| Author |
Message |
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: john_regener
Post Number: 483
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2010 - 10:52 am: |    |
I think there are opportunities for construction specifications writers in computer-assisted specifications programs, such as Linx, eSPECS, PerSpective and SpecLink. My understanding is that knowledge of construction technology and specifications writing principles and practices are helpful, if not essential, to realizing the potential of these sophisticated programs.
Does anyone have constructive comments about the role of trained and experienced specifiers in the customization and project-specific use of these programs? |
David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI
Senior Member
Username: david_axt
Post Number: 1149
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2010 - 12:24 pm: | |
I honestly believe that many architectural firms are trying to replace professional specifiers with automatic specification processing systems. This is just like how CAD has replaced the drafter. The dream of BIM is to design a building, then push a button and out spits a project manual. |
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 1043
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2010 - 12:38 pm: | |
John -- what is it you are trying to say here. Any architect who has never written a spec before and thinks that because they have Linx they can write a spec is delusional, and works only on warehouses that are negotiated. An "automated" system doesn't replace good judgement and project knowledge and I don't know anyone who uses SpecLink who doesn't edit it and make selections. Linx is just an editing tool (and I use it all the time) but if I were to publish a section right out of Linx it would unbiddable.
Can you define your question? |
David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI
Senior Member
Username: david_axt
Post Number: 1151
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2010 - 12:55 pm: | |
Last night I watched a PBS NOVA special on The Crash of Flight 447. As you may recall a fully loaded Airbus A330-200 crashed in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean in June 2009 on route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris. Since the black boxes were never found the team of investigators surmised that weather conditions knocked out the automatic pilot. The pilots then had to manually fly this extremely sophisticated airplane. Since this airplane was designed to basically fly itself, the pilots probably had problems and unintentionally put the aircraft into a stall.
My point being that though technology can be good, sometimes we trust it more than we should. Now amount of automation will ever replace experience and professional judgment. |
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: john_regener
Post Number: 484
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2010 - 06:13 pm: | |
Anne:
I am involved ... becoming less involved by their initiation ... with firms who have bought into computer-assisted specifications programs, primarily encouraged by their commitment to 3D CAD. To them, eSPECS for Revit is a natural extension of their 3D CAD program. (I won't say BIM because I don't think what they are doing is truly BIM).
They are challenged to produce information during the Design Development phase of the project regarding building products. Since they traditionally have not had a specifications writer involved during DD, they wish to avoid adding this person. Yet, the magnitude of information now required at this phase and its impact on the budget of the project is neither understood or appreciated.
I have a sophisticated, design award-winning client who is functioning this way. They regularly prepare "preliminary" specifications themselves, consisting of bound catalog cuts and disjointed notes for the Design Develpment phase submission. Needless to say, there are shortcomings when the project moves on to the Contract Documents phase and the spec writer enters the picture (and "gold plates" the project with missing information and quality considerations).
Two of my clients have tried to produce Construction Contract phase specifications using eSPECS and SpecLink, with their project team members using the programs. The team members ranged in seniority from job captain up to project manager and principal. At least they haven't tried to use a CAD drafter or clerical person to prepare the specs. They blamed the resulting failures on the senior persons not having time to (a) learn the program and (b) actually going step-by-step through the required, detailed decisions, confronting unfamiliar reference standards and products. I think the issues of regional construction products and practices also come into play but there is no time for user-revised or -added text in this process that seemed so nifty when they saw the demonstration.
With the extreme pressure presently on design firms to be expedient and hold expenses down, excluding a spec writer by using a computer-assisted spec production seems like a low-risk, cost saving idea. I'm sure that the marketer said nothing about the value of a competent specifications writer using the program. I believe the strategic decision to rely solely on a computer-assisted spec program and an overworked staff member has been made without any consultation with a competent spec writer. The only input has been from the computer-assisted s
pec program's marketers and the decisions has been made by managers who lack understanding and appreciation of what it takes to produce professional-grade construction specifications.
My response to this situation has been twofold: (1) let them do what they want and hope they learn from the consequences and (2) encourage them to get the full picture of what it takes to make the most of the computer-assisted spec program. That is, realize that the spec program must be tailored for the types of projects they design, for their office's design standards and for the building code and construction practices of their region of the country in order to achieve the results they expect.
