CSI Acquires BSD

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

Author Message J. Peter Jordan (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, November 01, 2010 - 12:47 pm:    The Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) today announced that it has acquired Building Systems Design, Inc. (BSD). See press release at http://www.csinet.org/bsdpr Nathan Woods, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 357 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Monday, November 01, 2010 - 01:03 pm:    wow, I don't think that was mentioned in last months summary of actions from the Board meeting..... So now CSI members are co-owners of a commerical for profit entity? Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 99 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Monday, November 01, 2010 - 01:07 pm:    FAQ on Acquisition: http://csinet.org/Functional-Menu-Category/News-Room/FAQs-on-CSI-Strategic-Partnership-with-Building-Systems-Design-BSD.aspx Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 100 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, November 01, 2010 - 01:51 pm:    Wow. What exactly is the mission of CSI anymore? I don't mean to denigrate the presumably fine business that is BSD, but... Do we want to volunteer our time and expertise to a for-profit organization? Is the institute going to spend that profit on membership, technical education, or the care and feeding of even more staff? I've read the FAQs, and I'm not impressed. Yes, I'm asking, what's in it for me? "CSI members will directly benefit through increased access to BSD’s master specifications software and additional building information management tools through special discounts on the purchase of BSD products and services." Don't we already get discount offers? "Special BIM and interoperability-related education sessions will also be available to CSI members as a result of the strategic partnership." Doesn't BSD already offer training for their customers? I'm confused. - Dale Hurttgam, NCARB, AIA,LEED AP, CSI Senior Member Username: dwhurttgam Post Number: 68 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Monday, November 01, 2010 - 02:51 pm:    I was doing a little Internet searching to confirm that CSI is a "non-profit organization". I see that in a recent press release for the new Uniformat that they did indicate that they are a "non-profit" organization. "About CSI CSI is a national association dedicated to creating standards and formats to improve construction documents and project delivery. The organization is unique in the industry in that its members are a cross-section of specifiers, architects, engineers, contractors and building materials suppliers. The organization has 148 chapters and more than 13,000 members. Monthly Chapter meetings allow members the opportunity to communicate openly with their counterparts and exchange information for successful project management. CSI is renowned in the industry for its rigorous certification programs for professionals seeking to improve their knowledge of accurate and concise construction documents. CSI provides continuing education, professional conferences and product shows. For more information, visit www.csinet.org, or call 800.689.2900. About CSC CSC is a national multi-disciplinary, non-profit association with chapters across Canada. In the construction industry’s fast-paced environment, the need for and value of CSC is greater than ever bringing together individuals from all segments of the Candian construction industry. CSC is committed to ongoing development and delivery of quality education programs, publications and services for the betterment of the construction community. For more information, visit www.csc-dcc.ca, or call (416) 777-2198." I find the link with BSD disturbing in that our organization has dedicated a lot of effort and resources to a competing MasterSpec system that I believe a lot of A/E's have a strong alliegence to. Having CSI linked to and directly affiliated with a specific "Master" system I believe may not be a good thing for the industry. Although the annoucement indicates that they will operate separate, I would expect that financial considerations will be a factor in how "independent" they remain. P.S. After "previewing" my post, I noticed something interesting in the CSI/CSC annoucement in quotations. It only indicates "non-profit" when describing the CSC portion of the tandem organizations. Scott Mize Senior Member Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi Post Number: 22 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Monday, November 01, 2010 - 03:47 pm:    Dale: Could you clarify the fourth paragraph in your post? By "our organization", do you mean "the members of CSI" or "the company/firm/consultancy that Dale Hurttgam owns/works for"? Thanks. Scott Mize Senior Member Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi Post Number: 23 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Monday, November 01, 2010 - 04:10 pm:    Lisa: CSI owns BSD; CSI will not be running BSD on a day-to-day basis. (Warren Buffet owns Johns-Manville, but he isn't developing new roofing systems or supporting warranty customers.) So, you won't be asked to "volunteer [your] time and expertise for a for-profit organization". CSI will go on doing what it has always done. I don't expect any CSI member will see any significant change in the organization. Certainly (after the cost of the initial purchase) BSD won't cost CSI any money operate. Given CSI's non-profit status, it's unlikely that BSD will make money for CSI directly. That ownership is an investment that could increase or decrease in value, but won't provide any direct financial benefit until sold. I'm sure there will be