely on "tried-n-true" details and specifications, sometimes far beyond the demise of some "tried-n-true" products or manufacturers. Other firms are looking for the next hot thing and tend to accept new products with less critical appraisal than one might expect. In some cases, the Owner may required the Architect to use and unfamiliar product or system. In some larger firms, some teams take one approach while others take another.
How does a "rookie" rep begin to make some sense out of it all when even the most experienced reps are sometimes confused?
Then you add in the fact that some manufacturers seem to embrace a philosophy of marketing by substitution where the design team never hears of a product except through a substitution request. And, of course, there are manufacturers who only seem to market to Owners and provide Architects with very little in the way of information that can be used to evaluate their products within the parameters of the project's design intent.
There are reps (and contractors) who really don't understand how various types of stuff is specified. Several years ago I was pestered by a local rep who wanted me to use a proprietary specification for a commodity product. It was really difficult to explain that I had used a non-proprietary specification because it was a commodity product and the fact that I did not list this company's name in my specification did not mean that the company could not bid on the product. This misunderstanding had rippled through the company to the point that the sales people who actually sold the product to installers did not understand that they could quote on jobs where their company was not listed since their products did meet the specification.
I firmly believe that I am only as smart as the size of my contact file. That level of smarts can be enhanced significantly by that relatively (and somewhat surprisingly) small subset of contact who either know what they are talking about or are patient enough to get answers and explain it to me or both. Manufacturers or their reps seem to go out of their way to avoid providing me or my clients with enough information to make an informed decisions will not get preferential treatment either at the door to my office or in my spec. Those that do, will earn my respect, gratitude, and advocacy either by including their product in my specification or by suggesting to my clients that they consider it when appropriate.
There are a couple of things that bear mentioning... there are certain Owners (and all you specifiers know who they are) who want to restrict a list of product/manufacturers to not more than three. I am sorry if I omitted your name, but of the 10 manufacturers that offer products in this area, please understand that I could only choose 3. There are also those Owners who have strong feelings about what they want whether the Architect agrees or not. If I tell you that this is what the Owner wants, please don't waste my time trying to "sell" your product for this project; ain't going to happen no how no way. I am sorry if the Owner won't see you and I may or may not be able to suggest who you might see, but I am not in a position to specify your product without further direction from my client, |
|
4specs.com Home Page
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page