Specifications Writer - Support Staff?

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

Author Message Annon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Saturday, December 21, 2013 - 10:57 am:    A very large architectural firm has a listing for Specifications Writer on their web site under "Support Staff Positions", along with "Billing Administrator, General Ledger Accountant, Administrative Assistant." Is this what the architectural community thinks of specification writers? If so, CSI is not promoting our vocation very well. Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 115 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Saturday, December 21, 2013 - 11:31 am:    Thanks for sharing this. Disheartening. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 701 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Saturday, December 21, 2013 - 12:43 pm:    An administrative assistant for specifiers would be great. I'll put that on my Christmas list. Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 641 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Saturday, December 21, 2013 - 05:28 pm:    I agree with all three of you. As a currently unemployed specifier, it's really difficult to understand why many firms don't see us as an asset, but rather as a liability, especially when we have what they consider to be too many overhead hours. It used to be that during lean times, the spec writer was one of the last to go. Now it seems as we are now the first to go. Go figure. To quote the late Rodney Dangerfield - "We don't get no respect"! My firm back East understood the value of a spec writer. Many firms today don't seem to, until they get sued. They also fail to realize that we can perform many other duties related to specifying. AIA hasn't done much better at promoting our (Architect)vocation either. While searching for new employment, you would be amazed at how may computer "architect" jobs show up, no matter how one filters the search. Specifiers may be a dying breed, mostly due to the fact that many of us are getting older (thereby more experienced) and there does not appear to anyone to replace us as many of the younger people do not understand the value of a spec writer and are not interested in that part of the profession. Forgive my rant, but I hate being out of work. In closing, I would like to wish everyone on the 4Specs Discussion Forum a Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays as the case may be. Melissa J. Aguiar, CSI, CCS, SCIP Senior Member Username: melissaaguiar Post Number: 178 Registered: 12-2003 Posted on Saturday, December 21, 2013 - 06:04 pm:    We are now simply "attributes" in a computer database. No matter how much you tell others about your value, sometimes the absence of you forces those to see your true value. I was forced to close up shop myself. Too many storms in my life, all at once, overwhelmed me. Lack of value from the A/E community plus family storms caused me to walk away in tears. I will miss you all very much. I will miss working as a specifier. I truly loved it. I know... when one door closes, another shall open. I cannot wait to see what is on the other side. May your days be bright. God Bless. Melissa Melissa J. Aguiar, CSI, CCS, SCIP ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 662 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Sunday, December 22, 2013 - 08:44 am:    Dear Richard and Melissa. I pray that this is the darkness before the dawn for all of us. As we age, many of us are finding increasing demands on our time due to health issues of our own and with close family and friends. Often the hidden gift of caring for others is the abundance of love we get to share, though it is often not evident until after the crisis has ended. Please,never give up hope. Fight the good fight. Know that those of us who know you, even if just electronically, truly care and wish you well. May our Creator smile upon us all, preferably soon, and may we all be blessed with a very happy, healthy, safe and joyous New Year. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 660 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Sunday, December 22, 2013 - 09:28 am:    My first response is that a firm that classifies it's specifier as "support staff" doesn't deserve a "real" specifier. But, wait, it's an accounting trick! One of the reasons that many firm can't justify having a specification specialist on their staff is that they can't find a way to make them as billable as they should be. As the specifier's salary increases, it becomes harder for the "production team" to justify the numbers to get the spec writer as involved as they should be . This is especially true for those projects that are in trouble and need this kind of help. By turning the specifier into an "overhead" or "indirect" cost item, production teams are more likely to take advantage of a resource they really need without it penalizing their project budget. The cost is buried in the overhead cost (which they are paying for already). The upside is better project "support" while the downside is a perception of marginalized value. In many firms (if not most of them), this marginalized perception is already the reality. This HR/accounting classification may actually help the firm to make better use of the specifier. No more bitchin' about how much time he/she spends on research, meeting with reps or other "non-productive" activities as long as the project manuals are ready on time. The downside is, of course, that overhead activities are always looked at first when firms seek to be more efficient. The fallacy is that any thing that doesn't contribute to the bottom is fair game. The reality is that every expense, direct or indirect, should be contributing to the bottom line. In many firm, making the specifier redundant makes as much sense as canceling the telecom service contract. If you find yourself looking at this type of situation, look at other professional "support" positions like CFO or CIO. On a more personal note: Richard, stuff's getting better. Your patience should be rewarded in the new year. Melissa, I am so sorry for your heartbreaking decision. I am so grateful tha I got to meet you at the Master Specifier's Retreat two years ago. I hope we have a chance to meet again. David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 54 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Monday, December 23, 2013 - 08:37 am:    Whenever I hear someone say "CSI isn't doing its job," I am torn between laughing and wretching. In every line of work there is a tier of folks who never think they get enough respect. Police, firefighters,surgeons, teachers, clergy, morticians - pick any one. Is it not enough to make a living doing what we do well? We must have accolades or we quit in despair? Really? Please. That's why it's called WORK. spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, December 23, 2013 - 10:56 am:    Maybe this is an example of a firm who devalues the specification writer (that is the way I interpreted it at first as