Spec Language

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

Author Message david j. wyatt (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 08:54 am:    Lately I am on a binge of removing the words "high performance," "high quality," and other vague modifiers from specs provided by manufacturers. But the reps get irritated about it. I look at these phrases as nothing more than unsupported marketing claims that can actually lead to problems. Does anyone else concur with me on this, or am I just getting old and cranky? Dave Wyatt Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1065 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 09:23 am:    You're no way near old, and certainly not cranky. Let's say "wise". I think you have it right. Our specifications need not include any promotional and "enhancing" language. We need to be pragmatic [to a fault] and merely include the incisive text required to make our selection or point. This is a point that the product folks might carry back to thier maufacturers. Too often what comes on the web sites as "specifications" contain far in excess of what we need, want or can use. May be a "spec" useful to the manufacturer but not to us. Neither we nor apparently even BIM need to know "everything"! Doug Frank FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 249 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 09:36 am:    You’re not getting old and cranky David, you’re just a spec writer ;D Seriously, I tend to agree with you that indefinable words and phrases don’t belong in specifications. If we specify “High Quality” are we not actually requiring less than the best since “Highest Quality” would be even better?. Maybe even “Absolutely the highest possible quality” would be even better yet and that relegates High Quality to about third best or even less. On the other hand, “High Performance” can rightfully be used to describe and differentiate between products whose performance qualities are known to be different. MasterFormat even uses “High” to identify certain coating types (High Performance and High Temperature for example). Doesn’t seem to be a straightforward answer to your question; just a specific case by case process. Doug Frank FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate FKP Architects, Inc. Houston, TX Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 18 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 09:39 am:    Aren't old & cranky practically prerequisites for being a good spec writer? I have always avoided such terms from mfr's specs (also including "heavy duty" unless it is associated w/ a clear definition in an industry standard). Of course you're absolutely justified in removing imprecise language. The reps will have to be satisfied that their products are named in a well-written project specification. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 485 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 10:21 am:    "There are not levels of quality. There is not 'low quality' or 'high quality'; there are simply lesser or greater requirements." [PRM 4.5] It's probably difficult for a manufacturer or a salesperson to buy into that concept, because they are so used to "good", "better", and "best". Every manufacturer's lowest performing product is at least "good". But quality as defined in a set of contract documents starts with the Owner's program requirements. I like to suggest to my class, when showing a slide of the three little pigs, that a house of sticks or a house of straw may be of appropriate quality for those piggies living in a zone with a low risk of big bad wolf attacks. [I refer you all to the map of big bad wolf zones in the current IBC] Only specify "highest possible quality" products in Part 2 if you remember to specify "best possible standards of workmanship" in Part 3. George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA Cannon Design - St. Louis, MO Richard Baxter, AIA, CSI Senior Member Username: rbaxter Post Number: 97 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 12:38 pm:    Another common term that seems to imply greater quality is “architectural”. The alternative to removing a term like “high-quality” from a spec is to provide definitions for what you mean by “high quality”. In the past, I have had paragraphs in my cast-in-place concrete spec for “high-quality architectural concrete.” It basically applied to all exposed concrete. I defined all the extra requirements for this type of concrete and where it applied. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 263 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 01:58 pm:    David, This is a noble exercise. Many manufacturers include such nefarious, subjective adjectives in their specs. They also mess-up the order of articles according to the gospel of CSI/CSC SectionFormat. Several trade associations use performance duty level adjectives in their literature. SDI and WDMA are two examples. "Standard duty, heavy duty, extra heavy duty from WDMA. See Jeffery Wilson's post I use "high-performamce" adjectives in my section name when specifying Tnemec products and it's comparables. I do not like MasterSpec's use of "consumer" line and "professional" line products in their titles in Dvision 09. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 909 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, October 01, 2009 - 02:36 pm:    Wayne: the terms "consumer line" and Professional line" are designations actually used by the paint industry for their products, so it seems appropriate to me that they be used as descriptors for those products. The differences are not only the quality of the paint, but also the experience necessary for a good application job -- keeping in mind that the "consumer line" is dumbed down enough for people like me to actually use and apply without it looking like an elephant sprayed paint on the walls.... Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 199 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, October 01, 2009 - 02:39 pm:    Like Wayne, we use "high performance" only as part of an article or Section name for Tnemec and similar field applied "super-duper" paint systems. I guess that is "almost as good" as not using it at all. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1067 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, October 01, 2009 - 03:18 pm:    Odd that 2 good folks tie "high performance" to Tnemec products. Better maybe to observe what MasterSpec offers, which is a Section devoted exclusively to "High Performance Coatings". This would seem to give legitimancy to all products [and their manufacturers] that can meet certain performance criteria of higher values than the norm. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 407 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Thursday, October 01, 2009 - 08:10 pm:    MasterSpec discontinued the use of the distinctions of "professional" and "consumer" paint lines some years ago when they incorporated use of the MPI standards for setting baseline performance of paints and coatings. Manufacturer marketing language for paints is one of the best arguments for use of the MPI standards, even though they're not popular with the manufacturers. We work very hard with our manufacturer clients to help them understand that specifiers look with grave suspicion at marketing language intermixed in guide specification text. Once we've had that heavy-duty conversation, they usually understand the need for objective language in section text; they can do their bragging in the Specifiers' Notes. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 362 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, October 02, 2009 - 07:04 pm:    I will admit to using terms verging on marketing bullgeschicte such as "heavy duty" and "commercial quality" for some items. I would shy away from "manufacturer's best quality" because the "best quality" offered by someone who makes something for the home market may not be "commercial quality". I will also suggest that in some industriesm "performance specifications" are less than helpful (like those provided by various manufacturers of resinous systems). Do I really need a resinous floor with granules that have a compressive strength of 8,000 psi? I would almost rather write a spec for a "high quality flooring material suitable for a commercial kitchen." John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 446 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Saturday, October 03, 2009 - 03:42 pm:    From the examples presented, does it mean I don't have to spend time and effort to eliminate terms in many manufacturers' propaganda ... er, I mean product literature ... such as "superior," "innovative," "durable" and "green?" Won't that hinder getting the really, truly good stuff that designers want? J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 365 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Saturday, October 03, 2009 - 05:55 pm:    They want stuff? Good stuff? Great stuff? Let's call Snapple; I hear they got really good stuff. That has to be as good as great stuff, right? John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 447 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Monday, October 05, 2009 - 03:46 am:    No, Peter, it's called Scapple, a Pennsylvania Dutch delicacy for those of us with the right, genetically evolved/devolved taste buds. It's one of those "don't ask what's in it" foods that I am looking forward to finding at the 2010 CSI "show" in Philadelphia. In mid-Atlantic region culture, it has the same connotation as Spam does in other parts of the country. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 935 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, October 05, 2009 - 09:52 am:    I thought "Scrapple" was the "don't ask, don't tell" food, while "Snapple" was the drink made with really good stuff. But then, I live in the mid-west fly over zone and may not know anything any more (even though I grew up in NY and lived in LA for 10 years, my time in Wisconsin may have dulled my remaining brain cells). Doug Frank FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 250 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Monday, October 05, 2009 - 10:04 am:    I understand your situation Lynn. Although several years ago, Madison's "State Street" is responsible for the demise of several of my brain cells as well. Doug Frank FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate FKP Architects, Inc. Houston, TX Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 936 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, October 05, 2009 - 10:20 am:    Between State Street in Madison and Water Street in Milwaukee, it's a wonder I continue to walk and chew gum at the same time... Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1071 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, October 05, 2009 - 10:33 am:    Although I guess I always was a bit older [!!!] I always liked State Street in Madison-- at least for one week in January when the temp was 17-below,the lake was frozen and I always knew I could get back to the Guest House, and the Alumni Hall.. Oh, yea-- their programs at the itme were outstanding [even the years I when I taught some sessions]