It is in this latter scenario where I believe opportunities are offered for spec writers to utilize their talents and experience and contribute in a positive way to the Brave New orld of BIM. At lease I'm hoping it will work out positively for me. |
David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI
Senior Member
Username: david_axt
Post Number: 1152
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2010 - 08:12 pm: | |
It is really hard to save someone who is drowning when they are firmly convinced that they know how to swim. |
Russ Hinkle, AIA, CDT, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: rhinkle
Post Number: 80
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2010 - 08:24 am: | |
And yet these same firms will hire BIM managers to help their staff get up to speed on this new software that creates a design with the push of a button.
Russ Hinkle |
J. Peter Jordan (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2010 - 09:41 am: | |
Way back when AutoCAD on an IBM PC was little more than a toy, the firm I was working for was interested in getting into CAD so that they would get more organized. I listened to this for a little while while thinking GIGO (Garbage In; Garbage Out). The corollary that I finally shared with the firm was: "If you automate a mess, you will just get a faster mess." The computer doesn't organize an organization that doesn't have well organized systmes in place. It can streamline an already efficient organization.
Specifiers are usually pretty streamlined already; it's in their DNA. Firms that are really interested in making good use of "automated specifications" will usually have a good spec writer around. If they don't, they will get poor specifications that are confusing and unenforceable, but they will get them faster. |
Dale Hurttgam, NCARB, AIA,LEED AP, CSI
Senior Member
Username: dwhurttgam
Post Number: 72
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2010 - 11:11 am: | |
I use Linx and have found it to be a very useful tool, but it is far from a total spec solution. It primarily does a rough edit. The more difficult or experienced based eiting or application of firm "standards" still need to be made after creating the initial spec document. I usually find that it is best that I review the total spec because sometimes I do not agree with all that has been stuck out - especially if there is some adjustments to how the "interactive questions" are responded to (atlhough I have found that the system has been improved in following through on adjustments when they are made). Overall, it does seem to speed the process significantly. I have seen some "ugly" results when someone inexperienced with specs places too much faith in the initial edit received via this system. |
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 1044
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2010 - 02:24 pm: | |
John-
I get what you are trying to say now. Back when I started consulting (the first time) 20 years ago, I had several clients who were overwhelmed by Masterspec and I offered a "preliminary edit" service for them. I did a rough edit of 80 sections that they would be most likely to use so that it would be easier for their project managers to do project edits from. It was profitable, and it also demonstrated that someone experienced with specs could make sense of those (then) 10 volumes of paper and condense them into one volume.
It was Mr. Jordan who stated at some Arcom meeting that this isn't "specs for dummies". (and I like his "faster mess" comment). I am old enough to remember when keynotes were going to make every job perfectly coordinated until people realized that you still need a senior, experienced person to edit and supervise the keynotes. the use of Linx or any other coordinated program is not going to turn a person two years out of college into an experienced, capable spec writer. I generally figure that firms can do one or two projects, realize that the software will not do their thinking for them, and eventually they come back to a specialist again.
of course, it has to be a firm that does actually look at the spec during construction.. |
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: john_regener
Post Number: 485
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2010 - 11:55 am: | |
As I understand it, tests that use multiple choices (multiple guesses?) for answers are written so that some of the possible answers are obviously incorrect while two of the possibilities could be correct. The test is for the knowledge to choose the most correct answer.
I think the tutorials and other information provided in the computer-assisted specifications programs are very helpful (if the spec editor has time to go through the process). And I freely admit that I don't know everything about everything (maybe a little bit more than just enough to get by).
Potentially, computer-assisted specifications programs can enhance the performance of a competent specifications writer. I've followed computer-assisted specifications programs since the late 1980's and even subscribed to a couple. My dissatisfaction has been with the amount of time necessary to customize the specifications with user-added text and additional Sections for uncommon products.
I'm not speaking against the computer-assisted specifications programs. I'm just trying to bring awareness and understanding of what it takes to use the programs satisfactorily, especially the skill level of persons interfacing with the programs and the time that should be invested to make the resulting specifications fully clear, correct, complete and concise.
I think opportunities are present for trained construction specifiers to assist in the development and use of computer-assisted specifications programs. |
J. Peter Jordan (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2010 - 12:33 pm: | |
Some of the confusion is so basic. I have clients who really don't know the difference between dampproofing, waterproofing, and vapor retarders. Or between ceiling panels and ceiling tiles in a suspended acoustical ceiling. I have to watch for people who want a single-ply mod-bit roof when what they want is a multi-ply (usually 2-ply, sometimes 3-ply) system or maybe what they want is a TPO or PVC roof.
