Why Younger Architects Don’t Want to ...

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

Author Message Colin Gilboy Senior Member Username: colin Post Number: 194 Registered: 09-2005 Posted on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 - 12:24 pm:    There are any number of reasons why younger architects don’t want to become specifiers: 1. Preparation for architects (especially formal academic education) strongly emphasizes visual quality as paramount; this continues in practical experience. 2. Perception of specifying as not being a critical and necessary part of design practice, but only tangentially related to design practice. 3. Perception of specifying as narrowly focused specialty of only peripheral importance to being a “real architect”. In HR parlance, this means that specifiers are not “line personnel, but staff or support personnel (the result of No. 2). 4. Perception of specifying as being a dead-end career path (related to No. 2 and 3 above). 5. Perception of specifiers as being poorly compensated (related to No. 4 above). 6. Perception of specifiers as mostly being “ol’ farts” (ol’ white guys) who are not a lot of fun; a perception your article reinforced. Now, if The Fountainhead’s Howard Rouark or the Paul Newman character in “The Towering Inferno” had been a spec writer… [Originally received as an email from Peter Jordan, posted with his permission - Colin] Colin Gilboy Publisher, 4specs.com 435.654.5775 - Utah 800.369.8008 John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 441 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 - 01:08 pm:    Specifications have nothing to do with the architect receiving design awards, which have significant marketing value to the Architect. In 36 years of practice, I have never seen and AIA award for specifications or drawings. Preparation of construction specifications, including product evaluation and selection, is not taught in all but a very few architectural and engineering curricula. Therefore (it is concluded), specifications preparation is unimportant or something to be gained on-the-job, like preparation of bidding and construction contract drawings (drafting). Don't waste time learning specifications writing. The "Spec-O-Matic" programs, linked by BIM objects to the drawings, will take care of the yucky construction technology stuff, if I understand the matter after a week in Indianapolis immersed in BIM-speak. So why worry about specifications? Just hire an independent spec writer to put together a set of specs with just enough information to get through plancheck, bidding and construction. Since "mature" architects and engineers don't understand and appreciate specifications (generally speaking), why should young architects and engineers? Colin Gilboy Senior Member Username: colin Post Number: 195 Registered: 09-2005 Posted on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 - 01:21 pm:    Your connection of drafting skill to understanding of contract document production is assumed (I don’t agree, but I’ll let that one go for now) I assume that you are making the argument that students today do not leave with meaningful skills or knowledge – just “glitz” and no understanding of “insight into contract documents” I graduated from architecture school 21 years ago after a career as a working archaeologist. They didn’t REALLY teach contract document understanding – or drafting - then either. We had a pro-practice class and that was about it. I did not take drafting in high school. I was going to be a Zoologist. I did take every pragmatic class offered by University of Idaho and even (with the help of teaching assistants and professors) invented a couple of more. Architecture school is about design and all the fluff that goes with it (sustainability, BIM, IPD, etc) and it has to be. Out here in the field we will beat drafting into you (computer or hand,) but intro to design will come from nowhere else but school. In business-land I don’t have time to argue about the death of post modernism or the neo-classicists of the early French Republic vs Albert Spears work for the 3rd Reich. I don’t have time to fill you in on why sustainability is important, BUT, in school you do have that time and you should take it! I regret that I did not spend MORE time arguing design in school. Your argument is an old one “Why don’t we teach future workers the tools of the trade” and the answer is – “This is not a trade school, it’s a university” and it’s not a drafting degree or a CDT exam it’s a degree in architecture. If the student leaves school knowing what he or she does NOT know, then the student is ready to learn how to draft from those of us who do. PS Actually the emphasis on CAD in schools has done a disservice to many students –because they leave school being better draftsmen and poorer architects. I could go on but I have contract documents to administer – but if you want to argue the origins of neo-classism give me a day or two to brush up and I’m game! MARC CHAVEZ / CSI CCS CCCA AIA [sent by email by Mark and posted with his permission - Colin] Colin Gilboy Publisher, 4specs.com 435.654.5775 - Utah 800.369.8008 Bob Woodburn, RA CSI CCS CCCA LEED AP Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 292 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 - 01:27 pm:    A lot of those perceptions (in the first post above) are right (though I might quibble with number 6...). When my wife was a little girl, her family had a cow, which her mother had to milk morning and evening. Her mother told her, "Janice, don't ever learn how to milk a cow..." It's the same with specifying--a necessary task, gotta be done. Somebody has to do it. But it isn't perceived as being nearly as gratifying as design, which is what attracts people to the profession--and even worse, it's so unlike design (not involving drawing, even on the computer--unlike being relegated to "production") that it tends to greatly diminish your chances of ever being able to become a designer, unless you start your own firm. If designing buildings is your career objective, specifying is as good a way as there is to derail yourself onto a siding. No wonder architects avoid specifying. If you're the only one in the firm who can do it, then you're the one who does it--like milking the family cow. And it never ends... On the other hand, since most architects hate specifying so much, for the foreseeable future there will be a niche for the small number of folks who can do it, and don't mind doing it. There's a certain amount of job security in that (or at least a consulting opportunity). Another possible benefit is that you get to draw up legal documents--like an attorney--without the stigma of being a lawyer. Instead, you're an architect. Architecture could learn from film industry, which it most nearly resembles. Though many if not most film students have visions of being the next star director, directing is not the bulk of the curriculum--maybe one or two courses, since there's so much else to learn. Film schools also teach courses in the other specialties involved--scriptwriting, cinematography, acting, lighting, editing, sound, production, financial and legal aspects, etc.--and the students get experience in a variety of those roles in school and on the job. If film school were like architecture school, the major course every semester would be directing, with the rest lumped together in a few token courses, if covered at all. Importantly, at the end of each film are the credits: Everybody involved in the production gets credit for their respective contributions, from the front office accountants to the honey wagon drivers. Even though their roles may seem peripheral (but are essential), they all get their share of the credit. We could learn a lot from that alone. Russell W. Wood, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: woodr5678 Post Number: 137 Registered: 11-2003 Posted on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 - 01:36 pm:    Anyone who's gotten out of a jamb because of the specs knows the importance of specs. Someone on this website once said "what's the difference between a plans room and a court room? They read the specs in a court room!" Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 174 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 - 01:42 pm:    Architecture like engineering is a profession. Professionals need to understand and be able to use the tools of their profession. To the extent we are ignorant of one or more of the tools we are a caricature of the professional we claim to be. Tony Wolf, AIA, CCS, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: tony_wolf Post Number: 14 Registered: 11-2007 Posted on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 - 01:42 pm:    If specs were really that valuable in court, wouldn't specifiers be paid and respected [or feared] as attorneys are? "I get no respect" -Dangerfield Richard Baxter, AIA, CSI Senior Member Username: rbaxter Post Number: 92 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 - 02:11 pm:    It may be worth mentioning that most architects do not get to design much either. The main design is often done by the few principals in the firm while the rest of the architects deal with the less exciting details and then spend a lot of time answering questions during construction administration. Specifiers do offer some input on the design as they recommend some products and installation methods over others. Still, I think most of us can agree on the problems facing specifiers. We seem to be in the same situation as stay-at-home mothers. The work is as hard or harder than what others do, but the rewards are not always as great. Someone needs to figure out how we can change these perceptions. anon. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 - 02:21 pm:    As a lifelong specifier, I can only say this: Stop whining and be thankful you can contribute in a meaningful way to projects that take MANY people to achieve success. And that you have a job. If you feel overworked or underpaid, do something about it, because brother, you're not going to change the specifier's status. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 345 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 - 02:56 pm:    Amen. If the world goes BIM and IPD there are even more opportunities for us to grow/change our jobs and move push ourselves further into the design/building process. Think up a new name like Building Information Manager or something cute, and push. If you stay at your desk and hide behind the sweets catalog (harder and harder to do) you will continue to be ignored and disrespected. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 767 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 - 03:05 pm:    Anon: That may be true, but if we don't attempt to make a change for the better, someone else will definitely make the change for us--and it may not be what we want. Just look at how the architect's role has changed over the years. The contractor has assumed some of the duties that architects had many years ago. The AIA, through their documents, and professional liability insurers, through their insurance policies, limited the risk that an architect could assume, so the contractor assumed them. The architect, in essence, had been reduced to nothing more than just a designer and construction documents provider to comply with state professional registration laws. The same will apply to specifiers in the new BIM era if we don't assert ourselves and be a part of its development, rather than just sitting back and letting it decide our fate for us. If we do nothing, it will only exacerbate the image of specifier obsolescence. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Vivian Volz, RA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: vivianvolz Post Number: 121 Registered: 06-2004 Posted on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 - 03:25 pm:    Thanks for the shout out, Peter. I originally wrote this post for the email exchange a bunch of us had this morning. If you read it there, here it is again. For the record, though I’m only 41, I took drafting in high school and used most of the techniques Ralph mentions in college. I also took a course from a mad scientist prof, in a new technology called parametric object-oriented modeling. But I refused to waste a credit hour on learning AutoCAD. I concurred then, and still concur with Marc, when he says “it’s not a trade school, it’s a university.” I got paid $10/hr to learn AutoCAD on the job the following year. Funny, we’re still learning to use object-oriented modeling professionally, now known as BIM. Peter’s point number 6, the old fart point, is something we really could start working on, simply with our attitudes and editorial stances when we talk to the industry. I’m not an old white guy, nor is Edith Washington, nor is Anne Whitacre, nor is Emily Borland; and even old(er) white guys don’t have to be old farts, as Peter, Bill DuBois, and the East Coast Dennis Hall exemplify. I think the post-gala dancing with the SpecTones at Construct this year was a joyful example of the fun we have together. No offense taken, Ralph, but I’m an activist about our outgrowing the old fart image. The real problem, as I see it from my perspective as a recently laid-off architect and specifier, is point number 3, with a dash of point number 2 as its cause. While my design teams valued my advice and expertise in materials, I think management forgot that I am part of the design team. (I am an architect, but I have great respect for the many specifiers I know who are not.) Some of my colleagues have been staffed into “administrative” studios instead of into design studios. It’s far too easy for somebody with technical expertise in materials and systems and technical expertise in written construction documentation to be shunted off to sit with the people with technical expertise in computer networking, and to be viewed as overhead. If we’re thought of as overhead, we can be underpaid, undercut by the cheap kind of consulting spec writer who doesn’t coordinate documents, and cut from staff when times get tight. Our real value delivered to the team and the client isn’t a set of contractually-required written documents; it’s our expertise in analyzing, selecting, and specifying the materials and systems used in the project designs. Integrating into the design team is the most effective way to deliver that value. If the written documents morph into some other deliverable, the expertise will still be required. But if we’re perceived as the people who put the information in the book, then we are vulnerable when the book goes away. Anne’s “all that other stuff” is how the projects get built and last thirty years and keep people safe; and we are the keepers of much of that knowledge. We have to show office management how they make money on us. We have to show project managers how our early and integrated participation in the design saves their projects time in design and money in contract administration. We show project architects every day that we are their partners in design, if we are available to answer their questions and make suggestions and share detail drawings. We show all the junior staff on the team that there is more to product selection than color and texture, if we take the time to ask them questions and send them off to find the answers. The price of all of this is making ourselves available to interruption, interaction, and other people skills. If we sequester ourselves from teams and generally act like old farts, we can’t show anyone our real value. My former teammates and I were involved in an ongoing process we called the Paradigm Shift (which I assume they’re still doing without me), the goal of which was to integrate the specifier into the design team more fully. To varying degrees it meant involving the senior specifier earlier, placing more responsibility for the content of the specs with members of the design team, and improving the whole team’s understanding of the spec information. A lot of the plan involved shifting the perception of specs from a “black box” process (shove drawings under the door and the specifier tosses specs over the transom a few days later) to a design process. We had talking points, presentations to managers, and even (playfully) forbidden phrases. (“Doorstop” is not a permissible word for “Project Manual”.) I see us as having a similar task, as CSI, to shift the industry’s understanding of specs from documents to information, and the specifier from a technician to a building information specialist. We know what we mean when we say “specifier”, but do our project teammates? And how do we exemplify what we mean? If we fix Peter’s point 2, quite a bit of the rest will follow. It is, of course, the hardest to fix. We can work on points 1 and 6, just to get started. Thanks for a stimulating discussion! Vivian J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 339 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 - 03:34 pm:    "Importance" is such a relative term, and I have to believe that the "importance" of a contribution made by any single member of the procurement team (owner, architect, engineer, contractor, supplier, finance guy, etc.) varies with the stage of the project and the time of day (to say nothing of the freshness of the coffee). I have worked on projects that were killed when the prime rate edged up a quarter point; that is the most important thing on that project. anon. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 - 03:23 pm:    So specifier obsolescence is only an image problem? My boss (the powerless architect) wants me behind my desk. We are witnessing evolution. The contractors didn't decide en mass to 'take over' but individually saw a need they could fill. You can hold onto old paradigms, but you can't force others to, even if you think up really cutesy names. The game today is providing value in meeting needs, not slapping tail fins on last year's model. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 471 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 - 05:22 pm:    A few recessions ago, I was thinking about setting up a company that would produce CAD documents for older single-practitioner firms. I had been in discussions with several architects who were then in their late fifties or early sixties… folks who had never learned CAD and who didn’t want to, who were getting demands from clients to produce CAD documents, and who wanted to practice for a few more years. It would have been the perfect scam to ride out the rest of my career, and I could have folded the company and retired when the last dinosaur hand-drafting client died, and CAD finally emerged triumphant. Of course, that story has little application to this discussion of the current state of specifications, not just because I never followed through completely with the idea, but also because I believe specifications will be with us always. Or at least the information that specifications bring to the party will always need to be part of the instruments of service (as the new AIA A201 says). That information looks like it is increasingly less likely to be bound in a thick doorstop document, and more likely to be imbedded in an electronic something-or-other. BIM integrates information (some day, all the information?) into one place (or into an interoperable series of places?), the model. Because of the way the primitive versions of BIM software we now use (e.g. Revit) are set up, design teams will need a much earlier understanding of the things we specifiers bring to the party. As mentioned earlier in this thread, many firms are looking at bringing specifiers onboard the design team much earlier than they used to. We are looking at it here, and it seems to be well received. It seems to be working well on the projects we’ve started doing it. Back when I was thinking of the CAD support firm for dying dinosaurs, one of the architects I was talking to made a really great point. He had been doing some consulting work for one of the larger firms here in town, simply figuring out the details for one of their buildings. “George,” he said, “There will always be a place in this business for old gray-haired guys like us who know how to put together buildings.” I would suggest that a specifier is one of those old gray-haired guys (although she might be a middle aged woman) who truly do know how to put together buildings. I would also suggest that there are folks out there who are quite eager to do what I do now, although they might not YET be aware of it. A local macro-brewery in town (which shall remain nameless) used to require middle and upper level managers to make one of their five year career goals “to identify and train my replacement”. I’ve adopted that goal here, and I’m on the way to doing just that. It takes a bit of extra effort to seek out those people, to encourage them, and to include them in your thought processes from time to time. But it is amazing to me that when I start off a conversation with “What do you think about this problem I have been looking at…” how interested the right people are in learning what we do. When young people see specifications from the inside instead of just view it from afar, they find out the dark, dirty secret that we’ve been hiding from them: specifications can be fun, interesting, valuable, and –dare I say it – creative. Our firms are filled with curious young people eager to carve out a niche for themselves. Judging from what I have seen in the ten years since I gave up being a generalist architect and became a specialist specifier, the profession of specification writing is full of intelligent and caring folks who are willing to share what they know. I’ll close with the thought that while the problem may lie with the younger generation’s and the profession-at-large’s perception of us, it is we who are the solution. George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS Cannon Design - St. Louis, MO (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 - 05:11 pm:    I have met lots of specifiers that think they know their stuff, and even more architects. My observation is that few actually do. I have made it a priority in my career as an architect and specifier to actually know what I am talking about, drawing, and specifying. I am still employed, and well paid. It is astonishing the number of times I have heard (and read on this forum) statements of opinion being fobbed off as statements of fact. Specifiers are some of the worst offenders. Folks, if you want to be a valued member of the team, enjoy job security, and be well compensated, you need to become a voracious reader, an objective learner, and a soldier for truth. Opinion, conjecture, and rambling are poor substitutes for the truth. People do recognize the difference. The good economic times of the last few decades have resulted in laziness and complacency within the profession. The wheat is now being separated from the chaff. I am not sad to see the blow hards being let go. I am not sad to see the Old Fart specifiers and the pseudo-experts being let go. These nfolks have always been a hindrance to efficiency, quality, and accuracy. I say good riddance. And I say Welcome! to new and better ways of doing things. I fully embrace the concept of BIM and IPD and look forward to using and improving these tools for the betterment of the profession. Spec writers have an important, integral roll to play in both. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 768 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 - 05:25 pm:    Anon: For now, yes. If specifiers ignore or refuse to to participate in the BIM development process, then it will be perceived that specifiers are no longer necessary since the "Spec-O-Matic" (I like that, John) feature will do it for them. BIM-operators, like many CAD operators, know the ins and outs of what the various software programs can do, but know very little about about the technology and constructability of the building elements they are entering into the programs. BIM itself is not the panacea to solve all our construction-document-related woes. The old saying, "garbage in, garbage out," still applies with BIM. And, even though specifications in the form we're comfortable with now will likely change with BIM, the same information will still be required to produce the building. I agree, it's an evolution, and I don't think that anyone here on this discussion forum thinks otherwise. Specifiers need to change along with the evolution. But if the image, or perception (as used by Peter Jordan), of specifiers held by architects is that specifiers are no longer needed because BIM will do it for them, will have a rude awakening when, after they've let go or retired all of their specifiers (i.e. technical expertise), that BIM doesn't do what they thought it would. I never said the contractors "took over" enmass; but, when they saw an opportunity, they took it--and the architects did nothing to retain it. Now contractors all over the country are touting themselves as "construction managers." We specifiers need to take this opportunity to tout our expertise in building construction and adjust to this developing technology; lest we lose it to another entity--gasp! the contractor!? Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Bob Woodburn, RA CSI CCS CCCA LEED AP Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 293 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 - 06:51 pm:    Architects ought to stop griping that construction management is done by contractors, since most architects have neither the interest nor the knowhow to do it. Architecture and construction management are two different things. Most architects I have known want to design buildings, not manage construction. How many architects still do construction estimating? Or do any construction scheduling at all? Or like negotiating with, coordinating and policing subcontractors? For that matter, how many architects really enjoy checking and processing submittals--something that, like specifying, is still done by architects? Architecture is not construction management, and hasn't been for a long, long time, except for a very few architects who really like to do both, usually on small design-build jobs. If architects wanted to become construction managers, there's nothing stopping them, but they'd be wise to avoid architecture school, since its curriculum has little to do with construction. There are, however, construction technology programs that don't pretend to be architecture schools, and probably do a good job at what they do. The fact that most architects don't practice construction management is evidence enough that they're either not interested, or can't do it well enough to be competitive (or both). There will always be a need for specifiers and people who know how to put a building together. They're the ones who will write the specs that will be embedded in the building information model; the BI modelers can't and won't do it; they generally don't know enough or care enough about specifying. They evidently expect their "Spec-O-Matic" to crank out a project manual automatically, but that won't happen until specs are standardized or customized for the BIM system--by specifiers. Since architectural schools don't generally recognize specifying and detailing as design functions (or teach them), those functions will eventually be taken over by the construction technology and engineering schools, and architects will become primarily schematic designers, with the detailing and most of the product selection (except for finishes and maybe some high-profile materials) done by the contractor--excuse me, construction manager. I doubt that attitudes toward specifiers will change. After all, you don't have to be a specifier to be an architect, or to do schematic design, which is what most young architects seem to want to do (and are trained to do). But conversely, you don't have to be an architect to be a specifier, though it could help. If we still lived in the era when an architect had to "do it all" (design, draw up construction documents, and manage construction), specifying would just be another part of the job. But in the future, it will likely become mainly a construction industry specialty, done on a consulting basis by persons who aren't architects, like hardware consulting and roof consulting. And likely done a lot better than the typical generalist architect could do it. Richard Baxter, AIA, CSI Senior Member Username: rbaxter Post Number: 93 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 - 07:41 pm:    When I was first asked to do specs, the principal architect said he really just wanted me to be the person that everyone could go to with their questions about products and materials. Editing specs was just a way to help turn me into that person. Most architects, with a good master spec in hand, can provide an adequate spec for a project. But not many of them can be the kind of product and material resource that an architect’s office needs. I think that is the core of the problem. Many of us are much more than specifiers and we somehow need to help the industry and our architect cohorts understand that. If I were to leave my office, thousands of conversations with manufacturer’s reps would leave with me. I really see myself as a general construction materials specialist who also writes specs. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 393 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 02, 2009 - 10:35 am:    "Most architects, with a good master spec in hand ..." However, most architects do not have a good master spec in hand. While MasterSpec and other commercial master specification libraries are a good start, few architects have the capability of adequately editing the selections in these documents and ending up with an accurate project specification. My WAG is that about 10 percent of project architects can perform this task adequately. So "a good master spec" implies a pre-edited office master, which implies a competent specifier either in-house or consulting that has created, and maintains, said master spec. Richard's point about the material knowledge resource is so well taken. Many non-specifier architects continue to see specifications as a product, rather than an instrument of service that is integral to design. That's why bidding manufacturers continually report receiving project specifications that consist of completely unedited masters. Not preaching anything here that the choir doesn't already know by heart. Tim Werbstein, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: tim_werbstein Post Number: 9 Registered: 09-2006 Posted on Tuesday, July 07, 2009 - 07:54 am:    "WAG"? Altogether too many people have gotten on an ever enlarging acronym bandwagon (EEAB). This acronym-bandwagon mentality (ABM) assumes that acronym creation (AC) is vitally important to save space in printed matter (SPM) and space in digital imaging (SDI), and that these savings are attended with little or no loss of comprehension (LOC) and are important to world survival (ITWS), perhaps because fewer words means less electric-power generation for lighting (EPGL) and less wood consumption for paper (WCP). That is not the case. The LOC is greater than recognized (GTR) by acronym pundits (APs). Confusion over an acronym's meaning is often generated by readers who have their own menu of acronyms (MOA) that they feel compelled to use for their own, favorite fields of interest (FFOI). They may be APs themselves. The military has perhaps the greatest ABM and has for very long been the leader in AC. This can only function well within a single field, and functions poorly for widely read or a well informed public (WIP). As an acronym impaired person (AIP), and I am not alone, the time required to reread text, send requests for clarifications (RFC), or proceed erroneously due to misunderstandings is enormous. My FFOI and MOA certainly may not correspond with yours and my LOC is often a product of the similarity of acronyms (SOA) proffered by various APs. An AIP, and there are an ever increasing number among WIP, is more aware of LOC created by SOA than most casual readers. It is better to communicate completely and clearly, in essence, to be proactive against LOC and its accompanying waste of resources so evident in the large number of RFC. Consequently, the EEAB is counterproductive and results in ever increasing LOC. The LOC and increased need for SPM and SDI for clarifications is GTR by society and APs themselves. The control of ABM must be understood by society as ITWS, wasteful of EPGL, and contrary to reducing WCP. SLFN Bob Woodburn, RA CSI CCS CCCA LEED AP Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 294 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Tuesday, July 07, 2009 - 09:38 am:    So, does SLFN mean "Sure love full names"? I'm reminded of an acronym that baffled me once. It was in a military project context; something--some problem or situation--was, or had been, "OBE". I searched the web and asked everyone I could except the original author (not wanting to reveal my ignorance), but finally gave up and called him. He told me it stood for "overcome by events"--meaning it had either resolved itself, or it was too late to do anything about it anyway. Useful concept... Tim Werbstein, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: tim_werbstein Post Number: 10 Registered: 09-2006 Posted on Tuesday, July 07, 2009 - 09:56 am:    SLFN = So long for now I had once received this in an email. Randy Cox Senior Member Username: randy_cox Post Number: 58 Registered: 04-2004 Posted on Tuesday, July 07, 2009 - 01:40 pm:    This is a really interesting topic, but I don’t agree with the premise that younger architects don’t want to… Maybe I’m the exception to the rule, but when I was a young apprentice (we weren't interns back then,) I wanted to write specs. Back then, I didn't have the knowledge base to be fully trusted writing specs, although I did manage to edit a few drywall and vinyl tile sections from time to time. (Although I still dream of being a specifier when I grow up, I’m just a project manager now.) Back in those youthful days, there were two keys to the practice of architecture shrouded in mystery; specifying and detailing. While they are no longer mysteries to me, they are still mysteries to young architects. Our job is to de-mystify these critical tasks. In our small office, we’ve started a series of monthly lunches for the young professionals, and our summer and fall plans include discussions of specifications, the construction contract, and bidding. