ConDoc keynoting

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

Author Message Margaret G. Chewning FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: presbspec Post Number: 194 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2010 - 07:02 pm:    Hi All, I'm working with a student team from ODU and HU here in Tidewater VA for the 2010 Solar Decathalon competition. They surprised me with a new question this week. They have been instructed that all of the keynoting on their drawings have to be tied to the Specification Section numbers. They were asking how to do that properly. Unfortunately, I and their faculty instructors looked like deer in the headlights. I remember ConDoc (correct term?) from years ago, and attended seminars on it, but never worked on a project that used it. Help us out my friends! These kids have a great design, I'd hate for a mess up on this point in the rules to make them lose points in the competition. Thanks Margaret Chewning David E Lorenzini Senior Member Username: deloren Post Number: 111 Registered: 04-2000 Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2010 - 09:56 pm:    Margaret, I would think that the National CAD Standards would be the source of proper drafting practice. ConDoc was used as one of the models for most drafting systems that followed its use, but using secton number in keynots was only one aspect of its popularity. I don't have the latest edition of NCS, but do have a copy with a lot of errata sheets. Check out Module 7 - Notations. It covers several types of notes, but Reference Keynotes is the one that uses Section numbers as the root of the keynote, followed by a user-defined letter modifier and a two-digit numerical suffix modifier. I'm sure someone else on this forum has more experience with NDS than I do and could explain how the system should be used. David Lorenzini, FCSI, CCS Architectural Resources Co. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 116 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2010 - 10:22 pm:    David is right - Recommendations on how and examples are included in the National CAD Standard/Uniform Drawing System (NCS/UDS) in Module 7 - Notations. If you are looking for some project examples, contact Rick Green at Wilson & Company in Albuquerque - his firm has used keynoting for years. If you send me an email, I can send you a keynote list but it is based on MF 95. Margaret G. Chewning FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: presbspec Post Number: 196 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Monday, December 13, 2010 - 09:19 am:    Thank you Bob and Dave, I've passed the information on to my students. Hopefully their schools have a copy to use. Merry Christmas to you and yours! Same to all of my friends on the forum! Margaret Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 108 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, December 13, 2010 - 10:07 am:    Interesting timing, I'm just about to write a master keynote system for a public agency, to match their master specifications. Section number, followed by a letter and a one or two digit number, is the model I was thinking about. Does anyone own a copy of Module 7? How much does it elaborate on this system? Is it really worth paying $410 for the whole thing if I only want this one piece? Other advice? - (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, December 13, 2010 - 10:12 am:    Margert and Lisa Please send your e-mail addresses to wayne.yancey@callison.com. I have the original ConDoc manual that explains all. I will scan and e-mail. I also have a hardcopy of a ConDoc keynotes from it's early years. Wayne Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 389 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Monday, December 13, 2010 - 10:25 am:    Margaret, Sorry I misspelled your name in my e-mail above Sunny Onadipe, CCS, CCCA, SCIP (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 - 02:34 am:    I’m also trying to assemble a specifications-matched master keynote system, somewhat similar to what Lisa is doing. I can work with a keynote list tied to MF95 or MF04 section numbers. Bob and Wayne, I will be most grateful if you will be willing to share your gems with me as well. My E-mail address is sunnyonadipe.1@juno.com. Thanks. Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 109 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 - 10:39 am:    Another thought, has anyone used the Revit-generated keynotes? Is it correctly linked to MasterFormat? Do the electronic automagic specification systems generate keynote lists? Are they useful? - Dennis C. Elrod, AIA Senior Member Username: delrodtn Post Number: 19 Registered: 04-2010 Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 - 10:53 am:    I am in the process of updating our office masters to MF04 and then we will look at linking them with REVIT using E-specs, or some other program that aligns with MASTERSPEC and LINX. While REVIT has a MASTER Keynote database, it does not align itself completely with MASTERFORMAT. However, for a student competition, I think it would suffice for their needs. Assuming they use REVIT, they should be able to assign material keynotes to their model. Dennis C. Elrod, AIA Dennis C. Elrod, AIA Senior Member Username: delrodtn Post Number: 20 Registered: 04-2010 Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 - 11:05 am:    Additionally, you are correct that ConDoc, developed by Onkal K.(Duke) Guzey of Clifton, VA and James N.