indirect benefits to CSI supporting its' goals and promoting its' standards through owning an actual tool used for specifying as opposed to just a set of voluntary standards with no actual specification content. BIM interoperability with specifications is the future and CSI has been a little behind the curve on this issue. Acquiring BSD not only puts CSI back into the BIM interoperability game by owning an actual BIM interoperability tool, but establishes a de facto standard for BIM operability - something that has, until now, not really existed. Your mileage may vary. BSD has been a strategic partner with CSI for a long time and has been a member of the MasterFormat task team for years. In many ways, this just formalizes and strengthens a number of relationships between the organizations that already existed. Dale Hurttgam, NCARB, AIA,LEED AP, CSI Senior Member Username: dwhurttgam Post Number: 69 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Monday, November 01, 2010 - 05:25 pm:    Scott - Just to clarify, my reference to "our organization" was to the firm that I work for. I see where that was open to interpretation. Dale Dale Hurttgam, NCARB, AIA,LEED AP, CSI Senior Member Username: dwhurttgam Post Number: 70 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Monday, November 01, 2010 - 05:30 pm:    Scott - Just to clarify, my reference to "our organization" was to the firm that I work for. I see where that was open to interpretation. Dale Steve Gantner, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: sgantner Post Number: 29 Registered: 08-2007 Posted on Monday, November 01, 2010 - 05:58 pm:    Interesting! Is this our (CSI) way of getting into the contract document business? First the strategic alliance with AGC, now we (CSI) aquire BSD which just happens to be the software company (Docubuilder) of choice for the AGC Condocs? Harry Peck, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: harryspec Post Number: 7 Registered: 05-2010 Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2010 - 07:10 am:    Am I showing my age, but I remember when I first joined CSI a member benefit was the "SpecText" documents which CSI later divested themselves of. Scott Mize Senior Member Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi Post Number: 24 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2010 - 08:57 am:    Yes, indeed, Harry. And CSRF is still out there and still supporting SpecText, but has no relationship with CSI. Scott Mize Senior Member Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi Post Number: 25 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2010 - 08:58 am:    And Dale, thanks for the clarification. Your comment (and your concern) make more sense to me now. Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 101 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2010 - 11:15 am:    Hey Scott, Where does your information on the relationship between CSI and BSD come from? What else do you know about this deal? - Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1038 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2010 - 11:48 am:    well... except that CSI is also a strategic partner of Masterspec, so they will be theoretically competing with themselves. I remember the SpecText "member benefit" as well. The problem CSI seems to have with entitites that it develops and owns is that it never successfully markets any of them, doesn't provide product support that actually works, and seems to try and do too many things and then does them badly. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1143 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2010 - 12:04 pm:    What exactly is a "strategic partner" or "strategic alliance"? (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2010 - 01:05 pm:    How much did we (the membership) pay for this lemon? Scott Mize Senior Member Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi Post Number: 26 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2010 - 01:36 pm:    dear Lisa - and anyone else who happens to be reading ;-) Any information in my previous posts that is not in the press release or FAQ or available from some other publicly available source (BSD's website, CSI's website, etc.) is purely my opinion. For example, according to the FAQ, my statement that 'you won't be asked to volunteer your time and expertise for a for-profit organization' is based on the FAQ statement that BSD will continue to be operated as "a separate for-profit entity with a Board of Directors that includes CSI appointees." The commentary about ownership and cost is my opinion. For example, it is my understanding of tax law that non-profits can own for-profit entities, but their budgets and operations must be kept strictly separate. That said, I should disclose - and perhaps should have done so up front - that I am in a unique position to understand both organizations and how they'll 'fit' because I am both immediate past President of the Atlanta Chapter of CSI and a non-management employee of BSD. My knowledge of the former organization is self-explanatory. Of the latter, I can assure you that I don't know much more than you guys do because I was not a party to the planning of, or decision about, the acquisition. I do, however, have the benefit of additional context and perspective. In any case, I have to be discreet about what I say in public. That's why I'm confident that what I wrote earlier is factual to the best of my knowledge and impartial to the best of my ability to be so. I've been a full time specification writer for seventeen years (fifteen of those as a MasterSpec user, ha!) as well as a long-time member of the Institute, so you can believe that I have great interest in the well-being of both