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 899 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, July 07, 2009 - 01:54 pm:    Wow, Randy, are you up for GOS (god of specs)? It's wonderful what you're doing and encouraging to others. Kudos! Russell W. Wood, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: woodr5678 Post Number: 138 Registered: 11-2003 Posted on Tuesday, July 07, 2009 - 02:05 pm:    I can't even get our 35 yr old Archs to assist with writing (fill in the blanks) Div 0 & 1 for their own projects. They see this as beneath them...I see it as they don't have a clue. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 341 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Tuesday, July 07, 2009 - 02:28 pm:    At the risk of beating a dead horse... My original posting was based on a group of "perceptions" which may approximate reality in some practices, but certainly are not true in others. The issue is not really to change the reality, but to change the perception(s). The efforts of many such as Randy and Vivian (especially the efforts of the younger ones in our ranks) do chip away at these perceptions, but they are generally not really addressed by "dee-signers" (generally, not always). I am also well aware of the thin line between constructive introspection and corrosive wallowing I do believe if we are aware of the misperceptions, we can be proactive in addressing them in a constructive manner. Nothing worse than an ol' f**t sitting in the "back room" grousing about architectural interns without a clue and then being unwilling to assist in their further education. Andrea Stephan (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, July 08, 2009 - 10:47 am:    I have read many of the posts regarding this "hot" topic and have had this conversation several times with my mentor over the years. I myself am a young specifier. I was turned onto specifying during my first year of college. I realize this could be a lucrative business if we sell our value appropriately. I make a habit of doing things that others do not desire to do. My hope is that other young specifiers continue in this profession as it evolves into an information management type of role (for example with BIM technologies) because it is essential to design and construction. My determination is continuing down this path as "ungrateful" or "undesirable" it may be (in the eyes of others). Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1013 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, July 08, 2009 - 11:20 am:    Andrea, I am interested to learn how you came by specs information so early in your academics; what information you got; and from whom. Yours is a rather unique situation and may not be often repeated-- it is important, though, so others [many others!!!] may benefit from the same type of input. Thank you Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 901 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 08, 2009 - 12:13 pm:    Good for you, Andrea. I think you have identified a critical future area of required expertise. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 226 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Wednesday, July 08, 2009 - 12:57 pm:    Andrea, Your story is encouraging. I started writing specs in 1973. In 1989 I won a Merit Award from CSI for a project manual with complex bidding requirements for a complex healthcare project in Canada. A CSI Merit Award for a Canadian project using nonCSI formats was a coup. My advise to you is do not be a one trick pony. In 1967 I started in a technical role, but over the intervening years I have done CA, QA, project coordinator, specifier, manual and CAD drafting, edited internal and external newsletters. Many times I have been the grunt drafter, the job captain, the project coordinator, and the specifier-simultaneously. Specifers are much like contractors when reviewing drawings. Generaly speaking specifiers are concerned with quality, while contractors are concerned with quantity. However, we review drawings with the same critical eye. Specifiers provide a unique QA service on the drawings provided. My QA review includes the usual suspects and because I was a skilled manual and CAD draftsman, I review drawings for BAD fundamental drafting. As a drafter, I try to do more with less. As a specifier, I try to say it once in the most logical location and cross reference to that location. Set yourself apart from the crowd by adding value beyond specifying and information management. Never stop reading and researching. Seak out the better mousetrap and ways to work smarter and faster. Wayne Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 308 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 08, 2009 - 02:56 pm:    Well said Wayne. Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS LEED-AP Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 215 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Wednesday, July 08, 2009 - 03:06 pm:    I am waiting to see Mike Rowe take on spec writing on Discovery Channel's "Dirty Jobs." Randy Cox Senior Member Username: randy_cox Post Number: 59 Registered: 04-2004 Posted on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 08:31 am:    The show I want to see is a specification version of the Amazing Race, where teams of specifiers race to complete a project manual, almost like real life. Each session/episode would probably cover one discreet section. The sequence of episodes would move from division to division (and as in real life, they might not be in order). There would be roadblocks and detours, which would be things like sections for which there is no master, or where product data is incomplete. There could be an inbox instead of the mat, and someone representing the tested aspect of that division. For example if the div 9 covered a series of drywall related sections, someone from the GA could be there to welcome them to drywall land. I imagine there would be almost as many viewers as willing participants. Oh well. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1014 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 09:55 am:    The race might have an end reward after a long arduous stint, but how about Million Dollar Password? More immediate result. Clues of construction/architectural/engineering items, must be matched to words of same ilk. But then, perhaps charades or CLUE are the best overall games for us!!!! Even if the reward is small or non-existent. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 227 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 10:05 am:    I think it should be a prime time drama show called 'CLAIRVOYANCE' and come on after the 'MENTALIST' and 'CSI' on Thursday evenings. Lots of sloothing. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 29 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 04:05 pm:    Oddly, I find specifying to be a great opportunity to be creative. Too often I select the products I include in the Project Manual because no one else will. Thankfully, my office has a number of competitive young architects who are vying for the 'title' of 'Best Technical Architect'. I love working with them. With the advent of our version of BIM (okay, I know that Revit with e-SPECS is not really BIM, but it's about as close as Archi-torture comes to the real thing nowadays) our detailing teams cannot proceed without keynotes (MasterFormat) and assembly codes (UniFormat). They need us, really need us, and the technically minded architects and interns seem to appreciate what we offer. My big question is how to entice them into trying their hand(s) at writing, or editing, a few spec sections. It only works if they think it's their idea. Any suggestions? Oh, and to the anonymous poster who enjoys being abusive, you know where you can put your attitude. I don't know many people who fit your stereotype. Maybe you've been spending too much time in front of the mirror. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 906 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 04:16 pm:    Ask for help on a particular section or group of sections that fits with something they are good with or at. Most people enjoy helping others. Tim Werbstein, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: tim_werbstein Post Number: 12 Registered: 09-2006 Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 04:27 pm:    How to entice them? I was drawn into specs as a result of being the only native, good-English speaker in a Miami, FL, office. Later, sitting with senior architects across the table from very difficult, low-bid contractors and in sight of Owners' reps, I was able to quickly find bits and pieces of requirements that denied claims for extras. Bingo! I was quickly indispensible at these meetings despite being bottom man on the totem pole. This also made for more job security than senior staff. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 443 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Monday, July 20, 2009 - 01:14 am:    I spoke English real goodly until I moved to Southern California where it's, like, totally 4N to most peeple under 30 2B flewent in prpr English, especially the spelling part. In El Lay, English IS a 4n langwige. Cud be y general conditions begin, "attenshun K-Mart shoppers." It didn't help to spend a couple of years in da kine Hawaii, eitha. And then there's the matter of Attention Deficit Dis ... oh look, a aquirrel! John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 444 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Monday, July 20, 2009 - 05:45 am:    Seriously, there are some necessary attributes that I don't find prevalent in "younger" (under 50?) architects. One is the desire to know construction products: how to evaluate, select and detail (in text and graphics) products that make the design real (other than GREEN attributes). Another is knowledge of construction contract documents. Communication abilities are secondary to these issues. I try to inform and even educate the architects I work with. I don't find much interest, however, only resentment that I'm making problems by wanting technical design directions, like which options to select for the specified product or even to want to know what specific characteristics should apply to an overly-generalized design direction, such as (the latest example) "add a 'bulletproof' ticket window." After all, the expectation is that the spec writer will compensate for what architects don't know (an ever expanding void). But I'll still ask the questions and inform the "designer" about what has been done in the past by the firm and state that I will follow that spec unless otherwise directed. Sometimes I get a response. Usually the issue gets resolved much later, as a response to an RFI from a bidder or contractor or from the owner when an unsatisfactory product gets installed. Of course, the issue then has turned into errors, omissions and uncoordinated descriptions in the specs rather than insufficient design directions. I guess the fun will come back to spec writing when BIM takes over. The BIM objects will provide all the information a spec writer needs to whip out a clear, correct, complete, concise and expedient spec ... or at least until the BIM program becomes robust enough to generate the complete set of specifications without a spec writer. James M. Sandoz, AIA, CSI, CCS, LEED AP Senior Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 51 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Monday, July 20, 2009 - 09:19 am:    John, I am pleased to point out that I am fourteen months shy of my 50th birthday and still tremendously interested in all aspects of my work. I believe Ronald Geren and several others who contribute to this forum are similarly youthful as well. That said, we may be in the minority among all architects of our and the following generation. Maybe I’m just a geek but I fondly remember poring over Sweet’s catalogs as an intern and being amazed at the number and variety of products listed. That’s back when Sweet’s was still sixteen volumes. I am also happy to say that there are a number of young architects in my office and in this city who seem to be very interested in construction products and construction contract documents. Several have even taken, and in some cases passed, the CDT exam with no coercion or promise of immediate reward from their supervisors. These are the young professionals for whom I go out of my way to assist when they come to me with questions. I see BIM as a further opportunity for a valuable dialog with these younger architects. I believe the huge change regarding the “process” in which we engage to do our work will force the issue of the experienced and technically knowledgeable senior architects imparting their know-how to the younger ones. Though I have not yet reached the half-century mark, I do consider myself to be a part of the “old guard” in that the way I began practicing architecture twenty years ago was not so different from the way it was practiced 120 years ago. I also understand that I have an obligation as a professional, i.e. degreed, licensed, and a member of a national organization of similarly trained and accredited people, to further the ideals of that profession by continually developing my expertise and passing that along to the next generation. To me that is an exciting thought as I know it is to some even more mature professionals. I expect that my efforts to fulfill that obligation will keep me “young” in the coming years. In short, there are young people out there who are interested in all aspects of this profession. When we find them we must do what is necessary to ensure that they maintain that interest and see the rewards, both monetary and otherwise, for doing so. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 230 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Monday, July 20, 2009 - 12:08 pm:    I have to 2nd John's comment in his second paragraph "I don't find much interest, however, only resentment that I'm making problems..." As baby-boomer specifiers ( I am excluding anyone under 50 as a baby-boomer), we view drawings with the same critical eye as the contractor. However, many times our oversight and coordination attempts are viewed as meddlesome, unsolicited, and mostly ingnored. Grant Simpson and James Atkins wrote in "YOUR GRANDFATHERS WORKING DRAWINGS" "Criticism is presented to young architects with more thought of not offending than of teaching." "These days, senior project leaders...no longer mentor and coach..." "The result all too often is incomplete, unworkable, or worse un-constructible designs depicted on drawings that must be revised to a sufficient and acceptable level of quality while under fire on the job site. It is not always clear who is teaching whom about the technical arts in architecture. It appears that, in a number of cases, the experience quotient has essentially turned upside down." "The relationship of working drawings and specifications is too often misunderstood." Since James brought his age into the discussion, for the record, I am 8 months shy of my 63rd birthday, have been a spec writer for 36 years, and in the profession for 42. Wayne Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 907 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, July 20, 2009 - 12:34 pm:    Since we're talking age here, I'm slightly less than one month away from my 66th birthday, but have only been in the profession for about 24 years, and writing specs for 14 years. So I'm sort of straddling the fence - I'm older (older even than real baby-boomers), but relatively new to spec writing. (I graduated with my MArch in 1985). Maybe I've been fortunate, maybe it's the region of the country that I'm in, maybe it's that I've worked with larger firms, maybe it's something else that I can't identify, but I find, for the most part, that the young, emerging architectural professionals are eager to learn, welcome corrections and questions, want to publish good documents, and participate in learning