Using Speclink

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

Author Message Curt Norton, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: curtn Post Number: 125 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 11:06 am:    I'm working on a budget for creating an office master in Speclink. The existing office masters are MS Word documents. There are approximately 150 sections from Divisions 00 through 14. For those who are using Speclink, how long (in hours) did it take you to go through and create your first round of edits to develop an office master? How many sections were involved? The assumption is that the firm will accept Speclink sections with general edits or additions for their office project specific needs (not importing sections from rtf files and creating all of the links etc.) I have worked with Speclink for the last year and I’m comfortable with all of the technical aspects but I’m not sure how to figure out the total time commitment. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 335 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 11:13 am:    If your office masters have narrowed down the products - a little - and you don't have much in the way of special language, tables etc. I'd say an hour a section. Some will take 15 minutes and a few will have special edits and additional material you want to add AND as a result will take a while. Expect to import half a dozen or so that arn't in speclink. Those will come in quickly as rtf files (as you know) Extra time - adding notes to the little blue box here it's up to you. how many notes to the specifier do you have? Curt Norton, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: curtn Post Number: 126 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 11:22 am:    The masters are for a firm that I have not worked with before, but from what I can see, they have very few notes outside of Div 01 Bob Woodburn, RA CSI CCS CCCA LEED AP Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 271 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 01:08 pm:    If you've worked with SpecLink for awhile, you know that one of the main advantages of SpecLink is that an "office master" is optional--you don't really need it, but you already have it. Since it's a database, instead of an unwieldy body of text needing a "rough cut" first, all the master text is always there in the background, waiting to be selected--as are the modifications you've made. In SpecLink, every project spec can serve as the starting point for any other project spec. You don't need to dedicate overhead to developing a "master" even though, with your first project spec, you're already well on your way to one if you feel you need it. As you develop project specs, you have as many "masters" to choose from as you have projects; you just copy the most similar project spec and go from there, modifying it as required. This is realistic--the way a lot of specs actually get done--only here, the system allows it to be done "right" (in other words, you're not missing the text you deleted for previous projects; it's still available, just click and re-select it). And with SpecLink, you can incorporate the latest updates without overwriting or undoing any of your additions or modifications; that's another of SpecLink's unique advantages. With other guide specs, you have to re-create or re-edit your master every time an update comes out, to restore your revisions and additions that have been overwritten. Your master preparation time estimate doesn't need to include that ongoing overhead, which you may not even have the time to do, since with SpecLink, you don't need to do any of that. Since any project spec can serve as a master for another project, you don't need to spend any time on an office "master" per se. Of course, later you can tweak particular job specs into "office masters" for their corresponding project types if you like, so all your "master" modifications are in the same "master" project. Though there's no way of estimating how much time that would take (my guess would be a lot less than preparing a whole master), if you use the same project spec as a basis from the beginning, making all your revisions in it, it is, in effect, your office master--no extra effort or time required! Curt Norton, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: curtn Post Number: 128 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 03:13 pm:    I have worked with it, and one of the biggest potential pitfalls of it is using the last project as your master for a new project. Speclink has a master database that can be edited as a template to meet your typical project needs. If you always start your new project based off of that edited “master template” any changes you made to it will be available for the next project. Once you start working on a project, any changes you make to a section are in that project only. If you want it used as master language/text for ALL projects, you have to make the same changes in the master template. If you have three clients that you do repeat business with, and start pulling the last project as your template, you will find that eventually you have three VERY different “masters.” Once you start a project, it is easy to import individual sections from an old project. So, if you need a section that you thought would be a one time deal, it’s easy to grab and use. Also, you can cut and paste from other jobs instead of importing everything and risking loosing updates that you have made. On top of that, if you have repeat clients that have their own special requirements, you can create a checklist in Speclink to automatically turn on/off sections or language that is necessary for that client or project type. All of this is automatic if you establish a good checklist and great the proper links. You can also over-ride any of those automated actions if this particular project requires it. That is where the real power of Speclink is, but most people never use software to its potential. Just think about how many consulting engineers can talk about Styles or Macro they’ve written and use. Many of us who have used in house word processor masters couldn’t imagine working with out them. (as a former Word Perfect user, I know that it’s slightly different, but Macros are still