And these are the guys who fill out the checklist. |
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: john_regener
Post Number: 486
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2010 - 01:16 pm: | |
What do "professional grade" specifiers do to rectify this situation?
It seems to me that promoting the value of well-prepared construction specifications can be beneficial to everyone: design professionals, specifiers, building product manufacturers, publishers of computer-assisted specifications programs and maybe even construction managers.
I just don't know how, from my position as a mere construction specifications writer for hire, I can change the way the windmills are tilting. |
Mark Gilligan SE,
Senior Member
Username: mark_gilligan
Post Number: 332
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2010 - 01:27 pm: | |
Before individuals will value good specifications they either need to see the problems caused by poor specifications or they need to become aware of the potential problems in their existing specifications. |
David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI
Senior Member
Username: david_axt
Post Number: 1155
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2010 - 02:26 pm: | |
I believe that many architectural firms will be short sighted and only view the specifier as first initial cost. The firms will look at automated specification programs, tied into the drawings, and mistakenly believe the firm can save money by eliminating the specifier.
What many architectural firms don't see is the long term value of the specifier as a resource person, technical problem solver, etc. not just an overpaid word processor. |
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: john_regener
Post Number: 487
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2010 - 02:33 pm: | |
I keenly understand the problem, from the specifications writer's point-of-view.
What actions would move toward resolving the problem? |
David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI
Senior Member
Username: david_axt
Post Number: 1156
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2010 - 03:02 pm: | |
John,
I really don't know. It may be too late.
I see that CSI has joined the spec-o-matic bandwagon which does not give me confidence that CSI perceives specifications writers as a growing profession...or the future.
There will always be a few shrewd firms out there that see the value in our profession. Most won't.
I guess that if we can't beat 'em, we should join 'em. Automated specification processing program companies will need good technical people to help write the program so that the intern architect can go through a menu of choices (with automated guidance) and write a decent workable spec. |
Robert W. Johnson
Senior Member
Username: robert_w_johnson
Post Number: 106
Registered: 03-2009
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2010 - 03:58 pm: | |
I don’t think there is much you can do to “resolve the problem.” For the firms that have this mistaken concept of what these programs can do for them, it isn’t a problem until they try to use them without a trained technically knowledgeable person. In an earlier posting, John described the unsuccessful results for two firms. Those results would parallel a similar situation in my personal experience.
My past history includes being with a firm that had a long tradition of maintaining a master specification for the firm’s staff that included extensive notes to allow project teams to properly edit the master. That master was intended to be used by the project teams to edit their own project specs off the master. The technical education program also included education on how to do this. One of the major benefits envisioned was building the project team’s intimate knowledge of the project into the specifications. The firm also had a fully developed keynoting system coordinated with the master specification to facilitate drawing/specification coordination. This is the sort of program that sounds good when you talk about it, but it is a different story to actually carry it off.
That program was not very successful for the same reasons that John described. In this case they had some learning to do to use the macros included with the master (learn the program) to save some manual editing. They also did not have time towards the end of a project to devote the time to go thru the all the research and detail decision making of editing the specification. I remember one project manager (PM) confessing that he just included all the base choices and deleted all the alternate choices – that makes you feel real good! This was not true for all the PMs, there were a few older more-experienced PMs who did their own project specs successfully – they had a pretty good technical knowledge, learned how to do it, and included enough time in their project schedules to accomplish the task. There were also a few that really used the keynoting system. Since the firm did not have a mandate from the leadership for project teams to write their own specs, the vast majority were not up to it and probably not interested in doing it either so they used specification consultants to edit the firm’s master for their projects.
That situation is actually quite similar to the current availability of the current computer-assisted specifications. It sounds good to some firms that they will be able to prepare projects specs without a specification expert. I am confident that the majority of those firms will have a different view after they have actually tried to do it on a project or two. Some firms may pull it off it they take enough time for training, only use people with a deep technical knowledge, and allow enough time in the project schedule – that would include extra time on the early projects as people become accustomed to a new task. You have to make an investment to take on a new task successfully. They will also learn as Dale commented above that the “automatically produced” rough draft still leaves a lot of research and detailed decision making work still to be accomplished by someone with a deep technical knowledge.