opportunities. This is also true of many of the interior design professionals with whom I have worked. (I find it less so with engineering professionals in the same situation). However, as much interest as these younger professionals show in good documents, I've found perhaps one who expressed an interest in writing specifications. Perhaps educational background is an issue; as John pointed out so eloquently above, well-written language is not stressed as it once was. I see poor communication skills, acceptance of below-par grammar and spelling, and misuse of language all around in our culture. Signage, advertising, print and audio media all contribute to the lowering of standards. This isn't necessarily new, either: how many of you have seen the sign "Slow Children at Play"? And there are many more examples of this "shorthand" version of language that we've accepted and understood for years! I think we have to blame ourselves somewhat for this shortcoming - to some degree, we "have met the enemy and they are us". With the advent of short communication - texting and tweets especially, our language will suffer even more unless we take steps to help ensure that language skills are maintained and raised. Language that is appropriate in one genre is not in another. Maybe, just maybe, encouragement of our younger professionals in communication and improvements in their language abilities, will make writing specifications more inviting and less scary and daunting. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 882 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, July 20, 2009 - 06:15 pm:    My experience has been that a REALLY good designer is VERY interested in materials, because they understand how material differences can affect their design. And, a firm that enforces their specs (and expects the contractors to follow them) tends to develop project architects who assume that specs mean something. While I'm 55 now, I did start as a full time specifier when I was 24 years old, after working for a spec consultant for a year or so. I never could draft, and I figured that every architect has to learn everything anyway, so I decided to learn it verbally. I also made sure my employers understood that interest. so, I've been a full time specifier since a very young age. I had a lot of contract law in college, but that's probably the only thing that was different about my education. Anyway, I think specifiers get paid what they think they are worth and can convince others to pay them. I know that a number of firms now are "getting by" without their specifiers, and my assumption is that after the high costs of construction administration on those projects start coming into the office, there might be some re-thinking about the value of the discipline. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, July 20, 2009 - 01:00 pm:    Hear, hear, Lynn. You are so right. Isn't it ironic that the quality of communication has decreased as our power to communicate has increased? When I write anything, even entries to this forum, I have Webster's on-line up and running. I often refer to other web sites as well to "check my facts" as well as the medium will allow. Indeed, there do seem to be some slow children at play these days. My two children (one in college and one a senior in high school) groan when I insist on checking their work. Maybe one day they will appreciate my effort just like all the other swell things I've done for them over the last 19 years. Oh, by the way, I've decided that I will actually be turning "thirty-nineteen" on my next birthday. Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 53 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, July 20, 2009 - 07:05 pm:    I am having the 23rd anniversary of my 30th birthday next birthday. Russ Hinkle, AIA, CDT, LEED AP Senior Member Username: rhinkle Post Number: 63 Registered: 02-2006 Posted on Tuesday, July 21, 2009 - 08:44 am:    I wonder if this is just not a symptom of the larger trend in our education system today. Artistic endevors are encouraged much more than they were 50 years ago when engineering was emphasized. I know that it my grandpa always wanted Dad to be an engineer, not an architect. Personally, my first real firm after college understood the importance of specifications, however, it all fell on one person. That guy was a great detail who also did spec's and was not very good at mentoring. He became overloaded and the spec's kept getting passed on to people who never really like doing it. It back the necessary evil in our office. It took me 15 years before someone saw the potential and gave me the opportunity (or get laid off!) do spec's. Once in that role, I realize I like that stuff! Unfortunately after a couple of very sucessful years, they did not see the value I was adding and would not pay me appropriately. It has really helped me to understand what I am good at and what I am not as good at. BTW, I will be celebrating my 47th birthday. That doesn't bother me as much as the idea that someone will be calling me grandpa before this year is done. Russ Hinkle Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 908 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, July 21, 2009 - 09:19 am:    Grandpa (or, in my case, grandma) is probably the best thing I have ever been called. My heart leaps with joy at the sound. "Grandma, watch me" or "Grandma, can you play with me?" says volumes about not just my life, but about all the lives in my family that have gone before and all those that are to come. I hear "grandma" from our twin grandsons and from our older granddaughter and I can't wait to hear the same wonderful word from our younger granddaughter. (And this after spending a week with the 3 older ones during what was supposed to be my vacation! Exhausting!) Oh, and I am one of a group of parents and grandparents who correct their grammar - they all speak well, using parts of speech correctly, too. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1019 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Tuesday, July 21, 2009 - 10:11 am:    Only problem is they don't say things once! Grandpa J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 345 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Tuesday, July 21, 2009 - 03:41 pm:    Anne's point about really, Really, REALLY good designer is very well taken. I have only met a handful of good designers and only one or two really good ones in my career. I have met a number of capable designers who justify the rigid separation between the "Design Department" and the "Production Department"; in those cases the most capable designers are the people on the design team who understand what the "DESIGNER" is trying to do and make it happen with the fewest compromises in the aesthetic vision. I would like to think at the spec writer, I am one of the people who tries to understand the vision and make it happen. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 232 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Tuesday, July 21, 2009 - 04:28 pm:    In all fairness, I have worked with some really good designers and technical architects. But the mood and attitude on the technical architect side of the coin has changed for the worse. Bob Woodburn, RA CSI CCS CCCA LEED AP Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 300 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - 05:12 pm:    The related specifiers' survey thread is evidence that most specifiers started later, in mid-career. But I think we all knew that. If younger architects are not attracted to specifying, there's nothing wrong with that, because they do not really become aware of the need for specifying, and the corresponding opportunities in specifying, until after they gain more experience. (And they need that experience to be good specifiers, so that's fine.) To paraphrase the first post in this thread, there are a number of reasons why younger architects don't want to become specifiers---and also, why some change their minds as they age: 1. Preparation for architects (especially formal academic education) strongly emphasizes visual quality as paramount---but with experience, some realize that there's more to successful architecture than meets the eye... 2. Perception of specifying as not being a critical and necessary part of design practice, but only tangentially related to design practice---is replaced by the realization that specifying is indeed critical and necessary, and that there will always be a need for experienced architects who can take an inexperienced designer's concept and "make it work"... 