(Jim) Freehof of Great Falls, VA in 1987, included a keynote module that was developed in a partnership with McCarty Architects out of Tupelo, MS. It was based on the MF95 format, and was adopted by the AIA a few years later. Unfortunately, not much happened with it after AIA took it over. Eventually, CSI revived it and developed into the Uniform Drawing System (UDS), and Module 7 is the correct module for keynoting. The UDS is expensive. Hope this is of help to you. Dennis C. Elrod, AIA Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 391 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 - 11:27 am:    ConDoc was more than keynoting. It also made popular detail drawing sheet modules based on map style coordinates which became the detail number, such as A1 or C4. It also provided guidelines for detail modules with separate zones for the enlarged detail, keynotes, and dimensions. Modules were note restricted to one size. Modules can grow in width and height to accommodate the detail. It eliminated graphic density. More white space. Easier to read. It was a professional development program by the AIA, presented by the Duke Guzey and James Freehof. In my opinion it is still a great concept but was not widely adopted. Several 3rd party add-on keynoting programs were developed to compliment ConDoc. Somewhere in my personal files I have some samples of the entire system, dead filed in boxes in my garage, covered in sawdust. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 117 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 - 12:27 pm:    Wayne I would modify "It was a professional development program by the AIA, presented by the Duke Guzey and James Freehof." to read: It was a concept developed by Duke Guzey and James Freehoff that AIA turned into a presentation program and then never developed it further. It my opinion, this program could have had much more success if a master list of keynotes had been developed on a broadscope basis to cover multiple master spec systems. The master list would have had to be restricted to basic materials found in most projects. That list could then be adjusted and expanded by firms for their practices. It would have accomplished two things: (1) Keep firms from having to reinvent the wheel over and over again; (2) Established a keynote standard for much greater uniformity for those who deal with drawings from many different firms (constructors and suppliers). The same basic materials would have the same keynotes from project to project. Some of us have been advocating such a master list of terms to be used on both drawings and specs along with keynote designators for many years: http://csinet.org/Specifier/Construction-Specifier-Archives-QT/1999/August-1999/Foundations.aspx. It will be interesting to see what happens with keynoting as BIM developes further. It may have a resurgence. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 - 12:37 pm:    Bob, I quoted from the cover of my ConDoc manual, 2nd edition, from November 1990. I could not agree more with your points (1) and (2) above. I have employed this methodology in my spec sections. If a type designation is not used, it is noted as not used versus renumbering from top to bottom, again, for each project. Wayne J. Peter Jordan (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 - 10:33 am:    There may be a point of disconnect. MasterFormat numbers are intended to be linked to "work results" not specific products or materials. This is helpful to keep in mind when developing such systems. For example, "1-1/2 Inch IPS Steel Pipe" will receive one Division 05 MF number if describing a hand railing and another if describing a piece of miscellaneous framing. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1081 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 - 01:41 pm:    and hence, one of the problems with the keynoting system -- it takes some judgement to assign the numbers so that they make any sense, and it definitely takes someone who oversees the whole effort. I only worked at one office that attempted to do a keynoting system and it was never well supervised, which meant that I was continually scrubbing "bad" numbers off the drawings and re-numbering details. From my perspective, it was one MORE thing that had to be carefully watched on the drawings along with 1) does this detail make any sense at all? 2) is the note attached to the detail reasonably grammatic and interpretable? 3) does this detail even belong in this set? and then finally 4) who came up with this spec section number? Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 118 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 - 01:47 pm:    MasterFormat is classified by work results. Keynotes under the MasterFormat numbers are referring to the components of the work results. The same components or materials may be used under multiple work results as Peter points out. That is one of advantages of keynoting in that it makes it clear what work result the component is a part of. Thus if you wanted to make the glazing and/or joint sealants part of the storefront work result, the keynotes indicate that in coordination with the work included in the storefront spec section. In putting together a firm's master list of keynotes we used the same suffix beyond the section number for components common to many work results (fasteners, joint sealant, etc.) This made the keynotes easier to recognize and understand - we generally used alpha's at the end of alphabet for these common components. We also tried to use the same suffix for any component that was used in multiple work results in addition to the very common ones. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 119 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 - 02:13 pm:    Anne As Wayne noted, the smart way to do this is to create a firm-wide master keynote list coordinated with the firm's master specification. At my previous firm, we had this set up so that you could only insert keynotes on the CAD files fom a masterlist file that had been edited from the firm's masterlist by a project team leader for that project. That project list was then a tool to keep materials you did not want to use on the project from being inadvertently included by some team member. If a material was to be used on the project that was not in the firm's masterlist, it was added to the project keynote list. That was then a tool to have everyone on the project use the same term/keynote designator instead of different terms/designators for new unique components. Keynoting can be used to improve drawing/spec coordination. One of the secrets to do that sucessfully is to have the system setup on a firm-wide basis so that everyone is working off the same system. Then have one person control it in