There are some lessons that are very hard to teach ahead of time. Some lessons are usually learned by the school of hard knocks. I think that this is one of those cases; if a firm has bought into the hype about computer-assisted specifications and have not thought it through thoroughly, they are probably going to have some frustrating project learning experiences. I doubt if anyone would be able to convince them of this ahead of time – they will actually have to experience it. This could result in considerable work for spec consultants to rescue the specifications on these projects.
One thing to remember is that computer-aided specification systems are not the enemy. They are a tool they can improve efficiency of producing specifications and improve the coordination between drawings and specs, sort of an automated keynoting system. What may take some time is for some firms to realize that you still need experienced knowledgeable people to operate them.
I certainly do not share David pessimism that only a few firms realize the value of technical and specification expertise. My experience, and the experience of many others who participate in this forum would not support that opinion. Many of us have had long successful careers providing that knowledge and service to the many firms who value our expertise that leads to successful projects with fewer problems. I remember a firm leader saying to me “We never have any problems on the projects you work on!” There are a lot of firms out there who know that they need a good technical expertise resource to be successful, whether it is in-house or out-house. |
Paul Gerber
Senior Member
Username: paulgerber
Post Number: 38
Registered: 04-2010
| | Posted on Thursday, November 11, 2010 - 03:49 pm: | |
I agree with many of the comments made. I will also admit that I don't know much about these "BIM Specs" programs (I edit my specs using MS-Word).
Maybe my next comments will come across as jaded, but the firm I am working for has recently gotten into the BIM world. I got my first set of drawings (partial set) for a larger project a few weeks back from a Project Architect. I wasn't sure at first the reasons for the results I was seeing...whether it was limited Canadian experience, limited experience with the software, not enough time to produce the drawings...or a combination of all of the above. My first thought was I would have been embarrassed to hand in drawings of that quality in third semester at college 23 years ago (I had to correct that...I graduated 20 years ago, so I had to add more time on)!
What I am amazed at is the fact that it seems that a lot of the same issues I experienced over the years when the mouse in my hand was drawing lines and not highlighting sentences and paragraphs were still painfully obvious in the drawings I was looking at now...anywhere between 10 and almost 20 years after the "breakthrough" of 3-D CADD! (yes I know, the D for Design has been dropped from the acronym...or has it with BIM?)
But there is a common thread. Conversion. And I will qualify an earlier statement about my firms first foray into BIM...in the CAD stone ages (AutoCAD Release 9 or earlier) they actually used ArchiCAD or Architrion on Mac for design and then DXF'd the drawings into AutoCAD for Mac for the working drawings. I know 2 firms that did this, but the other further complicated it by using AutoCAD on PC...which 20 years ago was nowhere close to being as easy today as it was then (the only networks back then were "Sneakernet" where you copied files onto a floppy disk and ran it over to another computer across the office...but I digress).
Where the whole BIM concept falls off the rails is when not all of the Project Team are using the same software. With these recent projects, the BIM software spits out AutoCAD files for the Structural & MEP (hey I'm getting some of the US acronyms)consultants. I am getting PDF files of progress drawings that are 12MB because of the way the translating happens. The one project it took me the better part of a morning to print the M&E drawings! Something that should have taken me 20 mins worth of actual paying attention computer time.
As I have said in the past, and I will say again and again...we should really learn how to draw well in 2-D before we think about drawing in 3-D!! Of course I say the same thing about 2-D CAD drafting...it's not hard to understand why computer generated drawings of today don't look anything as good as they did of old when a CAD drafting monkey has never held (or had to clean) a technical pen!!
Understanding the spec writing process, and the intrinsic complexity of it; combined with my past experience with CAD(D) I can't help but ask myself one question...if computer-assisted drawing has taken this long in it's infancy, how long will "intelligent, automated" (BIM-driven) computer-aided specification writing take to successfully come into it's own?
Call me a pessimist if you will, but I think I will be retired before that day comes!! (and I am not as long in the tooth as some members here)
(and yes I agree with Anne...I liked John's "faster mess" comment too...maybe because I have seen it first hand...over and over and over again)
Ride it like you stole it!!! |
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: john_regener
Post Number: 488
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, November 11, 2010 - 06:35 pm: | |
Who are the decision-makers in this BIM / spec issue and how do they become informed about what a competent specifier (full-time or collateral duty) can provide to make the situation more successful? |
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 1047
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2010 - 11:25 am: | |
I really believe this is a self weeding process. Here's my example, from 25 years ago. I worked at a large firm in Seattle and at the time there was a project manager who really felt that the specs should be written by someone on the team, so on one medium sized project, he had his technical architect write the specs. The result? it took twice as long in hours, and they had more problems during construction -- because while the technical architect knew the project very well, he didn't know how to write specs. (and this is when they realized that you need both knowledge banks).