3. Perception of specifying as a narrowly focused specialty of only peripheral importance to being a “real" architect---gives way to the realization that an understanding of materials like that gained through specifying is integral to being a "complete" architect... 4. Perception that being an architect whose work is limited to the mundane duties of project management, CAD drafting, checking submittals, contract administration etc. is just as much a dead-end job as specifying (i.e., without a prospect of ever getting to design buildings), and that there's a lot less competition in a non-graphic [verbal] specialty like being a specifier... 5. Perception that architecture (in general, the profession as a whole, not just specifiers) is poorly compensated, that there may be more security in a job not many others want to do (or even learn how to do), and that if poor compensation is a given, then the prospect of enhanced job security is, at least, something... Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 312 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - 06:10 pm:    Looking back on my beginning years of specifying, I most remember two things: 1) that I was better at writing spex than anyone else in our office [which was not saying much at all]; and, 2) it paid more than a project architect. But the most memorable thing I think back on is that, at times, it terrified me -- mostly because I started to really understand that I didn't really know "do-do" about materials and systems. Sure I did OK in the standard, more commonly used, sections but there were so many sections that were new to me. I was writing sections on plaster walls with truss-type wire studs and other sections that are no longer even available today. And, yes I remember adding asbestos to the plaster for additional insulation values. There weren't very many of the plastics and no foams [at least not many that could be trusted]. Roofing and dampproofing where all asphaltic [I still thick coal tar is a great system]. Issues like moisture migration through a building were only topics that were discussed amoung scientists - not by architects. I started writing spex before there were "canned" or packaged spex such as Masterspec [and their great evaluation docs] and before there was access to the internet - only Sweat's and mfrs catalogs. One really had to dig for and write away [snail mail] for information. Sometimes sections took weeks to understand and to write. CSI Industry members were a great resource from the earlist days. Knowing what I know today, I don't even think I would fully trust a "young" specifier or even an "old" inexperienced specifier in todays' market. Furthermore, IMHO, I think a specifier to reach that "experienced" level has to have at least some experience in (i) drafting to better understand how to put a building together, (ii) contract administration to better understand how to write section administrative requirements, and (iii) some field experience to better understand the real world in the field. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 887 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - 11:37 pm:    not to entirely disagree with Ron, but I think a specifier, above all, has to ask questions. about everything, and continually. I never drafted, never did CA and didn't have field experience, but I think I've managed to do okay in the spec world... and I think that those items can be compensated for. specifiers need a certain mind-set in order to think both specifically and globally about their projects (and their jobs) and whatever process you use to do that is equally useful. I would say that having 2 years of business law should be a requirement, but then, I did that, and its not a normal requirement in the architectural world. James M. Sandoz, AIA, CSI, CCS, LEED AP Senior Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 53 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Wednesday, July 29, 2009 - 09:42 am:    Well said, Mr. Woodburn. Anne too is so correct: continuous questioning and learning is the key. Experience in "drafting" and construction contract administration is a big advantage but absence of that experience does not have to be a permanent hindrance to someone who is intelligent and inquisitive. I also agree with the statement regarding the value of knowledge of the law. I am fortunate to have an attorney who acts as our firm's contracts consultant in the next cubicle. She is a great resource. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 241 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Wednesday, July 29, 2009 - 11:01 am:    Regarding asking questions, I came upon an article highlighting Commodore Builders in Buidling Design+Construction, April 09 titled "Creating a Culture of Performance". Commodore Buildings have 6 qualities of excellence. Two jumped out at me. "-Capacity to anticipate - Be aware of what's around the corner before you get there." AND "-Ability to focus on the details - Assume nothing and ask everything. Seeing the big picture is important but you can't mess up on the minutia, because construction has a zero tolerance for error." Tony Wolf, AIA, CCS, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: tony_wolf Post Number: 15 Registered: 11-2007 Posted on Wednesday, July 29, 2009 - 11:21 am:    I began as a project architect, and moved into specs for most of the reasons Colin described. I've always felt that there's little substantive difference between drawings and specs: to do both well, you think and communicate clearly, one in the language of drawing, and the other in prose. It sometimes seems that when specifiers discuss the profession, they define themselves by their difference from architects. In our office, the PA's edit their project specs, and as the previous spec manager said, even though there may not be deathly prose going out the door, the projects are better for it. The firm has been doing this for over 20 years, and we continue to do so because it works. Our architects answer [practically] all the issues that come up on their projects without having to consult with someone else on the specs. I believe that most of them could become full time specifiers; I believe that none ever plan/want to, and I don't blame them. They control their projects, technically and schedule-wise, to a greater extent, and feel more ownership. I'm often asked how the firm made the transition to this mode. I wasn't here [for which I'm grateful], but obviously, it required management support. One of the reasons it came to pass: When there was a full staff of specifiers, it seemed that project specs was a bottleneck, and the projects 'flowed' around it, of necessity. [This is as was described to me; I'm not making a general statement on staff specifiers.] I was interested in the 'dead end' nature of PA work referenced in one of the reasons given for moving into spec work full time. Here is a question that I wish was answered by the survey: for those full-time specifiers not working as consultants, what percentage reached leadership positions in their firm? I believe that PA work is a much more likely route to that. Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 31 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, July 29, 2009 - 06:05 pm:    Problem Solving or Why I Took a Job Writing Specifications, part 37: As an Architect, I found that I excelled at problem solving, finding technical solutions to other peoples' design ideas. Yes, I needed a M. Arch and a stint teaching design studio to figure this out. I was happiest making someone else's designs into reality, rather than staring at my own blank page. So I could continue drafting door and window details, eventually advancing to stair details, or... begin writing specifications. When I explain what I do for laypeople, I usually tell them what I wrote on my LinkedIn job description, "I help other Architects, both designer types and project managers, be green, solve problems, and get their projects built." Sound familiar to anyone else? Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1026 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 06:50 am:    Certainly, Ms. Robbins, a cogent and insightful sub-theme for CSI and each of us. Well put! Now to get that concept to the prospects very early-on!