well). However, I may be guilty of being overly optimistic but I think Mr. Jordan may have a point. Maybe this is a firm that realizes that the specification writer will never be a billable hours cash cow and they have acknowledged this fact. The actual situation will vary from firm to firm but hopefully this particular ad was a sign of a firm who understands the value of the spec writer. The cynic in me says no but still you hope for the best. James Sandoz Senior Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 131 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Monday, December 23, 2013 - 11:30 am:    Each one of you has said something pertinent to my situation this past year. Starting on Thursday, the day after Christmas, I expect to be ending 13 months of unemployment. I do wonder about the value firms place on specification writers as my situation began in the midst of a severe economic crunch for my former firm and only two months after my promotion to vice president with a substantial increase in my compensation package! In the interim much has happened that has opened my five-plus decade old eyes. I've had several interviews a few of which were just plain strange. Sometimes the expectation of what a "spec writer" was meant to do just didn't jibe with what I have experienced over the years. One thing that did seem consistent was the notion of what acceptable compensation for the position is in this region. Granted I was very well compensated at my former firm but, not quite yet being desperate, I refused to take a 33% cut in pay in more than one instance. Pardon my arrogance but if one wants quality, one should be willing to pay for it. For what it is worth, my new job will draw on my technical experience and expertise both as an architect and specification writer. In the years B.S.W. (before specification writing) I was heavily involved in general document preparation and construction contract administration. I will be performing functions such as quality control, design consulting, and performance testing as well as failure analysis for a variety of clients. There is a bit of trepidation on my part but I am also excited about "expanding my horizons" and going in new directions even though I may be in the "late afternoon" of my career. Melissa, I have much empathy for you even without knowing the particulars of your situation. One of the positives about my work situation over the last year was that I have been available to address family issues. Some were very good like helping my mother-in-law relocate to a senior living complex with which she seems to be very pleased. Some were bitter-sweet like helping my daughter plan her wedding but then driving her and her stuff from Texas to Virginia (on father's day weekend yet) so she could be with her groom who is in the Navy and stationed in Norfolk. Some were trying indeed like my 77-year-old father's open heart surgery. (By the way he did come through with flying colors and is back swimming 200 meters three times a week. There's a great argument for staying in shape.) My point is to echo what Ken wrote: I know, and have seen proof, that there are many folks out there who care for me if for no other reason than that they are good human beings. I hope I fit into that category as well. I can't really say yet what effect CSI as an organization has had on my situation over the last year but I can say unequivocally that individual CSI members have been most helpful. Last March I met Mr. Hercenberg in person in Savannah after being an "electronic acquaintance" for some time. He immediately supplied me with helpful information in my job search. I met Mr. Wyatt at a CSI convention in Las Vegas some years ago and I know Mr. Jordan primarily through the local CSI chapter. All in all, I would say CSI has been a positive during my recent hiatus as it was before and will, I expect, continue to be. May the peace, joy, and PROMISE of this season be with all of us now and throughout the coming year. James Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 116 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Monday, December 23, 2013 - 11:30 am:    Those who seek personal accolades don't stick with this type of work for years, the way we all have. It's just that it's difficult to know that, alone, each of us changes the perception of the industry one architect at a time (over the course of months, or years). James Sandoz Senior Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 132 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Monday, December 23, 2013 - 11:38 am:    Liz, you are absolutely correct but in my experience I have been fortunate to perceive the respect and good will of those who are important to me. That includes good clients, work colleagues, and members of this particular segment of our profession. Moreover, I am blessed to work with, or commiserate with, folks for whom I have a great deal of respect. Many are contributors to this forum. :-) Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 117 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Monday, December 23, 2013 - 11:49 am:    I agree, James. My comment was really a late reply to David - it just happened to post right after yours. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 663 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, December 23, 2013 - 01:14 pm:    James, congratulations on the change in status. Best wishes for a very long and happy relationship. I find this thread interesting. While I'm not crazy about being seen in the same light as a non-technical team member, I have worked in several firms that saw Specs as being support for the Design staff, nothing more. In fact, what seems to sell architectural design services is Design. Owners seem to think that technical expertise is a given and that every responsible architectural firm will provide a reasonable level of technical expertise. Specs are just one part of the technical support. We are the Designers handmaidens in the eyes of most Architects I've known. Many recognize our value and give us our due. Unfortunately too many don't. I have no desire to venture a guess as to percentages; it varies with company, location, and even project team. I try to maintain a positive attitude with both types of Designer. Obviously I prefer to work with those who are more receptive and the quality of my work probably reflects that. I'd like to say that's not true, but I know it is. If I don't feel appreciated by a Designer, I will provide what I have to, nothing more. It's a bad attitude on my part. I have been trying to change that for years and hope and believe that I have improved over time. Still, the reality still exists. As I tell my daughter, being insulted by someone I don't respect is meaningless. Their opinion doesn't matter to me. For me to become upset is to give them power over me that they don't deserve. I will not give them that power and will not give up my own self-respect. I beat myself up enough. If I want someone else to beat me up, I'll talk with my wife. Alan Smithee (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, December 23, 2013 - 12:41 pm:    There's a huge difference between "seeking accolades" and getting an *appropriate* level of respect and compensation for what we do. Circa 2005, I did a little research (starting with the AIA Compensation Report and then interviewing other specification writers) and found that my employer was paying me nearly 15% below the national *median* salary for someone with my education, certifications and level of experience. At the time, I was the only full-time specifier in a firm with 250+ employees spread across offices in four major US cities. I’d been a full-time specifier at that firm for over a decade, with an unbroken series of exemplary performance reviews and a reputation for thoroughness that a project architect could hang his/her hat upon. I thoroughly documented my research in a report, appended it to a *very* polite letter and sent it to my department head with copies to the President, VP-Operations and the partners. Somewhat to my surprise, I was given an immediate raise, with raises amounting to 15% total following in stages over the next 18 months. That 15% made the difference between my household treading water, and my wife returning to school so that she could later obtain more lucrative (and more satisfying) employment. What does it say (good and bad) about the value the firm placed on my services? Was I wrong to “complain”? I mean, I *was* “making a living” at my 15%-below-median salary. Should I have been content with that? But wait – there’s more! In yet another exemplary performance review, I observed that I was the only employee of more than 10 years tenure that had not been made an “Associate”. I asked, since my loyalty to the firm had been amply demonstrated and my job performance was so highly regarded, what I had to do to earn that particular accolade (and the additional benefits that went with it). I was told that the title “Associate” indicated that someone was thought by management to be on, and I quote, “the leadership track” and that the technical staff (specifications, quality control, IT, etc.) were not considered “leadership” positions. (Of course, they turned around and made the QC guy an Associate the following year.) Really? I was one of the few people who bothered to actually mentor the interns. I (and my work) were a significant chunk of the “corporate memory” when it came to building science and product selection. I was the go-to guy for any building material question more complicated than “which way will the water flow when the rain hits this detail?”, but I wasn’t “leadership” material. Even when I pointed out that it was in *management's* interest to recognize my seniority and contributions (because the perceived lack of respect from management percolated down to the worker bees and new hires, and made me less effective in my job), it fell on deaf ears. Most of my rank-and-file project architect/project manager colleagues understood the value I brought to the team, but it was a rare one that would stick up for me – and there were always the few that tried to climb up on my shoulders when their jobs went south in a big way. I'm sure others here have had similar experiences, and there are a lot of explanations - "technical/text" people in a "creative/visual" field, personality type, etc. - but the only way we (and what we do) will get appropriate respect and compensation is if we advocate (effectively) for ourselves and our colleagues, and there are more specifiers in decision-making positions within firms. James Sandoz Senior Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 133 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Monday, December 23, 2013 - 02:36 pm:    I would be very remiss if I did not state my former firm highly respected the value of my work as a specification writer. Witness the position promotions and good compensation. (my lay-off and those of several other colleagues was obviously and strictly out of economic necessity at the time but I am pleased to say the firm appears to be on the rebound). As Alan writes though there are other firms not so inclined and that is unfortunate especially, IMO, as it reflects on the attitude of those firms vis-à-vis the quality of their work. I am also pleased to see that his advocacy for the importance of his position was given its due at least partially. I thoroughly agree that the staff's perception of the importance of the specification writer's position, and the respect due it, is enhanced by a title commensurate with that importance. I was fortunate in that the level of importance and respect for the specification writer position at my former firm was set by my predecessor who is most worthy of respect in his own right. Besides his deep technical knowledge not only of specifications, but building construction methods and contract administration, he is the consummate mentor - a role which I duly noted and strive to maintain in my own work. Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 147 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, December 23, 2013 - 02:49 pm:    I also find this a very interesting thread. The thing that I find so interesting is that this is the same issue that Architects are dealing with today. Lack of respect from clients as well as the lower fees demanded with that. The facts are is that architects today are looking at reduced fees. Many clients today feel that all we provide is an hourly service and they hold little value with the Architect's services. This is tough to overcome, but as we move forward we need to look into that very issue. One thought is to look at our services more as a product instead of a service. The product industry actually is more value driven today than the service industry. Service costs continue to go lower and lower while the cost of goods rise with inflation. This simple mind shift could change our profession forever. AIA and CSI have the same faults, too. They hold onto the old theories of what the profession is while the profession continues to falter. What I find so interesting is that no Architect that I know is really attacking what is needed in our industry and that is a focus on quality. It is one word that is totally ignored. Architects need to focus on this or as Thom Mayne has said, "Change or Die". We have ignored this like Ford did for years until they realized the desire of the customer. Remember the Ford campaign, "Quality is job one"? Look at Ford today. Specifiers and Architects should take a lesson from that. It is time to change our industry. The focus on what we provide needs to change. While I agree that specs are an accentual part of what is required, I also say that they have become user unfriendly. I was on a job site this month and the assistant super on the job said to the CA on the project when the CA said that he needed to look in the specification; "What specification? You mean there is a separate manual for this project?". Truth is that they have been on the project for a year. They don't bother looking at what was