coordination with the specifier for each project starting from the firm-wide masterlist and have one person or small group control the masterlist for the total firm. Having different people setting up different systems for different projects is more likely to result in more confusion. It would be fantastic if we had an industry wide masterlist for the basic materials so that we would have much greater consistency in our industry wide communications. As stated before if would have to be on a broadscope basis to allow for the variences in scopes, titles, and numbers of sections among master spec systems. It would also have to restricted to the most common components. Then firms could start with a master system, adjust the section numbers to the master they use, and add to it to include other components they commonly use. It would be great for all the constructors and suppliers to see the designation of components on the majority of drawsings/models that they see based on the same basic system. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 495 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 - 02:29 pm:    Anne: I agree that knowledge of construction products and their conventional assignment to Masterformat numbers and titles is needed. I recently received a set of drawings with a keynote for wood gymnasium flooring referenced to Division 06. Logical, no? But they failed to list vinyl composition tile and PVC sheet membrane roofing in Division 06. After all Division 06 is for wood and plastics. What about using Uniformat numbers? Consider that specifiers are often not involved with the project during Design Development when a Preliminary Project Description is supposed to be produced following Uniformat. The PPD is produced by designers who have only superficial understanding of construction specifications. You know, the ones who note caulking under Section 7. Dennis C. Elrod, AIA Senior Member Username: delrodtn Post Number: 21 Registered: 04-2010 Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 - 02:37 pm:    Everyone's comments since my post are spot on, and it is very good dialogue. I just didn't feel compelled to espouse the entire ConDoc story as a response to Margaret's original need. We adopted ConDoc in 1990 and have been using it ever since, and have adapted it to REVIT best we can without a whole bunch of customization to make it do everything we'd like it to do to fully integrate with the ConDoc/UDS/NCS methodology. We have completed projects using keynotes and without keynotes and currently aren't using them. We've had mixed reactions from the end-users, i.e., general contractors, who build our buildings, with most desiring the written notes instead of keynotes. It is a huge paradigm shift for us and them. As a profession, it appears to me that both architects and construction specifiers often wax philosophical in our own little worlds without seeking input from those end-users. In any case, I look forward to continued dialogue on the matter. Who knows, perhaps one day we will have our cake and be able to eat it too. Dennis C. Elrod, AIA George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 572 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 - 02:49 pm:    "Caulking" used in temporary construction sheds - Division 01 "Caulking" removed because it is asbestos-laden - Division 02 "Caulking" installed as a foundation waterstop - Division 03 ... for masonary expansion joints - Division 04 ... under column bearing plates - Division 05 ... between sheets of sheathing - Division 06 ... used as sealant - Division 07 ... holding glass in framing - Division 08 ... commonly called painter's caulk - Division 09 George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA Ingersoll Rand Security Technologies St. Louis, MO Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 392 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 - 02:54 pm:    John, I suffer the same problem. Aluminum wall panels in Div 5 (metal fabrications) because it is a metal and exterior stone veneer in Div 9 because it is a stone finish. Site improvements in Div 2. Numbering was based in MF95 in a MF04 world. I could not stop the train. As Joel's buddy in Risky Business said "Sometimes you have to say what the @#$%." J. Peter Jordan (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 - 03:04 pm:    I still remember my introduction to CSI's numbering format during a summer job after my second year of architectural school -- way, way, waaay before MF95. I was assigned to convert the firm's library from the AIA classification system to CSI's format. I had a great deal of difficulty understanding why steel doors and aluminum storefront framing were in Division 8 rather than Division 5. Luckily we didn't use stone or else my head would have spun right off. The firm was also lucky I was redoing the product library and not the office's master keynoting system. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 905 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 10:26 am:    Refering to Peter's first comment, I had a problem with a new architectural firm to which I had suggested using MasterFormat for their keynotes. Well, without asking for further guidance, they took off with the idea and starting using the full MasterFormat list to create their keynotes without understanding the connection to the specifications. I kept getting calls that asked things like "What is the number for the glass panel supports on the guard rail." When I gave them the number, they would respond, "But we used that number for the railing!" I tried to explain that several items are in one section and that each "number" should include a suffix to identify components and other elements of the installation. I'm halfway there, but they are improving. I've started to create a keynote list for my masters, which uses the following structure: 99 99 99.X99 or 99 99 99.99.X99 (for 8-digit MF numbers) X equals: A - Systems or whole assemblies (e.g. curtain wall) B - Major components/materials (e.g. framing member) C - Accessory components/materials (e.g. fastener) Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 