I think if you offer a service, and back it up, and stay current, you'll always have work to do. I don't think the issues with BIM (or E-specs, SpecLink, Linx2, or whatever you have) are any different than the issues before. Back when a lot of offices had their own masters, specifications writers were nervous about the growth of "automated specs" -- and they were talking about Masterspec and SpecText.
Let's face it...most architects don't really like to do specs, and if they have the fee, they are usually willing to hand over that portion of the work.
John- the bigger issue for you might be if your computer is fast enough to open and read a Revit model. |
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: john_regener
Post Number: 489
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2010 - 03:18 pm: | |
Anne:
The choir knows the words and the tune (i.e., how to write specs and how important it is that they be well-crafted).
What I'm trying to encourage is a process directed at project leaders to raise their awareness and understanding of what are construction specifications and how specifications are derived, produced and implemented. You know, all that stuff that is in CSI's CDT, CCS and CCCA programs.
I naively hope that by making decision-makers better informed of the issues, they will be prepared to listen, understand and invite what we have been discussing here. From that, I hope we will have the chance to evolve as necessary into valued roles in the Brave New World of BIM and "buildingSMART." |
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: john_regener
Post Number: 490
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2010 - 03:28 pm: | |
... and I'll even upgrade from my IBM AT clone and DOS 3.2 / WordPerfect 5.1 <:-)> |
J. Peter Jordan (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2010 - 04:08 pm: | |
What I have begun to suspect is that those who don't understand the value of a good set of specifications don't really understand how to use them. These people tend to put a lot of stuff on the Drawings (specific product requirements along with a long list of general notes) and try to ignore any specifications that may be required (by the Owner, the bank, the AHJ, or even the Contractor). Alternatively, there are those designers who will want to maintain "design flexibility" until Substantial Completion. These "professionals" want to pick a carpet with a custom design and then have the Contractor rip it out once they can see it installed because...
BIM is attractive to the first type because it seems to reinforce the notion that one really doesn't need anything but the Drawings/BIM file. BIM is anathema to the second because it tends to force decisions, and force the project team to make them earlier in the design process. |
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 1049
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2010 - 05:50 pm: | |
I've found that a couple of spectacular failures usually even pulls the designers in line -- if the failure is public enough, expensive enough and embarassing enough.
Look... even the people who run the "coordinated revit type spec programs" will admit (if you skewer them enough) that their software produces AT BEST a 65% set of documents. if you skewer them more, they admit to 50%. The software compiles the sections, makes preliminary edits and that's about it. If used properly it will continue to receive feedback based on drawing changes.
Well, any almost anyone can compile a 50% spec just buy looking at schedules and, elevations and floor plans. That's a start, but no one is claiming that's a final bidding document. its not even sufficient for a preliminary bidding document.
Vis a vis our clients, I don't think we need to do anything more. if they have enough problems with their software,they will seek out consultants. If they are out of time, they will seek out consultants; if they have too much trouble on the jobsite, they will find a way to mitigate that.
What I do see from our standpoint, if we are to be included in this brave new world, we need to be ready and willing to review drawings downloaded from FTP sites or project management sites such as NewForma; we need to be ready and willing to review comments and post sections to these sites; we need to have the computer capability to use these sites, and to be willing to not only receive information digitally but collaboratively edit digitally. I seldom get drawing "sets" anymore -- I get a link to a web site so that I can open up drawings and view them there. This is going to make for a much cleaner office... |
Ronald J. Ray, RA, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: rjray
Post Number: 84
Registered: 04-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, November 13, 2010 - 11:53 am: | |
Off topic, but, Mr Regener, I sadly, gave up my WP DOS program about 2 years ago when I was unable to find a Windows system that would allow, or I could figure out, full screen use of DOS programs. I did however, stay with WP (X4) and while not as flexible or complete as WP 3.1, it is far better than MS Word. Even at my age, I have managed to adjust. |
Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap
Senior Member
Username: lgoodrob
Post Number: 106
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 15, 2010 - 09:37 am: | |
This thread has been very helpful and interesting. Much better than complaining about Institute. Thank you all.