organizations and in doing what is right by my colleagues. Finally, my earlier post was an attempt to reassure and inform my colleagues and not to defend or promote the acquisition and I hope everybody here took it as such. Scott Mize Senior Member Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi Post Number: 27 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2010 - 01:38 pm:    PS - And I am *not* relocating to Alexandria. ;-) Scott Mize Senior Member Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi Post Number: 28 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2010 - 01:42 pm:    Ann: I hear you. However, with CSRF/SpecText as a cautionary tale, the Institute will hopefully not repeat its' earlier mistakes. I also have high hopes that the fact that BSD was developed independently and then acquired means that the Institute will leave BSD alone to do what it does while BSD adds to CSI's 'member value proposition'. Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 102 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2010 - 01:47 pm:    I don't think BSD is a lemon. But I do agree with Anne in that I doubt much good will come of this, especially for the general membership and for furthering the educational mission of CSI. - Scott Mize Senior Member Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi Post Number: 29 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2010 - 02:02 pm:    David: "Strategic partners" and "strategic alliance" are business terms-of-art that usually refer to joint marketing and cross-promotional arrangements; i.e., joining forces to share marketing expenses and increase results. In CSI's case, companies like ARCOM, BSD and CSRF can use CSI's name and logo in their marketing materials and CSI has permission to list its' partners in their own promotional materials. Also, I believe CSI's 'strategic partners' pay the Institute a license fee to use MasterFormat in their own products. (Again, I refer to you to the relevant websites as my source.) AIA has a similar arrangment with a number of member organizations. AIA *owns* ARCOM, yet BSD is an AIA Cornerstone Partner (a 'stragetic partner' arrangement). I don't think that adds up to AIA competing with itself. It shouldn't be any different for CSI. Scott Mize Senior Member Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi Post Number: 30 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2010 - 02:05 pm:    Well, Ann and Lisa, I sincerely hope that the outcome surprises you. :-) Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS SCIP LEED-AP Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 245 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2010 - 02:40 pm:    AIA owns MasterSpec (the product) and has an agreement with ARCOM (an independent company) to develop, maintain and market MasterSpec. Maybe there are some other old guys who remember when an AIA subsidiary called PSAE Master Systems wrote and published the hard copy. In those days, ARCOM merely converted MasterSpec into computer media for various operating systems. In the 1980's I received MasterSpec on 9-track tape for DEC VAX/VMS. Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 103 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2010 - 03:43 pm:    Scott, I am ever hopeful! Scott Mize Senior Member Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi Post Number: 31 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2010 - 04:05 pm:    Thanks for clarifying that, Howard. You are correct, but my point still stands, I think. Supporting multiple spec-writing tools while owning one doesn't mean one is competing with one's self. (At least it's worked out well for the AIA and ARCOM...) (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2010 - 05:19 pm:    Again, I ask, HOW MUCH DID WE PAY for this? (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2010 - 06:06 pm:    I understand that this information is confidential, and not something that CSI membership is privy to know. Hmmm... If that is truly the case, I am seriously considering dropping out of CSI. I am not really that interested in paying increasingly expensive dues to support purchase of for-profit companies that may end up being unprofitable, spawning yet more increase in dues to bail CSI out of a dumb business deal. Ironic that the first link in this discussion thread talks about CSI having been formed for the purpose of "improving communication between all members of the construction project team." I guess to hell with improving communication among the membership! I think a lot of folks are going to be pretty upset abous this, at a minimum not being informed at all about what CSI was planning to do with our money!!! (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2010 - 08:54 am:    ummm...can't disagree. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2010 - 10:01 am:    CSI....transparency and accountability...an oxymoron. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1039 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2010 - 12:57 pm:    Well, I did what I used to advise other people to do, and asked my CSI Region Director for more information regarding the purchase of BSD. There is a FAQ sheet from CSI that I seem unable to copy to this site, but it does explain the thinking a little more clearly. I'm not sure I agree with the purchase, but it no longer seems as bone-headed as it did last night. As for "what is a Strategic Partner" or "Strategic Alliance" -- CSI (and other organizations like AIA) get together with a MOU (memorandum of understanding) that more or less says "we support what you do, and will work to further our joint interests". These usually exist between groups that don't do the same thing, but are sort of allied with each other. Arcom has them with AIA and CSI, for example. CSI has them with Arcom and BSD. So... to all of the people on this site who are grousing about not being in the decision process, I would advise you to contact one of the Directors on the CSI Board (or some other Board member) and voice your concerns to them. Good communication has to go in BOTH directions. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 100 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2010 - 02:30 pm:    Here is the link to the FAQ as posted earlier above as this thread started. FAQ on Acquisition: http://csinet.org/Functional-Menu-Category/News-Room/FAQs-on-CSI-Strategic-Partnership-with-Building-Systems-Design-BSD.aspx Paul Gerber Senior Member Username: paulgerber Post Number: 35 Registered: 04-2010 Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2010 - 03:29 pm:    Funny, with some changes upcoming in my career writing specifications I was contemplating joining CSI in the new year. Based on this announcement and my shared concerns with regards to some of the others on this thread, I think I will have to reconsider whether I will join or not. As I am located in the Great White North, I am frustrated enough with manufacturer's guide specs that do not have any Canadian content (whether it being not addressing the subtle difference between CSI and CSC PageFormat versions or not considering differences between CSA and ASTM standards), but now I have to consider what the aquisition of BSD will mean for membership costs in the future and what benefits this aquisition will bring me as a member of CSI. My immediate thought would be absolutely nothing! Strategic Alliances or Strategic Partnerships with software vendors I can see, as it will allow input into tools that may or may not be potentially used by the membership or could provide better compliance with "standards" such as MasterFormat, PageFormat etc. I can't however get my head wrapped around why a volunteer, non-profit organization like CSI would feel the need to become the owner of a company that offers ONE specification writing software package when it's mission statement is to "advance building information management and education of project teams to improve facility performance.". I fail to see how owning one piece of specification writing software will enhance this mission when only one part of the membership would ever use this tool; if even they would ever use it at all. I don't see too many technical reps or contractors rushing out to buy this software, but I could be wrong...and from what I see it doesn't appear that even the majority of CSI members who post here use it either. Maybe I am "behind the curve" but Microsoft Word seems to work very well for me anyways. I will continue to monitor this discussion and the CSI website for future information before making my final decision. And I too find it strange that nowhere in any of the press releases is ANY mention made of the purchase price or even a ball park figure of the purchase price. If I was an existing member I would be demanding to know. It seems strange to me that a major financial decision like this would appear to be could be made without some kind of vote from the membership. Ride it like you stole it!!! Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1139 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2010 - 03:59 pm:    Re: "...but Microsoft Word seems to work very well for me..." We are having some subtle challenges with Microsoft Word 2007 and the most recent issuance of MasterSpec. Let me explain: text disappears when in "print layout" and reappears when switched to "draft layout"...however, when the document is PFDd, text will be gone if "draft layout" was used, but will be there if "print layout" was used...but only on some computers in the office. MasterSpec says they are aware of the glitch (something to do with a macro), but don't know how to fix it... Computers: making our lives easier, making us more productive... Curt Norton, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: curtn Post Number: 170 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2010 - 07:00 pm:    I have no direct knowledge of why CSI has acquired BSD, but with the financial world where it is at today there aren’t many good places to invest your money. One of the best options out there today is acquiring another company. (I drive a lot these days and I am hooked on CNBC, what can I say…) Before this group rounds up the pitch forks and ropes, let’s see what happens. I have been using BSD’s Speclink for over 2 years and I’m very happy with it. It is not perfect, but neither is MasterSpec or using MS Word. There is risk in every investment, but I think this one has a chance to be good for CSI. If the discussion about Docubuilder/Condocs is correct, then I think it makes even more sense. Scott Mize Senior Member Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi Post Number: 32 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2010 - 10:42 am:    Unregistered Guest(s): I've stated on which side my bread is buttered, so feel free to ignore me, but - Anne has a point. If you really want to know what this deal cost the Institute, contact *your* CSI leadership. I know as well as anyone that specification writers as a group are often underpaid and underappreciated, which leads a lot of us to be cynical and cantankerous. However, you're just shouting questions at no one in a position to answer on a public discussion board. How's that workin' for ya? It sounds like you were already very unhappy with CSI and that, for you, trying to see the benefit in this acquisition just isn't in the cards. That's a shame and I'm truly sorry for it. It's not like CSI picked your pocket; you