110 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 11:02 am:    Thank you everyone for your helpful insights about keynotes. I have been tasked with revising the master specification used by a public agency and linking it to a master keynote system and a master properties set list for BIM. The Owner (Public Agency) thinks this will actually improve coordination of their documents, lead to more accurate cost estimates, cause fewer change orders, and ultimately save money (for the agency). While I don't think keynotes are the answer to all of life's problems, I'm pleased to have the head of this public agency trying to improve the process. I'm pleased that he's paying our office to do this. I think we are in the best position to generate this information. I have actually done this before, when I was an in-house specifier. I find the architect-generated keynotes to be a huge source of frustration for me. In the filed-sub-bid world of Massachusetts, using the wrong keynotes leads to all sorts of bid disputes and change orders. If the draftsperson, designers and senior architects have to learn where information is located within the project manual, then I think that's a great goal! Perhaps fewer contractors will say, "I can't find it in the spec." After all, those inexperienced draftspeople may be doing construction administration tomorrow. When we're done, I'll make the information available as a resource to the 4specs community. If it weren't difficult, it wouldn't be worth doing. - Dennis C. Elrod, AIA Senior Member Username: delrodtn Post Number: 22 Registered: 04-2010 Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 11:36 am:    As I have been updating our Office Masters to MF04 and utilizing the latest MS Sections via LINX to assure they are up-to-date, I have been comparing the REVIT keynotes (out of the box) with the latest MF section numbers. I have found quite a bit of disparity, obviously due to the subjectivity of the decision-maker at Autodesk as to where a product should be placed in the Divisions and Sections, and our (the user's) interpretation of the REVIT and MF systems. An interesting development in this blog discussion and subsequent discussions with my Drawing & Specification team revolves around just how much customization should be done to REVIT? We are trying to use the product "out-of-the-box" as much as possible to prevent someone spending enormous amounts of time doing customization each time an update software release is received and deployed. REVIT has thousands of components in the database with keynotes already embedded, and if we (the spec writers) say it should be different from what REVIT used, someone has to go into each REVIT component and change the linkage to the correct MF number. So, this is a deeper dilemna than originally thought. If anyone has already been through this and emerged successful, please share your experience with the forum. Dennis C. Elrod, AIA Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 120 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 11:56 am:    Keynoting is a tool to improve coordination between drawings/models and specifications. As stated before, the best way to establish such a system is on a firm-wide basis. The best place to start is with any firm-wide reference details and the firm's master specification. To have individual project teams set up their own independent keynote systems for individual projects will not be productive and will result in frustration and confusion as noted by several above. Since keynoting is a coordination tool between drawings/models and specs, it only makes sense that firm leaders for drawings/models and for specifications work on establishing the system in a joint coordinated effort - the views and concerns of both should be considered in its formulation. It also really helps if the people involved have substantial experience on the other side - the drawings person have a good understanding of specs and the specifier having had good experience producing drawings/models. The first step is to agree on the identification term and keynote designator to be used for each component including which work result (specification section) the component best relates to. Another further step is to agree about what more detailed descriptive information about the component should be on the drawings or in the specifications. The PRM (soon to be Practice Guides) provides basic principles about the types of information to divided among drawings and specifications. The work comes with applying those principles to all the components used. In formulating such a system, there are many decisions to made about which is the best location for detailed information about components of work results. This often revolves around numerical characteristics such as capacity, gage, thickness, etc. - looking at each component, should it be in more detailed keynotes (or notes added to keynotes) on the drawings on in the specs - does the information vary greatly by location (drawings) or is consistent for a project (specifications)? Can the varience in location be easily scheduled in the specifications or is it best conveyed on the drawings? A good master keynote list will make those types of decisions for all the components and provide instructions on where such information should be located. Such recommendations are of course subject to exception for an individual project when appropriate. What I am trying to get at is that a firm-wide keynote system can become a significant coordination tool beyond just using the same identification label on the drawings and in the specs. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 346 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 12:19 pm:    As an consulltant who on occassion has had to deal with kenotes I find that they make it harder to understand the content of the architectural drawings. The process of going from the note on the detail to the list providing the text associated with the note is distracting. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 121 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 12:28 pm:    Dennis This will always be a problem with a MasterFormat based keynoting system. MasterFormat does not designate one location for every component. This is very evident by the “Includes” and “May Include” listings under MasterFormat titles and numbers – the system says you can specify it here or you can specify it there. The specifier may specify various components in different specification sections which then would affect the keynote designator for that component. This is in addition to the fact that many components are commonly used in multiple work results (fasteners, joint sealants, etc.). An example of this would be under slab-on-grade vapor barriers – do you specify them in separate Division 07 section, in Div 31 earthwork section, or with Div 03 CIP concrete section? Roofing or horizontal waterproofing system deck insulation – do you specify it with roofing/waterproofing section or in a thermal insulation section? You can go on with many other examples. A MasterFormat based keynote system always has to be coordinated with the master specification being used. If the keynote system is created independent of a master specification system (Revit), there will be coordination problems. If you are starting with such a universal keynote system, you first have to do is modify it match up with the numbering and scope of your master specification sections. This is one of the challenges of creating an industry-wide master keynote list. Not only would the list have to be on a broadscope basis to accommodate the variances in narrowscoping, but also to accommodate the various locations (across divisions) that the components can be specified in based on a firm’s preferences among the choices provided in MasterFormat. In other words, an industry-wide keynote list would have to include some components in multiple locations to recognize different practices – hopefully the same component would have the same consistent keynote suffix. A firm starting from the universal master list would then need to modify the list for its practice in coordination with its master specification. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 122 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 12:37 pm:    In reation to comments about keynotes making it harder to read drawings - there is an option in the NCS to include both keynote designator and identifying term on the individual drawings. This combines the benefits of the designator tying the component to the specifications with the self identifying words. In my experience, if project teams are given the choice, they will more likely choose the combination method. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1285 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 01:51 pm:    We have created our own in-house keynoting system for Revit. We found that the one supplied with Revit was overly detailed, aside from not completely matching MasterSpec. The lead specifier (me) created the office master keynote list, and the terms used in the keynotes match those in our specifications. In a fwe cases that meant changing a term in the specs so the note and specs worked together better. The specifications group controls the master keynote list, which is copied and pre-edited for each project. We only use the keynoting on large K-12 projects. Materials tags give the number, similar to what Ron Geren notes above, and a legend of numbers with associated text appears on each sheet. However, virtually all of our work is done in Revit. I've been suggesting that we use the keynotes even when the materials tags will NOT be the number, but will instead be the text. That way the terminology will be consistant with the specs. (Revit allows you to display either the number or the text.) As to the "duplication" of terms in different sections: yep, it's there. But you select the keynote for the assembly it belongs to. This has been sometimes a challenge if some members of the team doing the modeling have not gotten the proper training and guidance on the materials and systems they are modeling. Paul Gerber Senior Member Username: paulgerber Post Number: 51 Registered: 04-2010 Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 02:27 pm:    OK first off I will say I have never worked in a firm who used keynoting, so this is my off the cuff personal opinion on the subject... There was a principal I was taught in school...KISS...it used to mean Keep It Simple Stupid, but the second S has been replaced with Smartyguy in our politically correct world and sometimes I feel it has lost a bit of its edge by the change. The one example I will always remember is a physics teacher's example of a person referring to a luminaire in an attempt to make themselves sound more technically competent. His response was "It's a light, Todd!" To me, the most effective way to communicate requirements on a drawing is through notes in plain, simple, consistent English. It is sometimes a challenge for trade contractors on site to understand what we are trying to say through written words. I can't imagine taking a tradesman through a whole level of complexity where they have to understand some cryptic set of codes for a document they know nothing or little about. The same thing could be said for some of the draftsmen in architectural, structural or MEP offices. Furthermore, I look at it from a liability standpoint and imagine with horror some fresh-out-of-school junior CAD operator trying to assign keynotes based on MasterFormat numbers he has no clue about, then a Project Architect checking them (with the BIG assumption that the PA actually knows anything about MasterFormat). Once the documents, which could potentially have many errors due to lack of coordinating the cryptic keynotes, get into the hands of the Contractor, I can imagine the Contract Administrator pulling his hair out (more than usual) with a cantankerous Contractor that is making numerous outlandish claims for extra because the roofing nails in Section 07 31 13 are more expensive than the common spiral nails in Section 06 05 23 which the keynote referenced. And so on, and so on and so on. One of my current mandates it to produce a list of terminology to make notes and specifications more consistent in our office...so we have "sheet waterproofing membrane" on our drawings instead of "ice & water shield" (especially when we are talking about a wall) or "exterior gypsum sheathing" instead of "GlassClad". I find it cumbersome enough at the beginning of a project to decipher the tags for various wall types in a project, let alone having to relate what something is based on a MasterFormat keynoting system. Call a nail a nail and not an 06 05 23.P!! Ride it like you stole it!!! Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 111 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 02:49 pm:    John, How much customization does that require your office to make to the Revit software? How often does AutoDesk send out updates? What does your IT/CAD management team think about it? And what would happen if DCAM required you to use their new keynote system, but it didn't match your in-house system exactly? Hypothetically speaking, of course. - John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1286 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 04:17 pm:    No customization at all is required for Revit. A copy is merely 'attached' via some process that I don't have to do. I would have to see how different DCAM's keynotes were form ours. It would also depend on if we were using their spec masters, something I'm not necessarily in favor of. For those not from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, DCAM is the Division of Capital Asset Management. They are the state agency that owns, leases and constructs buildings for most state agencies. J. Peter Jordan (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 12:27 pm:    Although I tend to agree with Mark, I would suggest that the potential benefits of better coordination between construction documents outweighs this inconvenience. I have, therefore, kept my grousing to myself. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1289 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2010 - 02:17 pm:    I have heard that contractors come to be okay with it relatively quickly as they learn the keynote numbers for a project. And, the lengend is on each drawing. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 394 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2010 - 02:41 pm:    Consider the beneficial side effect of the keynoting system as an instructional tool that graphically coach the drafter or contractor on understanding project conventions such MasterFormat and ultimately where to find something in the spec. Eventually the numbering system kicks into memory and the learning curve is over for the drafter or contractor. Pure ConDoc keynote numbering has never been practiced within any office that I have worked. However, whenever I was master and commander of the drawings and specs I used generic terminology with the spec section where and when appropriate. The spec location of some stuff is simply not that intuitive to the uninitiated. Such as resin panels from 3Form. It is better than saying SEE SPECS. At least I gave the Chapter in the specs. Dennis C. Elrod, AIA Senior Member Username: delrodtn Post Number: 23 Registered: 04-2010 Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2010 - 04:22 pm:    Between 5 & 10 years ago, my mentor and friend Louis Medcalf, FCSI, CCS as part of our Production Management Group, developed an office master keynoting system, with Louis taking the lead on it, to work within AutoCAD. It was based on the ConDoc system we adopted 20 yeas ago and successfully used on several projects and twekaed per Louis' wisdom and years of experience. At that time, the program would do keynotes, or notes, or both. We chose the keynote route and used a master legend on one of the G-sheets in the set and sheet keynote lists on each sheet. We thought it worked well and the few younger staff members on the project teams did begin to gain an understanding of Masterformat numbering. However, the system died due to general contractor retort on the projects we used the system on. I think we are moving that direction again using the REVIT platform, but for now the MF numbers applied to REVIT object materials will not be used and we will use the notes instead. The beauty of REVIT is that it can be toggled in a project at any time. Dennis C. Elrod, AIA smcgrady@e-specs.com (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2010 - 01:02 pm:    e-SPECS v6.0 (to be released shortly) will include keynote master management complete with out of the box keynotes for MasterSpec and VA masters, functionality to create custom master keynotes, project keynote filtering, and tools for assigning keynotes to Revit elements and materials and verifying those keynotes through the project lifecycle. We invite all those interested to view our webcast presentations on the new keynoting features in e-SPECS v6.0. We can also make available the recorded webcasts to those whose schedules don't fit our live webcasts. Registration is available on our web site www.e-SPECS.com or request our recorded webcasts emailing info@e-SPECS.com. The new keynoting functionality was very much customer driven. Please don't hesitate to send your recommendations on what would improve the keynoting coordination or other areas of the e-SPECS products. Thank you, Seamus McGrady InterSpec Sunny Onadipe, CCS, CCCA, SCIP, LEED AP (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2010 - 01:21 am:    Bob, Wayne and Lisa: Thanks for the info. I appreciate your kindness. James P. Hobson CSI CCS (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 04:25 pm:    Check out "The Architect's Guide to tne National CAD Standard" by Dennis Hall and Charles Green; published by the AIA through Wiley. This is a companion instructional book for the NCS and has a full list of keynotes and numbers in Appendix D Dennis Ward (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, January 14, 2011 - 03:45 pm:    Does anyone have specifications on the construction of Alpana Windows, which no longer exists. Alpana are the exisitng windows in a building buit in 1988.