Well, here's what I am planning. I have decided to learn Revit. I want to learn how it works so I can think, like an Architect and a Specifier, about what type of Information would be most helpful in the model. Revit is the BIM program most used by firms in the Boston area, where we are located.
Recently I was chatting with a BIM manager at a large local firm. He tells me the only "I" they put into BIM is door information, because creating the door schedule in the model saves so much time, they couldn't afford not to do it.
There must be other BIM efficiencies that I just don't know about yet. I think if I learn Revit, then I will discover what is easy and what can be manipulated for better coordination between drawings and specifications and even LEED documentation. Isn't that what my job is all about?
We plan to continue preparing specifications in MS Word, because the electronic programs just don't make our jobs better yet. As independent specifications consultants, we run several different masters for a wide variety of clients. I can still get to 85% in 3-4 hours with MS Word. That's the easy part of writing specifications.
The hardest part of my job is getting information from the Architects who see me as a foreigner. If I learn more of their new language and insert myself further into the process, maybe I can have more of an impact on quality. My main goal is to make someone's design vision into Architecture, if they let me.
I'd like to hear from some of our in-house specifiers on this list to see how you work with your BIM people.
And if you have some good leads on learning Revit, whether I should take a class or subscribe to an online tutorial service, please let me know.
That's what I am thinking about today.
- |
Paul Gerber
Senior Member
Username: paulgerber
Post Number: 39
Registered: 04-2010
| | Posted on Monday, November 15, 2010 - 09:46 am: | |
John:
"... and I'll even upgrade from my IBM AT clone and DOS 3.2 / WordPerfect 5.1 <:-)>"...is that the model with the 40MB or 80MB model? And did you really splurge and go with 1MB of RAM or stick with the standard 512KB??
You should see the looks I get from some co-op students when I tell them about the specs of the first CAD stations I installed in my first job out of school back in 1990...386 processors with 80MB HDD, 1 MB RAM, 3.5" FDD and the HUGE 17" monitors we had...all for the low cost of $15,000.00...they look at me with this blank look and ask me who fast the CD drive was!! LOL
Ride it like you stole it!!! |
J. Peter Jordan (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 15, 2010 - 09:56 am: | |
OK; I installed my first CAD system in Honolulu; it was UNIX based and ran on a Sun with high resolution color displays. The initial seat was about $125K (we had 2 seats). We were not only able to run a quite capable drafting system, but we could do 3D surface modeling with shading and shadows.
I had to buy a new computer recently and asked the salesman to guess when I bought my first computer. He looked at me an guessed early 1990s. It was 1979, an Apple ][+ with 48K (yes K) of RAM with I later upgraded to 64K for around $65. I bought my first laptop in 1986 (a 286 CPU with a dual floppy drive). My current computer probably has more memory on the CPU cache than my first 4 computers put together.
Moore's Law rules! |
David E Lorenzini
Senior Member
Username: deloren
Post Number: 110
Registered: 04-2000
| | Posted on Monday, November 15, 2010 - 10:36 am: | |
Lisa
I'm looking forward to your success. The first step is to work with eSpecs for Revit on a stand alone basis. Then get into the linking to Revit. None of my clients have given me access to the drawing database yet, and I don't think it would do much good, since the properties were not fully developed at the time. I did attend some Revit User Group meetings in our area to get a better handle on the Revit-eSpec process. It was interesting, but not of much value to a specifier.
However, being able to assist a client in updating the properties in real time would be a big contribution to the design/specification process. I'm not sure how much knowledge of the drawing process you would need. If specifications emanating from BIM are to rise to the level produced by specifiers, than they should be the ones to input the data into the objects. (My terminology may not be Revit-accurate, but I think the intent is understandable.)
Prehaps the authorized Revit dealers should establish training programs for customizing the property tables, accesing the specifier's interface to the model, and extracting that data for specification preparation. The rest of the process is just the editing the text, although it would be nice if eSpecs were outfitted with better word processing tools (based on my experience with one eSpecs project).