signed up and gave them your money. If you don't like what they did with your money, tell them! And if you don't like the response you get, don't give them any more of it. Good luck. Scott Mize Senior Member Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi Post Number: 33 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2010 - 10:56 am:    Paul: It sounds like there might be a lucrative opportunity in developing a set of master specifications (or modifying an existing set) that adhere to the CSC format and properly reference CSA standards. It seems to me that any of the existing specification-writing systems would be interested in taking you on as a 'Canadian partner'. That said, I'm not sure how to address your concerns. I guess I would first ask you (and the others who are objecting), 'What if this acquisition has no noticable effect on my experience as a CSI member?' If there's no ill effect or additional benefit and you were considering joining CSI before you heard about this, why not go ahead and join? Scott Mize Senior Member Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi Post Number: 34 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2010 - 11:07 am:    Submitted for general consideration (and this is purely my opinion and speculation on my part): CSI used to own stuff; SpecText, the CSI Show, the Institute building in Alexandria. Over the years, CSI has sold off all of these things. Now the Institute's only asset is its' intellectual property: MasterFormat, the PRM, the certifications classes and exams. Perhaps the Board and Officers of the Institute decided it would be a good idea for the Institute to own a for-profit entity that is doing well despite prevailing economic conditions. The value of that asset - even though it is run as a completely separate entity with no commingling of funds, expenses, etc. - would be a present hedge against continued poor economic conditions and set to increase greatly in value should economic conditions improve significantly. Anyway, since the current Officers and Board of the Institute are (1) presumably sane, (2) better informed about the state of the Institute and the industry than we, and (3) in no position to profit personally from the acquisition, then they must have had what seemed like pretty good reasons. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 101 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2010 - 11:36 am:    CSI never owned SPECTEXT. It has always been owned by CSRF. CSI had an agreement with CSRF where CSI provided a technical review of SPECTEXT and in return recevied the profits from hard copy sales. That agreement disolved in the 90's. CSI has not had any involvement with SPECTEXT since then. Scott Mize Senior Member Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi Post Number: 35 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2010 - 12:16 pm:    I stand corrected. I'm guessing, by implication, that you have no problem with my statements about CSI's former ownership of the CSI Show or the Institute building. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2010 - 12:14 pm:    Scott, It is naive of you to think that CSI boardmembers are not reading (and likely participating) in this discussion thread. I know for a fact that they are. Questions posted on this thread are absolutely being read (and directed) to the people that can answer them, but they are choosing to be silent on the matter. Scott Mize Senior Member Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi Post Number: 36 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2010 - 01:48 pm:    Forgive me, Mr./Ms. Unregistered Guest, if I take your assertions about my naivete' and dark conspiracies among the CSI Board members with a grain of salt. I can't imagine they are very concerned with anonymous postings here; I can see that it was a mistake for me to even attempt addressing them. Your mileage may vary. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 102 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2010 - 01:55 pm:    Scott: No problem about show or building ownership. Just trying to keep the facts straight about SPECTEXT ownership. Unregistered Guest: I do not see any board member that has participated in the postings above. Yes, some may be monitoring. To those of you who have questions that you actually want a response to, I would suggest as Anne has said, contact a board member or go to forum sites where board members are responding to questions on this issue: CSI LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewArticle=&articleID=242065119&gid=706547&type=news&item=242065119&articleURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ecsinet%2Eorg%2Fbsdpr&urlhash=X8cT CSI Forums: http://new.csinet.org/csi_services/forums.aspx?ForumID=51&TopicID=1283 It is always good advice to ask questions of others in the same manner that you would like questions addressed to you. You are much more likely to received a responsive answer when you do so. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 103 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2010 - 02:01 pm:    My laugh of the day yesterday - unregistered guests with strong opinions talking about transparency and accountability!!!!!! Nathan Woods, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 366 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2010 - 02:10 pm:    To be fair, the unregistered guest issue may simply be a problem with 4specs than any deliberate ommission. The login creditentials are no longer persistent, when they used to be. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2010 - 01:43 pm:    Scott, I re-read the posts above. First, I sincerely hope you are being compensated for you PR work. Second, the most common thread is "HOW MUCH?" No one seems to know. (on this board, and un-returned phone calls to institute) As members of the organization into which we pay dues, we are (I hate this word, but it fits) ENTITLED to know what our dues is being used for. Unless BSD Owners donated the company or another private group bought and donated it, in which case it is none of our business. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2010 - 02:36 pm:    How much does the website cost? how much does it cost to have a board meeting? what's the monthly rent at the office cost? do you acutally think a business can operate if it has to ask its' shareholders every time it makes a decision? Even if you were asked, what makes you think you are in a better position to decide what to do? The terms of many business agreements are confidential, that's life. Scott Mize Senior Member Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi Post Number: 37 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2010 - 03:15 pm:    Sigh. Unregistered Guest 01:43 pm: "Compensated for your PR work"? - as if I am not allowed an opinion of my own. To borrow a phrase from my kids, LOL. I definitely NOT getting paid to tolerate condescension and backhanded insult from anonymous cranks on the Internet, so there's no reason to respond to anything else you say. Have a nice day! :-) Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 104 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2010 - 03:29 pm:    Why don't you ask the "how much" question on one of the CSI forums listed above where board members are participating? I think you will find that the answer to that question is that it is confidential which would be true for most any organization for that type of purchase. A better question might be to ask where did the funds come from. I think you will find that the answer is that the funds did not come out of the operating budget just as the major purchase of a vehicle or real estate would not usually come out of a family's operating budget, but rather from savings or investment funds. In other words, the purchase would not affect current operating programs nor operating revenue including dues. Funds from the investment funds would basically be a change from an existing investment(s) to an investment in BSD. The question to be answered in the future is how well the investment in BSD did in comparison to other investments from a financial point of view. How well the purchase did in light of the other reasons for the acquisition would be the additional questions. Another question that could be asked on the other forums is to confirm that the acquisition will not have any adverse effect on current or future opeating budgets (operating programs or dues) of the Institute. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1143 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2010 - 03:31 pm:    Scott, I appreciate your thoughtful, cool-headed, and deliberate responses on this thread. Thank you and if we have not met before (I'm terrible with names and I can't say that I recognize you from your picture), I hope to have that pleasure at an upcoming convention. Lynn Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 326 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2010 - 04:54 pm:    It is my observation that when a member organization becomes too dependent on some funding source, not member dues, there is a tendency to make decisions on how they impact the funding source and not on how they benefit the interests and needs of their membership. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2010 - 05:06 pm:    Scott, First, I am 1:43 and forgot to log on before I posted. At this point, I am too embarrassed to sign on, so I won't. Second, that first point was more of a totally backfired smartass comment. MY SINCEREST APOLOGIES, it was, and is not my intention to insult you or anyone on this forum. Finally, my post was sent before I saw the link's on other posts. These other links have been very helpful. I have, still and will ask the question "how much". I believe that as members we do have the right to know if we totally funded, loaned or outright gave the money to make this purchase. As was pointed out, there is the better way to ask the question, "where did the funds come from, and if it was membership, are these funds to be paid back." Again, my sincerest apologies to all, especially Scott. I hope to meet you in the future, if I do, I will introduce myself as 1:43 and apologize in person. Helaine K. Robinson CSI CCS CCCA SCIP Senior Member Username: hollyrob Post Number: 372 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2010 - 09:47 pm:    Based on past experience, the Institute Board is almost certainly reading this thread. Scott Mize Senior Member Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi Post Number: 38 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Friday, November 05, 2010 - 08:55 am:    Thank you, Ann. I look forward to meeting you as well. Thank you, also, "Unregistered Guest"; your clarification is most welcome and your apology gratefully accepted. Text is a fine medium for conveying technical information, but a poor one for interpersonal communication between people who don't already know each other - no body language, facial expressions or other nonverbal cues. Add to that the asynchronous nature of forum postings and it's very easy for this kind of misunderstanding to occur. The civility I generally experience here is quite refreshing. Scott Mize Senior Member Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi Post Number: 39 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Friday, November 05, 2010 - 08:57 am:    Ooops. I should say, "Thank you, Lynn." I think I just