a necessity) I can't imagine using Speclink without the checklists designed for each office's special needs. Jerry Tims Senior Member Username: jtims Post Number: 53 Registered: 04-2005 Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 03:30 pm:    Curt, I echo your comment about importing sections from another project instead of copying an entire project, if for no other reason than that it results in a smaller database file size since it contains only the sections needed for that particular project. And smaller means faster! Bob Woodburn, RA CSI CCS CCCA LEED AP Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 272 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 03:43 pm:    "If you have three clients that you do repeat business with, and start pulling the last project as your template, you will find that eventually you have three VERY different “masters.” Exactly my point. You copy the last project from the same client, which does include the client- and project-specific changes (though you can of course deselect or further edit them)---so it's like having a "master" customized for each client (and with little or no additional effort, since you're using project specs as your masters). One question your post raises is, "How much time and effort does it take to compose the checklist(s)? And how does that compare to the effort required to "pre-edit" an office master in a traditional (text-based) system? (At least you don't have to re-edit checklist(s) with each quarterly update.) Bob Woodburn, RA CSI CCS CCCA LEED AP Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 273 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 03:54 pm:    Jerry, your comment reminds me of something I've wished for in the past---a convenient database to track which sections (and perhaps manufacturers and products) were included in each job. I have wanted to import special sections from previous jobs, but can't remember which job to look in. Such a database sounds simple, and probably is, but I lack the database knowhow to develop it myself. Has anyone found (or developed) such a tool? Jerry Tims Senior Member Username: jtims Post Number: 54 Registered: 04-2005 Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 04:09 pm:    Bob, I've not seen an animal like you describe. This is how we (I) do it though. I'm not independent so I only work for one firm. We have an "office master" which is nothing but a SpecLink project that we call "Master", and it is home to all of our edited sections. When I need to add a new section, I will typically create it in our "master" project and then copy it over to the actual project it is needed for. I find it easier to create it in the master than to try and remember to copy it from the project to the master after the fact. As a result, our "master" project contains probably 98% of the sections we've created in the last decade. Any time I modify our master project, I print a table of contents (in both MF95 and MF04 format)to make it easy enough to find the sections I'm looking for. Bob Woodburn, RA CSI CCS CCCA LEED AP Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 274 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 04:51 pm:    Thanks; that'll work for SpecLink projects. However, much of our work has to be done with the Owner's own master system (UFGS/SpecsIntact for some DoD projects, and the MS Word masters of a large hospital system). So I'm looking for something that transcends master guide systems. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 04:50 pm:    Jerry - that is a smart way to work. what firm are you with? Jerry Tims Senior Member Username: jtims Post Number: 55 Registered: 04-2005 Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 06:25 pm:    Thanks. I'm with F&S Partners in Dallas. Curt Norton, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: curtn Post Number: 129 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 11:13 pm:    Bob - yes, you want the client specific information to be different. However, if the owner doesn’t have specific requirements for masonry, the masonry section should be the same no matter who the client is. (when the same system is used on both jobs) When jobs are just pulled from the last project, all sorts of “minor” edits occur that rarely get into the master for use on other jobs. Over time, these things can grow and get out of hand. (That’s why Jerry’s method work so well) Besides, why would you want to maintain multiple masters when you can maintain one? As for the checklist I mentioned, depending on its complexity, it takes only a few minutes to create a link to turn on or off a section or certain language in a specific section. If anyone uses Speclink regularly, I would highly recommend their two day course. Unless you already know how to import, export, create links in and between sections, create user choices (including global terns such as Owner, Architect, etc), and key lines to be included in reports (such as a list of submittals, lists of manufacturers, etc.) this course will be well worth your time. Why burn your time with the easy stuff that can be automated? I’d rather spend the time coordinating with the PA and engineers than worrying if I remembered everything my client wanted in his Project Manual. Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 293 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Friday, February 20, 2009 - 03:46 pm:    Who has the best LEED sections? SpecLink or MasterSpec Who has the best green sections? SpecLink or MasterSpec John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 428 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 02:53 am:    I'd be interested in hearing about positive and negative experiences using SpecLink. I've used it and I like the idea of developing what I call "prototypical" specifications. These are pre-edited down from the full checklist and become the starting point for project-specific specifications. What I found difficult was customizing the prototype or project-specific text. Customizing is necessary because plancheckers demand certain text be included, to suit building Code requirements (fire & life safety, structural safety and access compliance unique to the Code jurisdiction and Code authority having jurisdiction). And then there are Sections that simply are not included in SpecLink. Today I had to write a section for chroma key backgrounds (green and blue muslin fabric) used in video production studios ... a common feature of new high schools in "Kalifonia" where video literacy (YouTube) is high and written literacy is low (like, 2 hard to reed and rite exc text msgs). Developing new sections in SpecLink seemed tedious to me. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 330 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 08:53 am:    John: I find it far easier to write a new section in Word, save it to rtf, and import it into SpecLink, which is not a word processor. Jerry Tims Senior Member Username: jtims Post Number: 57 Registered: 04-2005 Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 08:56 am:    OK, I'm totally biased here, but personally, I love using SpecLink. I'm biased because prior to using using it, our office used only a word processor (w/out Masterspec). Needless to say, when my spec mentor started teaching me how to write specifications, I was drowning in a sea of ignorance when it came to editing sections for a new project....especially knowing what to "add back in" to his masters! I convinced him to purchase SpecLink around 10 years ago, so for the most part it's all I've known. Many of the sections in our office master(s) were created from scratch by us. When SpecLink added the "import from RTF" feature, that process became much easier. However, there is still a fair amount of editing to do after importing a section from a product manufacturer, since we all know some of those sections (that are in "CSI format") are truly laughable. From snippets I've seen here and there, I suspect the SpecLink sections are probably a bit on the lean side in terms of content (verbiage?)sometimes, compared to Masterspec. However, leaning on the belief in "Clear, Complete, Concise and Correct", I tend to also believe that less is more, as long as less is enough... and correct. One thing that I absolutely LOVE about SpecLink is the ability to switch from MF04 to MF95 with the click of a button, since we've still got a few clients who have yet to make the switch. I'm sure there are things about the product that would be considered a negative....however, again, since it's all I've known, I'll continue to float along in my "sea of tranquility" and let the rest of you duke it out! Happy Friday all... Curt Norton, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: curtn Post Number: 130 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 09:48 am:    I’m with Sheldon on this one, but with a twist. Speclink has a new section template that works great for setting up the structure of the section. You can then export that section to an rtf file and write your section. When it is done, there are Choice Fields (when the user has to make a choice of materials, etc) that can be automatically created on import to Speclink by using a few special characters like square brackets. Choice Fields are also used for global terms such as Architect, Contractor, etc. this maintains the ability to change the term through out the project with the “click of a button” (as one contractor asked me; That’s all you do to create the front end, right? Just click a button?) Once you import the section you should to create tags to maintain submittal reports, testing reports, manufacturer lists, etc. Other edits include choice fields for section numbers so that the new section can be toggled between MF95 and MF04 and linking it to the Table of Contents. It may sound like a lot, but you only do this once and the section is there when you need it and ready for editing. Once you learn how to create the links and choice fields, it really isn’t that hard. Gregory Scott Mize New member Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi Post Number: 1 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 11:31 am:    On the subject of office "masters" or "prototypes": I'm pretty new (3 months plus) to SpecLink, but this is my understanding: While SpecLink is based on a single, master database, one can make multiple projects (".spp" files) from said database. Each copy can then be edited to represent a common building type and saved as a starting point (a "prototype" or "office master") for new work of that type. The full SpecLink database is still in the background, but the systems and products unique to that building type (office, school, residential, etc.) are already "turned on" when that project is opened. Also, when you open an "old" project in an updated version of the software, it prompts you to decide whether to automatically add the updates and, if added, whether or not to highlight the updates so one can see what has changed. On checklists: Checklists are an important part of specifying; SpecLink not only contains many optional checklists (which link to content within the section) but allows you to create - and link to content - your own specialized checklists. On "content": I often hear that SpecLink is "thin" on content. I understand, but also remember that BSD is adding content daily, often in response to subscriber inquiries. Given the ease with which other content can be imported into SpeckLink or new sections created with the 'New Section Template', the flexibilty and downstream efficiency of the database approach and structure are powerful tools. I have fifteen years experience writing specifications full-time in WordPerfect and MSWord. Both approaches have their strengths, but I continue to be amazed at what SpecLink can do. Scott Mize Specification Writer Building Systems Design, Inc. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 337 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 11:40 am:    Speclink and Masterspec and language I use both: 1. Masterspec contains lots of possible items and choices and in an efort to be complete. It assumes you are smart enough to decide when to delete items you do not need. 2. Speclink is exsctly the opposite. It contains exactly what you need, without lots of extras and assumes you are smart enough to decide when to add items that are specific to your practice and local. Is one better than the other? Is a winesap (good for baking) better than a fuji - (good for eating)? Gee I don't know. depends upon what I'm doing.