Since the use of Revit among design firms is growing, and since it is generally in the hands and control of those design firms, and since they do not seem to be proactive in inviting specifiers to participate, perhaps the specifier communities should organize the training to bring everyone up to speed. Perhaps some enterprising Revit dealers would be interested in presenting training just for specifiers, and perhaps even including educational sessions or workshops at our CSI and AIA conventions and conferences. I'm sure they would be well attended.
Please keep us informed of your progress.
David Lorenzini, FCSI, CCS
Architectural Resources Co. |
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 1051
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Monday, November 15, 2010 - 04:18 pm: | |
for individual item by item things (such as in a door schedule, or very particular exterior panels) having all the information on the drawings is a pretty good idea. The contractor has all his piece counts in that location, and quantities (in two dimensions and three) for the items listed.
My thinking though is that by learning Revit, a specifier is sort of turning themselves into someone who produces a document rather than someone who reviews and provides oversight to the entire team. In offices, I can view a Revit model to see what is occuring but the detailed item information from Revit model needs to be addressed more globally in the specs. As a specifier, you're probably more experienced than the person producing the model and I'm not going to say you want to maintain "some distance" but think of it comparable to CAD, where you want oversight,not one more thing to natter about.
the Revit training the David suggests is also applicable to senior project managers -- these people want oversight and review capability of the revit model -- few project managers in a large office will actually be producing the model. We used to call the one-day overview "Revit for project managers " in one of the firms I worked for. No firm wants someone with a spec writer's hourly rate messing around with the model, just as I do not want people manipulating my specs -- I want them to review and comment, but not change settings or content. |
ken hercenberg
Senior Member
Username: khercenberg
Post Number: 71
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 - 10:42 am: | |
Paul, As I recall back in the mid-to-late 80's the fastest CD I knew of was a 6 month note with a minimum $1000 balance but you had to know to ask; most banks didn't post that type of information in their windows. It was probably more sensible to just keep your money in Money Market accounts at the time.
Musically speaking, cassettes had unfortunately already replaced 8-tracks but at least we still had turntables for our records, er, vinyls.
In terms of digital media I worked off floppy disks so as to not overwork the 20 MB hard drive that kept crashing; that was as big an option that Compaq offered back then. The 3.5" disc wasn't out yet and the hottest item on the market was the 286 processor. A year later came the 286 upgrade and then the 386 came late in the 1980's. The concept of 1 MB RAM was a dream not-yet-come-true but my dot-matrix printer could print out a Project Manual overnight, as long as I stayed up with it.
As to the discussion, I've been working with e-SPECS for quite some time now and while I like it I can say without pause that there is no difference between using this and using the spec master you're already using. The 'enhanced' communication is based on providing the specifier with a list of Revit Families, based on UniFormat Classifications. The editor still needs to go in and manually bind the individual spec sections to each Assembly. Because it's a database we are able to manually edit the checklist to perform our initial edit, just like BSD, but that requires knowledge of the spec content. Since you're editing the actual spec, you really need to know what is in each Section. Granted you can always undo the edit once you open each Section since it is a database, but there is no button to push that automatically syncs your drawings and specs. In fact there is a significant amount of communication required just to get the Revit users to understand how to properly use the UniFormat Classifications, otherwise the information the specifier sees is wrong. Anything that is mis-labeled in the model comes to me as if it is right as rain. I can't tell the difference until I see the drawings, which might not happen until much later. Another thing is that the document that is suggested for use as an 'Outline Spec' at this point is truly lacking; I prefer to just issue a draft copy of the long form spec with the caveat that it is a DD Phase document. It might look finished but it is not to be used for anything other than a chance to see what I've assumed will be needed down the road as the project progresses. More often than not I am told to delete substantial amounts of information just to add it all back in later. At least that's easily done in a database.
Bottom line, this system requires experienced specifiers more than the old way of doing things. Anyone who thinks that they're going to be able to crank out a spec in a day is in for a very bad day, and night, and week. As was noted earlier in this thread, GIGO, just like the model. |
Paul Gerber
Senior Member
Username: paulgerber
Post Number: 40
Registered: 04-2010
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 - 03:13 pm: | |
Ken:
A yes, I remember the 286 as well as the 5.25" floppy...but that first system was on the "cutting edge"!! I think there were still a few older AT's or XT's at college when we first started learning AutoCAD v. 2.5.
And I also remember playing 8-track tapes at home and in my older brother's car (although I was only a passenger). I wish he still had that car though...1970 (I think) AMC Javelin! I still have all of my old vinyl from the 70's & 80's in a box in the basement. 