proved my own point. ;-) David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1145 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, November 05, 2010 - 12:17 pm:    Mark, Your observation is brilliant! It never occurred to me but you may be right on track. To paraphrase you, Institute may shift focus from fulfilling the needs of the membership to the profitability of BSD. Ronald J. Ray, RA, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: rjray Post Number: 83 Registered: 04-2004 Posted on Friday, November 05, 2010 - 04:50 pm:    I posted the following earlier today under theInstitute topic: I was quite pleased to read the announcement that CSI had acquired BSD and the various software systems they have produced over the years. Of particular importance is BSD’s specification software SpecLink. When I started my specification consulting firm around 20 years ago, as a member of CSI, I decided purchasing SpecText was the correct and appropriate thing to do. You know, support the organization where my money was going. What a mistake that was. SpecText was of little use and certainly not helpful in gaining knowledge of construction component or systems. AIA’s MasterSpec had it beat hands down. But now, things have changed. Over the past 4 years or so, I have watched AIA attempt to reduce the huge gap between MasterSpec and SpecLink in the software side of commercial specification products. Granted, MasterSpec is a far better product than it has ever been, but in my opinion, SpecLink still is the leader in specification software. The big unanswered question for me, and the one that the CSI president told me would never be answered, is just how much of our dues was used to acquire BSD? No doubt it is a large number. But I wonder if it goes beyond hundreds of thousands into the millions. In my 25 years as a CSI member, this is yet another example with both the CSI national organization and my local CSI chapter: lack of openness. My perception of CSI as a “good old boy” organization may never change. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, November 05, 2010 - 01:06 pm:    Does it strike any one else as curious[?] that there is so much angst and skepticism [just on this thread, not to speak throughout the membership] on this issue? Seems to me the "powers" best take heed of this! There is a lot of mad in the world today, and situations like this, though rather inconsequential [except to members]still can and should be avoided. They are bothersome! This is an organization dedicated [?????] to bettering communications-- uuuhhhhhh!!!!! Does that exclude members? J. Peter Jordan (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Saturday, November 06, 2010 - 11:46 am:    I have lurked for the past several days to watch the traffic on this thread. I will say right up front that I am a long-time MasterSpec user. I have tried SpecLink a couple of times and have found it wanting in areas that I consider important which is why I have remained a MasterSpec subscriber. I do believe, however, that SpecLink has important strengths which are the reasons for it having a significant share of this market. I have said for a number of years that what CSI has been good at is not "creating knowledge" but creating the structures to organize knowledge; e.g., MasterFormat and SectionFormat. CSI has essentially created the structure that allows BSD to create a database product for specifications. CSI's activities supporting OmniClass will, in my view, be more strategically important to BIM than whatever BSD is up to. I am conflicted about the issue of transparency of CSI's Board of Director. I recognize that there are issues requiring board action which must remain confidential, particularly those having to do with personnel. I am not sure that this is one of them. I have no problem with CSI forming "strategic alliances" (or whatever you want to call it) with any number of organizations whose organizations contribute to the success of the mission of CSI. I do have a problem with CSI putting money down on a single company when there doesn't seem to be that much money to begin with. The cost of this acquisition cannot be hidden from the membership indifinitely because year-end financials should force disclosure. It this is not the case, then CSI has other problems. In my view, CSI's membership deserves concrete responses to the following concerns: (1) What benefit does the rank and file CSI member get from this? Are the benefits immediate, tangible, and significant (and I do not consider a 10 percent discount to be significant)? Or are they of a more strategic and intangible nature. Would CSI members receive these benefits without the Institute purchasing BSD? (2) Who has assessed the quality of BSD's software with respect to current and future design practice and found it to merit purchase? And why does it merit purchase? (3) Aside from benefits to members, what is the return on CSI's purchase of BSD, both on a tangible, financial level (return on investment) and on a strategic level. It is easy to see (although not quatifiable) what BSD get out of this transactionm but what about CSI and CSI's membership? The return on a strategic level is more understandible, but in fact more appropriate for someone like AutoDesk. Will CSI get a share of each year's profits (a dividend) each quarter or each year? Or will CSI hold on to its investment, earning a return when the investment is sold somewhere down the line? In either case, the investment seems to be risky from a financial perspective. (4) Finally, I would really like to know who has a dog in this fight. I will admit that this may be somewhat irrelevant, but it becomes relevant if one or more individuals gets financial renumeration. Without further information, I intend to take the position that CSI's Executive Committee and Board of Directors have acted in the best interest of CSI's membership and of the Institute. I do, however, expect more information specifically related to my concerns to become available over the next several months. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1147 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Saturday, November 06, 2010 - 07:57 pm:    How do the other specification software companies feel about this acquisition? I would like to hear from the Arcom management team or specifiers that help review MasterSpec documents. How about SpecText? Lane Beougher Advanced Member Username: lbeougher Post Number: 5 Registered: 04-2006 Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2010 - 01:40 am:    Contrary to popular belief, most of the CSI Board members do have jobs that we are trying to keep while giving up many hours a month to fulfill our responsibilities to CSI. Personally, I may check in occasionally, but I also have a discussion forum on the CSI website to moderate occasionally, a task team and committee to liaise with, along with board meetings, and tend to focus energy there. I did look in a few days ago and it appeared that Scott was doing a nice job of providing factual information and I didn't want to get in his way. I have been posting occasionally to the LinkeIn Group. I would also suggest you check in at the CSI Business Forum on csinet.org. Dennis Hall responded to Bob's questions there. First, for those of you demanding financial details, the answer is no. You may not like that answer, but that's what it is. Like every major business transaction, this one includes a nondisclosure agreement that does not allow us to disclose trade secrets or financial details. Second, as to how much of your dues were used to conduct the transaction, the simple answer is zero. Member dues are just one source of revenue used to pay current expenses. CSI has reserves that were previously invested in the financial markets by a financial management company according to CSI's investment policy. Some of these assets were liquidated to invest in another asset. Reserves are accumulated retained earnings, so past years' dues are included. However, we've been operating at a budgeted deficit for a number of years. This purchased asset, if its future sales mirror its history, will provide another revenue stream to pay current expenses, thus reducing pressure to increase dues, provide funds to increase services, or both. We believe the impact to the balance sheet and net income will be positive for CSI in both the short and long terms. The role of the CSI Board is to act in the best interest of the organization. Believe it or not, many of us had serious questions all through the process. One by one the questions, concerns, and objections were answered, addressed, and overcome. We also had a skillful negotiating team that we trusted, along with professional consultants providing advice and counsel throughout the process. We didn't trade the milk cow for a few beans. We made an informed decision based on the best available information and analysis. Third, if joining a membership organization that agressively pursues its stated mission and vision is not your cup of tea, then there isn't much I can say to persuade you otherwise. All deliberations and decisions were made in strict accordance with our articles of incorporation, bylaws, and policy. We're used to our leaders trying not to let anything happen on their watch and the result has been a steady decline in membership and relevance. I am proud to have been a member of a Board that took bold action. I don't expect everyone to agree, but we have received a number of positive responses. I hope you will appreciate the candor of my response. I would also suggest you look at President Hall's communication earlier this week. It addressed the WHY of the transaction very well. Lane Beougher Senior Member Username: lbeougher Post Number: 6 Registered: 04-2006 Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2010 - 01:53 am:    As for who has a dog in the fight, the Board members all sign conflict of interest statements each year and must disclose any potential conflicts of interest. The shareowners of BSD, a privately held company, are limited in number. There was no opportunity to have any insider trading in this transaction. Dogfighting is illegal in most states... Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 331 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2010 - 02:08 am:    Lane In spite of good intentions I have seen other professional organizations that became dependent on an income stream that was not directly tied to providing member benefits. In my opinion these situations have resulted in less attention to satisfying the membership. Intentions may be good but it is easy to fall in these traps. Richard Hird (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, December 10, 2010 - 09:00 pm:    The whole thing reminds me of when the government took over the S&L's then handed the assets to its cronies for $.01 on the dollar. Little twist to the game, but we will have to see what happens. Scott Mize Senior Member Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi Post Number: 41 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Monday, December 13, 2010 - 09:41 am:    Wow. Richard, that's pretty harsh. Could you be a little more specific about how a non-profit professional organization buying a for-profit software company as an investment resembles a seizure and (according to your description, corrupt) fire-sale of financial institutions by the Federal government? Whatever downside CSI acquiring BSD may have, I just don't see the similarity.