specified. Architects are not looking at the specs since they don't have QA/QC budgeted much less that they have already burned up the budget doing "design". They don't have time to review a 3 volume set of legal documents while trying to produce more drawings that say less because they have a model that they feel is paramount to the drawings. Architects too, need to change how they produce drawings. They need to "break the rules" and assemble sensible documents that look at what the user is going to be looking at. Reduce the repetition of needless drawings and represent what actually is in the model. So what has CSI or AIA done to help with these sort of issues? Nothing. There is only leadership is "selling the BIM story, IPD story or the marketing the design story. I hold little hope in their capabilities of change until they actually focus their direction onto that one word, "quality". I don't look at them as a way to change the issues anyway. This actually is a grassroots sort of thing. Will it be messy? Yes. Change always is, but in the end things can get better by accepting the thought of change and working to make progress instead of continuing to fight about what is the way it was done. That is why I cringe when I here about people talk about how they continue to use Wordperfect. Our company adopted Speclink this past year and while everyone knew that it was going to be a long haul to get what we want into our company master, it is already paying off with our smaller projects with less time needed and new ways to deliver the specifications. We have even gone to sheet specs on the small projects since they typically are more sole sourced. Data basing has so much more advantages over the Word processing methods. I am not aiming my thoughts here to all those who read this, but instead I am looking at this objectively. I am proud to say that I know Ken and have worked with him in the past. His knowledge of the profession astounds me all the time. Yes, he can be an old stubborn sort at times, but with good reason every time. I admire such a person. James, I am glad that you have gotten the good luck to expand your horizons and take on additional things. I personally believe that specifiers can show their real value and importance by expanding their roles more into the design by tackling research and development. Energy modeling, LEED services, QA/QC, etc. will be further needed by the designer as well as the client in the future. If we want the respect and the value, then we must change ourselves. Things have changed with the times. Not just the recession, but also the age. We grew up in the great times of the industrial age. We are now entering the technology age full force. Look at what has happened with the profession in the past 20 years. I see us still doing the same thing as we were 50 years ago in the heart of the industrial age. Technology now has it to where you can work on an iPad or even on an iPhone. Architect tools are changing at a breakneck pace. I have yet to see that done with specs. What specifiers tools are on the iPad? None that I know of, but I do acknowledge that CSI created a reference app. That is not what I mean. Do I see any company going there yet? Not that I know of yet. What about code apps? We all have acknowledged that codes have turned into huge mazes with tons of pitfalls. Has anything changed with the tools from ICC. No, they are a book based company that isn't providing tools for the profession. They need to look at the newspaper industry to see their future. I think I have expressed my views pretty much here. Yes, the profession is changing. Currently it is being devalued. Can we change that, I think so. Who can do it, ourselves, with totally different approaches. I want to also wish everyone a wonderful holiday. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 661 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Monday, December 23, 2013 - 02:54 pm:    There are numerous firms around who recognize the contributions and leadership that spec writers bring to their firms (take a look at the job title of many in CSI). Those firms who only see principal material in design and marketting types will sooner or later realize that they have a difficult time assembling a complete team for a complex project. As I was in the throes of making a final decision about moving from practice to full-time teaching, I had a discussion with my firm (where I was a Senior Associate). I was told that I was "too valuable to be promoted." At that point, I knew that it was time to move on. The bottom line is that one has to create value for the firm that is perceived by the firm and their clients as contributing to the value of building design. In some firms, that perception will only be through certain activities while others understand design in a broader context. In those firms, the direct/indirect category is less important than getting the value from the specifier to the project. One needs respect, not just to validate one's worth, but also to have a conduit for that value to flow from your expertise to the project. Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 118 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Monday, December 23, 2013 - 03:02 pm:    Alan has some REALLY important points. Especially about the user friendliness of specs. The contractor is the end user, after all. Maybe we should switch Parts 1 and 2, so people don't get put off before they get to products. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 664 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, December 23, 2013 - 03:56 pm:    Liz, forego linear thinking (general, off-site, site)? Unheard of! Next you're going to suggest that people consider finding a balance between long-form and short-form specs and maybe actually edit out the mind-numbing crap that some master specifications include in every Section (sort of like certain LEED consultants that insist on having LEED language in every Section whether it applies or not). I remember so many attempts in the past to eliminate submittal requirements for product data if the Contractor wanted to simply certify that they were using one of the specified products. Why on earth would I want to see product data as an action submittal for something I specified? What about paperwork reduction, reducing the amount of CA effort needed, and reducing Division 01 costs? Uphill battle with everyone concerned. Not how it's done. If it's not broke, don't fix it. But it is 'broke'. Pogo still said it best, "We have met the enemy and he is us." Alan, thank for the kind words. Still hoping we'll figure out some way to work together again soon. Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 119 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Monday, December 23, 2013 - 04:00 pm:    ; ) Specifiers are all technically-minded, but not all of us think in a linear fashion. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 244 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Monday, December 23, 2013 - 07:12 pm:    In my opinion respect is usually gained by individuals rather than by professions. A profession may have a general respect, but is not very deep. Doctors may have a general respect, but not all doctors are respected. Lawyers as a group may not be very well respected, but some lawyers are highly respected. The same is true for any other group including architects, engineers, and specifiers. I may have been fortunate, but I have always felt the respect of the staff and the leadership of the various firms I have worked for. The following are some of what I have learned in those experiences. You gain respect based on your own history, how you treat other people, and how your actions benefit your organization and those around you. You want to be known for making positive contributions to the projects you work on in contrast to seeking personal accolades. A basic is to be competent in your normal responsibilities – do your job well. Don’t avoid your responsibilities, avoid errors as much as possible, learn from your mistakes, and meet your deadlines. Be ahead of the curve on what is going on in the industry. High on the list is being a good team player – in design/construction that means your own team (design team) and the larger project team for the success and growth of your firm and the success of the projects you work on. Treat others the way you would want to be treated. This may not be so difficult when you have other good cooperative team players; it becomes more difficult when not all the team players are so great. It will probably take some time to learn how to deal with all sorts of people. To gain a high level of respect is to go beyond the normal call of duty. Take on responsibilities beyond the minimum stated ones for your position. My advice is to assess the current state of your firm – what are its strengths and what are its weaknesses or problems. What are the weaknesses or problems that you have the capability to attack? Is there a need for mentoring? Is there a need for in-house education? Could the drawing production system be improved? Could the coordination of drawings and specifications be improved? Etc., Etc. How you approach taking some additional responsibilities varies with the firm – easier in some versus others. In some firms you have to sell it to the right people and in others self-initiative is encouraged. You may also want to team with some other staff members in such an effort. You want to be known for the improvements in your firm’s performance that you made contributions to. In my experience you will gain the respect of those in your firm, including its leadership, if you are able to accomplish the above. If that doesn’t happen you should first evaluate your performance to see if there are some significant defects or voids. If you feel you have done your best without gaining respect, it may be time to look for other opportunities. spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, December 24, 2013 - 11:46 am:    I think Alan made some very good points but I would alter one statement: "look at our services more as a product instead of a service". I understand what he is saying but I think we need to move in the other direction. Acknowledge that our job is service and that doing a better job (providing better service) is what the profession needs. As Alan stated lack of focus on "quality" service is the problem. He is correct in stating that our profession is to busy selling the BIM story or the Green story and not enough time providing quality service. Maybe if we were not "burning up the budget on design" we would provide the proper CA services to make sure the contractor (and the CA for the design firm) aren't a year into the project before they look at a spec. I may be guilty of saying the same thing as Alan but with different nomenclature but I believe that we really need to avoid the temptation to describe architecture as anything other than a service. It is what it is. Now we need to make a commitment to doing it better. The Ford example is an excellent one: BIM is not job one, Green is not job one, LEED is not job one. They are all important aspects of our services but to often "the tail is wagging the dog". Quality service will incorporate the BIM. LEED, etc. but the bottom line still is "Quality is job one". I hope this doesn't sound like I am disagreeing with Alan because I believe he made some excellent points but I want to emphasize that I believe we need to embrace the fact that we are a service industry. The only way to elevate a service industry is to provide better service. Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 148 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, December 26, 2013 - 02:20 pm:    @spiper: I definitely am thinking differently. Why I think we should go the product route is the very reason you want to go the service route. I personally feel that we are a hybrid since I actually do provide service and product. The question asked by many is what is the product. For a specifier, it is the project manual. For the architect, it is the stamped architectural construction drawings. The service side is the construction administration. Let me use a metaphor of the car industry. Ford designs the cars. They then out source to factories to build the engine, other various parts and of course then the assemble them in their factory. The dealers provide the service. Architects produce the drawings and specs. The contractor builds from those drawings. The architect provides the service during CA to make sure that the contractor is constructing what the client has approved. Let me also use another example of a service. Janitorial service. That is an excellent example of a service. They clean the space. They provide no tangible product other than a clean space. Using those examples, I contend that looking at what we do is more and more along the lines of making a product than a service. The service side is more like the car dealer. This then allows us to respond better to the client and his needs with the product. It also is more along the lines of what the architect markets anyway. Most architects market by showing images of their past buildings. In other words, they are marketing a product. In the end, people are talking a lot about respect in this thread and I think we are getting the same amount of respect as the cleaning service since we keep saying that we are a service. We do not own up to the quality requirements of a product. The most disrespected part of all things today is the service and support. We (society) have equated service to something outsourced and cheap. Look at the support that software companies provide. Shoot, just take a look at UPS and FedEx this holiday season. Was the quality of their service good? Not for me. I had two packages not make it overnight and I paid extra with both for overnight. One took 5 days and the other took 3 days. What I am saying is that we are being associated to unskilled labor jobs just like a lot of service jobs. Ask any waitress or waiter. Ask any garbage man. We tend to not hold those jobs or the people in those jobs with high regard or respect. So that is why I think that by making a shift to product would help benefit the quality of our profession. We would worry about the quality of the product and concentrate resources where it improves the product. This actually doesn't change what we produce, but instead refocuses efforts in areas that have been lacking... ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 665 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, December 26, 2013 - 02:44 pm:    Alan, I have to disagree. Design is our service. Documentation and models are physical manifestations used to communicate our design intent to allow the GC/CM to produce the building (product). The CEO of HOK raised the same point you're raising in a series of public speeches. Ultimately, his argument was found lacking. We don't design cars. We don't build anything except for models and, again, those are merely representations used to communicate our design intent (which is a service). I agree that everyone thinks they can be a Designer until they try and then screw things up. One of my favorite developers in Baltimore tried renovating a rowhouse without an Architect once. Just once. Are we a necessary evil? In some minds, yes. Do AIA and CSI do a horrible job educating the public about what the Design Team does? Yes. The difference is that AIA thinks it's the AMA (doctors also provide services, not products) and doesn't ever seem to realize that people put Designers on par with Rodney Dangerfield. With CSI, perhaps if we engaged more lawyers, insurance carriers, and Owners to argue our case, more Designers would listen. Too many Designers see no value in anything but their designs. many talk about Quality but wouldn't know it if it bit them on the arse. For Specifiers to hitch our wagons to the design community is foolish simply because much of the Design Team lacks a strong foothold in reality. Since they see us as their servants, we have little choice. Perhaps if we can convince the Owner team to see benefit in hiring us directly, the Design Team will see us as providing value. The issue with that is that most Owners will want us to take on ownership and liability for what we do. Until Code starts requiring Certification of the Specifications by a Certified Specifier, that's not going to happen. Do we as an industry even want that? Be careful of what you ask for; you may get it. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 626 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, December 26, 2013 - 03:02 pm:    Providing a product is in conflict with the concept of being a professional. Sure we produce our instruments of service but ultimately what we do is provide our client with advice and assistance. Do you want to be subject to the legal rules related to product or strict liability? Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 484 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Thursday, December 26, 2013 - 03:18 pm:    I agree with Ken and Mark. As Mark noted, and per AIA documents, drawings and specifications are instruments of service, not products. And with the advent of electronic documents, let alone BIM, drawings and specifications will not even be tangible physical paper records (a "product"), just images on a screen. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1735 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, December 26, 2013 - 03:39 pm:    And don't forget the whole concept of sales tax... Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 149 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, December 26, 2013 - 06:41 pm:    Ken and all of you, I do not disagree, but then I am thinking outside of the box here. I am saying that we should consider treating our instruments of service like a product and the quality demanded of a product. If you want to stick with service then own it. FYI, contractors and clients are taking your instruments of service to the courts all the time now due directly to the "quality" of those instruments. Also be aware that your fees are going to be reduced continually much like those others in the service industries. When was the last time you actually saw a full service gas station and would pay for those services? Truth is that the architectural world is shifting from owner clients to contractor clients and that you will be equated more to the subcontractors on the job. IPD heads further down that path. Lynn, sales tax may actually become a reality anyway. State of Texas has proposed this almost in recent years. They include all professional services in that proposal. Doctors, lawyers, etc. So, that may actually become a reality state by state as budgets are pushed to the limit and the states need additional revenue sources. It has been stopped every time so far, but that may change in a state that will do everything possible to avoid a state income tax. They have to rely on property taxes and sales taxes for their revenue. There are a few other means, like fees, but that is limited. FYI, they now require fingerprinting (by a certain company) and you pay that fee on top of your regular annual fee. Also they started charging a fee on top of your annual fee if you pay online. Then they state that they are not raising the fees. Hmmm. cost shifting, right? Mark, I disagree that product is in conflict with being a professional. Lawyers argue in defense of architects that the specifications are performance and that the expert is the manufacturer and the installer. FYI, look up professional in the dictionary and you will find this defining the word as a noun: a person who is expert at his or her work. Liability has been thrown around. We continually been sued for product every year. The client sues us for something wrong with their building and we settle all the time when the price is right. Bottom line, we are held for the quality of our instruments of service and that includes the choices of design materials (product) in that specification. How many of you go to training courses on an annual basis on the materials that you specify? Does your company include those training courses in their budgets? Do not think that lawyers are not attacking that very thing. Choices like choosing TCNA over CTI (as an example) is now coming into play. It is your choice of industry standards being questioned since there are so many of those standards available. The advantages of product is that it allows for research. Something that services typically do not allow for. So this conversation about product vs. service loops back to support staff, right? Manufacturers have support staff that are professionals that specifiers look highly upon and rightfully so. They are non-billable and can be qualified as R&D. Specifiers are looked at, as with everyone else on the team of a project, as billable. They are budgeted whether they are outsourced or within the company. What happened in the course of this recession is that they eliminated all means of non-billable technical staff (if they cannot bill to a project) and