But again I digress
Ride it like you stole it!!! |
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 1052
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2010 - 04:20 pm: | |
I took fortran in highschool and carried around boxes of punch cards that ran on a computer that had less computing power than my Blackberry... |
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: john_regener
Post Number: 493
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2010 - 05:19 pm: | |
Oh, how I long for the good ol' days. But, nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
We've gone through huge transitions in technologies that have become so essentially integrated into our everyday lives. My wife took over my car for calling on clients during the day. It has a GPS. Now she can't drive without GPS. We all adapt to new technologies.
How do we take our knowledge and experience as design professionals (specifically, specifications writers) and find our place in the Brave New World of computer-assisted specifications production? Must we each cough up $3,700 to subscribe to BSD's SpecLink-E, plus the investment in learning to use the program plus time to develop "user modified text" and custom Sections?
Is there a tangible and timely payback in terms of greater productivity from doing that? I've tried and I haven't found it. |
Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP
Senior Member
Username: redseca2
Post Number: 255
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2010 - 05:26 pm: | |
Things change. To freak out the younger people at my firm I keep on my desk the May, 1974 issue of Scientific American with the cover story "Computer Graphics in Architecture" and an image with resolution similar to an LED "Walk/Don't Walk sign. After they finish marveling at this historic document I show them my slide rule.
And yes, I was in Architecture school when I bought that issue at the student bookstore. |
J. Peter Jordan (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2010 - 05:37 pm: | |
I am less concerned with the idea of paying for a subscription (unless it is for a one-time deal and I can't charge it to the client). What I am concerned with is the possibility that an "efficient" system actually causes more work because it causes me to be less efficient. A computerized system which generates stuff that I need more time to "finalize" is not on the top of my Christmas wish list. |
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 1056
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Friday, November 19, 2010 - 10:29 am: | |
I'm with Peter on this one -- in order for a product that makes connections between the revit model and the specs to work, you have to either have access to the model so that your computer can "read" it, or you need to be working in tandem with the architect. While my large firm clients are using modeling programs, I doubt if any of them would allow me to install something that would interface with their documents -- they typically send out a non-live model for viewing. My smaller clients are using Autocad or other 2-D software, and I can view their documents just fine -- and they don't have interlinks in them. I think its going to be a while before being able to link to a client document is really in the works. |
J. Peter Jordan (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 19, 2010 - 11:10 am: | |
I have to "fess up" here. While Anne gave me credit for the "specs for dummies" observation, I first heard this observation from ARCOM personnel at one of the first MasterSpec review meetings I attended in about 2005. I was struck at how appropos that comment was about almost any "expert system." I have used SpecLink, and although many people will find it easier to use, it is also not "specs for dummies."
We can remove some of the "craft" expertise from architectural production (both graphic and text) with computer applications. The time I took to perfect my drafting skills in the '60s and '70s are much less relevant in an AutoCAD/Revit age (note that I say "less relevant" not "irrelevant"). Likewise, the skills of a highly skilled typist to "crank type" specs are of less use. I will have to admit that the legal typist I knew who could do 180 WPM might be useful, but almost any word processing software can make a marginal typist acceptable.
It's the "expertise" that grows with experience that tell you when to use the low-e coating on the 3rd surface or when it might be better to use a vapor-retarding air barrier or that you might want to use barrel hinges instead of "European" hinges on educational casework in a 3rd grade class room or that maybe you shouldn't copy those details from a pro football goal post to a middle school football field.
Even if you could externalize all the rules, it is "expertise" that tells you when the rules can be or should be broken. I used to think that there were only two rules that Architects needed to obey: (1) Gravity and (2) Good buildings don't leak. Then I visited the Pantheon in Rome. Nuff said. |
Dave Metzger
Senior Member
Username: davemetzger
Post Number: 382
Registered: 07-2001
| | Posted on Friday, November 19, 2010 - 02:20 pm: | |
Or almost any Frank Lloyd Wright building, for both 1) and 2) |
George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: geverding
Post Number: 567
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 19, 2010 - 03:24 pm: | |
The difference between Wright and the Romans is that the Pantheon oculus was a purposeful invention; I doubt FLW intended that his roofs leaked. (Intended, or cared)
George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA
Ingersoll Rand Security Technologies
St. Louis, MO |
|
4specs.com Home Page