overhead to the point that the quality of the instruments of service have been effected. Ken, what is your R&D budget? You are asked to specify product all the time, but how much research has been done into all those products on an annual basis? I presume that it is low or none at all as with many architecture firms cannot qualify them to a project. What I find is that firms have part-time R&D budgets. These are typically eaten up within the design staff. So what about research of LEED product and claims made by those companies? Can you see the possibility of risk here? I find it interesting that what has happened to our architectural industry is that we have omitted technical overhead (i.e., quality departments) in lieu of IT/IS and additional administration assistants, marketing/branding budgets, accounting, and anything else not involved with our direct industry. Product design cannot do that at all. Take any manufacturer and look into what they have for testing and research staff. We typically look at this as an overhead expense. So I beg the question, how many firms have quality departments that can bill their R&D time directly to overhead and what percentage of that in relation to other overhead positions? What about to the direct overhead costs of the firm? That number alone could astound us. Finally, are stock plan shops product or are they services? Are they professionals? I actually can find catalogs on the newsstand with plans. I am not judging it one way or the other, but apply the same question and some may differ with your opinion. Ask your next door neighbor who is shopping for a new house plan. BTW, I have actually heard an architect say that he recommends that they actually buy the plans and change the elevations themselves. The level of professionalism with that statement astounds me. Ken, I agree that AIA and CSI have done a terrible job and so have we (individual architects and specifiers) in explaining what our services are. I can get as many different explanations as there are architects. As far as certifying specifiers, interesting, but it actually may come to that in the future. CSI may actually go there along with states. States may find it as a way for additional revenue stream. It still will fall upon the architect to hold the liability, but even that may change. Who has their crystal ball with them. It is ironic that this thread started out being about calling specifiers as support staff. Why not look at it in a different light? Maybe it is that they realize the importance of non-billable professionals. Do we all look down upon our support staff? Is that not saying something about ourselves? Are we putting ourselves above the very staff that supports us in our efforts? Hmmm... Paul Sweet (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, December 27, 2013 - 04:16 pm:    I wish more architects would look at their drawings & specs as both instruments of service and products, and would take pride in a good product. I work as a program manager for several community colleges. I'm finding too many buildings that are designed and detailed way more complicated than necessary, and needing dozens of architect's supplemental instructions and hundreds of RFI responses to complete what was left off the drawings & specs, or or correct errors in them. This usually leads to several change orders that eat up the contingency set aside for change orders well before the project is completed. Delegated design is another problem. It's one thing for a simple prefab stair, but is being used for more complex items. Bidders can't design these during the bid period, so their quotes are often wild guesses, leading to even more arguments during construction. spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, December 26, 2013 - 03:15 pm:    I understand what Alan is saying but I guess we need to agree to disagree. The janitorial service is a good example of a service that is undervalued by much of society. However Ken's point about doctors is also a good example of service that is held in high regard. Should we change the name of what we "do for a living" or change the publics perception of it? I am not sure what the right answer is. I will say this. Alan is correct that most architects market by showing images of buildings. However our firm works hard to emphasize just the opposite to our clients and prospective clients. We show images just like everyone else but we SELL service because we are convinced that is where we stand out from the crowd. We could be wrong but we believe that the phone continues to ring because we provide quality service. Call it a product or call it a service only changes the name, a rose is still a rose. I believe we need to improve the quality of our professional service/product/? (whatever you chose to call it). Either way it is an interesting debate. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 666 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, December 27, 2013 - 04:28 pm:    Regarding the effectiveness of CSI, I would like to point out that CSI is a volunteer organization. If CSI isn't doing enough to help Specifiers, that means we as members aren't doing enough to help Specifiers. If we are unable to help Designers, Owners, and others see us in a positive light as individuals with whom they interact, they will perceive all Specifiers the same way. As I said earlier in this thread, quoting Pogo, "We have met the enemy and he is us." Perhaps this should be a discussion topic at MSR in January. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1736 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, December 27, 2013 - 04:46 pm:    Ken, I'll count on you to start the discussion; perhaps over one of the meals? ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 667 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, December 27, 2013 - 10:01 pm:    I might need some prompting. You know how shy and quiet I am. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 627 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Saturday, December 28, 2013 - 02:41 pm:    If we were providing a product we would be judged based on strict liability. This means that for every mistake we make we would by a matter of law be liable. On the other hand as professionals we are not expected to be perfect and our liability is determined based on whether we exercised the standard of care of other design professionals. More needs to be done to educate architects and engineers about the legal system within which they operate. You may have the greatest idea but if it is in conflict with the legal system you will be road kill. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 494 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Sunday, December 29, 2013 - 01:00 pm:    Mark makes a good point. The manufacturer of a product can be liable under traditional negligence, strict liability (not necessary to show negligence or fault) and also breach of warranty claims. Better to stick with considering out profession as a service! David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1343 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, December 30, 2013 - 01:48 pm:    I agree with what Alan mentioned about architects getting less respect from clients and looking at reduced fees. I believe this is due to the poor quality of the documents and lack of constructability in the detailing. Why should an client pay full retail for a set of drawings that is nothing more than a bunch of pretty pictures? Architectural firms should hire high-salaried experienced technical people instead of low-salaried inexperienced design interns. If an architectural firm could produce a very well coordinated quality set of documents they could convince the client that their high fee will be more than saved in a reduction of change orders, claims, and lawsuits.....and the stress and aggravation that goes along with it. David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP Specifications Consultant/Web Publisher www.localproductreps.com ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 668 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, December 30, 2013 - 02:13 pm:    David, that's crazy talk. Next you're going to suggest communication between team members and accountability and what will that bring us? Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 150 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, December 30, 2013 - 03:05 pm:    Ken, you are shy and quiet. In fact you never have an opinion about anything. LOL! David, hence, the allude to product. Quality can be applied to services, but often gets diminished. I do have a question to all along the same lines. What is software? Product or service? It is interesting that Autodesk sells it through third party dealers as a product. Microsoft calls Office and Windows a product. When the software causes errors, are they not held to strict liability? What is Arcom? Their website says that they have products and services. What are their products and what are their services? Who is held accountable for selling their Masterspec with an error and you are drug into a lawsuit due to that error from their product or service? Of course I am posing this as a hypothetical situation, but then, you do pay a lot for those services, correct? When an error is directly caused from the software (a bug) when is software a product or a service? ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 670 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, December 30, 2013 - 03:28 pm:    My insurance company and bank refer to their products but it seems to me that they mainly offer services. Referring to their services as 'products' seems to be a marketing ploy making people think they're getting more for their money or something. Maybe we could try that but where they get away with it, we won't. Unfortunately master specification systems don't stamp your documents, you do, so they carry no liability. You're expected to take ownership of the contents of your documents no matter how messed up the spec master is. I would consider software such as Revit and AutoCAD to be products. I would consider master specification systems, including database systems, as products. The thing is that we alter those products and issue them as part of our service so, again, we're responsible for what gets issued. Why MS isn't held accountable for all it puts us through, I have no idea. There should be a special place in H-E-double hockey sticks for them. Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 151 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, December 30, 2013 - 04:21 pm:    I agree Ken. That is why I find what clients feel about our documents goes along the same as you feel about software. Hence the comment from Mr. Sweet above. Products and services have gotten muddled quite a bit. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 676 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Tuesday, December 31, 2013 - 01:00 pm:    So, if I understand the issue of this discussion thread, some firms consider specification writers to be "support staff" or more of a clerical position. That is, not involved with design as are the "professional" (licensed and unlicensed) staff. If that is the case, then specifications writers should limit what they do to creating documents according to design decisions and directions of the "professional" staff. That sounds OK to me. It would make my life a lot easier to have ambiguity eliminated from my work. I would not have to take incomplete and uncoordinated drawings and make some specs for use in cost estimating, approval by authorities having jurisdiction and for construction. I would not have to figure out the details of product selections, such as which of the umpteen options should be included. And specifications for bidding and construction contract administration? Ask the construction manager. My knowledge and experience would be irrelevant, especially on payday. Accordingly, for both in-house and out-sourced specification writers, the services provided should only be to give what is paid for. It would be interesting (!?) to see how designers cope with having to make all the design decisions for building code compliance, including "Green Building" and accessibility. And constructability, initial cost and life cycle performance would be enlightening challenges for them. A lot of time would be saved ($$) when the spec writer doesn't have to prompt and educate design decision makers to get design directions. The spec writer wouldn't have to spend time generating irritating questions that exceed the designer's knowledge of construction technology, such as "Are there wood doors on the project? If so, are they painted or stained and varnished? If stained and varnished, what is the species of the hardwood veneer?" Answer: "We want the doors to be green." (Actual situation with a sophisticated, award-winning architectural firm.) Resolution of these and other issues discussed in this thread would be aided if some national organization, such as CSI, would document and promote the value of well-prepared construction specifications. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 495 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, December 31, 2013 - 01:08 pm:    or, it could be something as simple as the person putting the job up on the website wasn't given any specific direction and didn't know any better. Just sayin... Annon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, December 31, 2013 - 02:56 pm:    Every architectural firm that I have worked for, small or large, has required me to document and assign time spent writing specifications for each and every project. The time was charged against the project budgeted time, regardless of how much time the designers, project managers, and cad operators clocked drawing and re-drawing plans and details. Even when I was in charge of a specifications department, we were expected to be part of the project team and provide input throughout the design development, construction documents, bidding, and construction phases.