The Future of Specifications

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

Author Message Colin Gilboy Senior Member Username: colin Post Number: 316 Registered: 09-2005 Posted on Thursday, September 20, 2012 - 07:57 pm:    I will be part of the panel at the Orange County (Calif) CSI Product Show on Tuesday - topic: The Future of Specifications. I put together my notes today and thought I would post them for discussion: 1. The specifier is frequently the ONLY person in the design firm with the detailed product information needed for proper product selection. Where will this knowledge come from when all the 55+ year old specifiers retire? On the job learning is the only way to acquire the required knowledge – the school of hard knocks and paying attention to life. 2. BIM operators may be able to select BIM objects to put in the database and yet do not know the nuances and differences among the various manufacturers. While it may seem feasible to shake a spec out of the BIM object, I do not believe this is a reliable way to go. BIM Models have a tendency to be proprietary and most owners want multiple suppliers acceptable. What level (ie size) of the BIM model is expected from the manufacturer – small or huge – huge needed for the specs and small needed for the database models. 3. There has been a major change in the way specifiers think and architects think today from the days of the binder libraries: Specifier: Problem > Manufacturer > Product > Solution Architect: Problem > Google > Solution > Product > Manufacturer (maybe) 4. The long term trend without enough specifiers will be towards the European model of the architect doing what we consider 50% drawings and the contractor finishing them with his subs and suppliers. This is why BIM is used a lot more in Europe as the contractor knows the products to be used and not providing a list of 3 different suppliers that may be selected among or substituted against. This has major implications for the architect’s business model (in my opinion) that have not considered. Even with a Construction Manager the architect does a fairly complete set of drawings and specs; CM’s will start to do the BIM and >50% design to better coordinate. Less work = less revenues = less employees for the architect! This also has major implications for the product manufacturers and their reps as they will no longer have to work with architects and will work with the subs and GC's on product selection. Your thoughts and input? Colin Colin Gilboy Publisher, 4specs.com 435.654.5775 - Utah 800.369.8008 Colin Gilboy Senior Member Username: colin Post Number: 317 Registered: 09-2005 Posted on Thursday, September 20, 2012 - 08:46 pm:    I met Liz for the first time at CSI / Construct in Phoenix. A CCS and SCIP member from Denver, she sent me a link to her blog in a parallel discussion: Quote: Architects, get, and keep, a technically-minded architect on your team. In house, out-of-house, wherever, but keep this person under your umbrella. Pay this person fairly. You know you need him or her under design-bid-build, to reduce change orders and to preserve your reputation. CMc can be a better value for the owner if the architect has this technical person on the design team. Architects, if you want less erosion of architect fees under IPD, you need a technically-minded architect on your team. If you don’t have people like this, and you want to start developing some, a good place to start is by getting some of your team members involved in CSI, the Construction Specifications Institute. http://lizosullivanaia.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/the-meaning-of-teamwork/ Colin Gilboy Publisher, 4specs.com 435.654.5775 - Utah 800.369.8008 Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 210 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Thursday, September 20, 2012 - 08:46 pm:    Colin Your assumption seems to be that specifiers are a dying breed because of the current average age of 55. I think that is very questionable. What was the average of specifiers 20 years ago? 40 years ago? I don't think anyone knows (at least I could not find any factual data) so we don't know if the current average age is an indication of a dying breed or not. My recent survey of specifiers indicates they didn't become full-time specifiers until about an average age of 40. That would indicate that the average specifier is older probably because it takes some time to gain the experience that you rightfully talk about and that they move into the field at an older age rather than as a young person. I would also say that the needed expertise is not just the selection of products but also how assemblies go together - how materials and products are assembled into an assembly that meets required performance requirements. I totally agree with you that the expertise that usually resides with the specifier is an important need in the BIM world if the architect is to provide a complete design and documents for construction. Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 480 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Thursday, September 20, 2012 - 10:24 pm:    Robert, that assumption (aging pool of specifiers) is the result of my input. This year's panel discussion is the direct result of the experiences and perception of four large architectural firms in the SoCal area, as well as dialog here on 4specs that I have been monitoring. I think the core issue is that fewer people are going into the specifications profession, so as spec writers retire, they are not being replaced. This is one contributing factor towards firms looking more closely at "automated" spec systems like BSD SpecLink and others. And it's that change in the creation/maintainence of specifications that our panel discussion is going to examine. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 506 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, September 20, 2012 - 11:02 pm:    Contractors on IPD projects have no problem with the idea of delegating detailed design to trade partners. This is particularly the case with HVAC since many HVAC consultants appear to leave a lot for the contractor. Similarly when architects are not in a position to deal with the detailed specification of products the contractor will step in and over time the Architects scope and hence fees and control will be reduced. Correspondingly there are opportunities for Architects who will be able to provide expanded services that are currently delegated to the contractor. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 211 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Thursday, September 20, 2012 - 11:06 pm:    "I think the core issue is that fewer people are going into the specifications profession, so as spec writers retire, they are not being replaced." It would be nice if there was some evidence to back up what you are thinking. Four firms in SoCal is not much of broad view of the profession. If people don't become full-time specifiers on average until they are 40, 55 is not a very old average age. That was an informal survey, but 82 specifiers from around the country responded. You might be right, but I have not seen any evidence to support it. Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS LEED-AP Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 270 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Thursday, September 20, 2012 - 11:22 pm:    With the help of 35 years to reference, it is my impression that in-house, full-time specifiers have suffered layoffs disproportionately in each economic cycle. This being a deep and long down cycle, the numbers affected this time have been particularly high. With a job function that is at least partly overhead, the position is an easy target when a firm's revenues dip and utilization (percent chargeable time) drops. The outlook for independent specifiers surely follows the market turns as well, but as self-employed, you can't count them in the unemployment lines. It is hard enough to survive and prosper in the design professions without being the first fired and last hired. Is it any wonder that young people, seeing the older, technically-experienced spec writers treated this way, would not want to choose that career path. I think you guys are right on the money to look at the "big excuse" for doing away with those expensive spec writers - automation. What seems to get overlooked by the people doing the automating is that it isn't simply the output of specs that makes these older and wiser folks valuable; it's their experience and knowledge. When design firms can't provide that to their clients, the clients will simply go where it is still available - the local builder. scott piper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, September 21, 2012 - 09:46 am:    I believe there is a big difference between large firms (who often have full time spec writers) and smaller firms who have someone who writes all of the specs but is not a full time spec writer. Specialization in any proffession can lead to unstability in terms of job security. I can only speak from the smaller firm (5-10 employees) side of the conversation so I may be wrong but I believe that not being specialized helps make me a more valuable employee. I am the guy who writes the specs but also the guy who: walks the job site, reviews shops, approves and resolves change orders, prepares working drawings and a host of other things on a daily basis. I believe this "jack of all trades master of none" approach also makes me a better spec writer because I can see how it is done in the field and realize where I might need to adjust my way of thinking. I also find many instances where I find circumstances where I need to stand my ground and demand strict adherence to the CDs. It is hard to have the "we don't build it that way" conversation with a tradesman if I haven't seen the situation from multiple angles. I realize it is probably not practical or finacialy feasible but I believe the future of the quality spec writer lies not in additional specialization, accredidation, education, etc. but rather a return to a multi-tasking professional. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 495 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, September 21, 2012 - 10:17 am:    The problem with IDP Project Managers (who I believe are generally "contractor-types") delegating to "trade parteners" is that they may be "solution driven" in their particular domain of expertise. Over the last 50 or 60 years, it has been the architect who has had the ability to integrate solutions among the varous disciplines. I believe that specifiers have often contributed to this process. Most solutions work fine in the "field" of the set of issues, but may fail at the margins where the solution must integrate with a different system. Glass is a good example. A pane of glass does not leak; the "integrated solution" (a pane of glass installed in a frame which is installed in a wall), is more vulnerable to water infiltration where the glass must be installed in a frame. At the margin of this solution, there are 3 different materials: glass, glazing gasket, and frame. There is an opportunity for failure where each of the materials touch each other (and I am only talking about one mode of failure: water infiltration). The manufacturers of each material often are expert in their own systems, but may be less knowledgable about interactions between their materials and other materials in the system. At the other end of the scale, consider the design of a mechanical system and a potential failure to fully integrte the building envelope assembly into design considerations. One sub decides to save some money by substituting dampproofing instead of a high performance air barrier (remember air barriers are not yet required in many parts of the country). People see the $$$ but don't consider how the mechanical system may be affected. I would suggest that IPD may bring a raft of litigation when a failure to properly integrate discrete solutions results in serious problems. I believe this will come despite the indemnifications that are being cited as a strength of IPD. Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 85 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Friday, September 21, 2012 - 10:51 am:    As Peter points out, the interfaces between systems and/or assemblies are "no man's land" (terminology suggested by one of the speakers at CONSTRUCT last week). The best person to deal with these interfaces is a technically-minded architect, who often is the specifier on the team. The architect is probably always going to carry the professional liability for these transitions, no matter what the project delivery method is, and no matter who the architect's agreement is with. Having a person under the architect's umbrella who understands, and can detail and specify these transitions, is crucial to the architect's risk management. Sadly, architects are often not in a position to hold risk management as a top priority. I suspect that the people who are preparing specifications today will be part of the growing body of building envelope consultants in 10 or 20 years. I just hope that project teams use them DURING construction documentation (or the "Detailed Design" and "Implementation Documents" phases, as AIA's IPD documents call CD's), instead of AFTER occupancy, when the buildings start to leak at those interfaces. Happy thoughts, happy thoughts. Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 481 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Friday, September 21, 2012 - 11:39 am:    I think perhaps the responses to Colin's question has drifted off topic. Here is the synopsis of the Seminar: "In an era of reduced fees, accelerated deadlines, increased liability, and an aging workforce, many design firms across the nation are struggling to find ways to update and maintain their master specifications, as well as find ever more efficient ways of producing project specifications. In today's world there are a number of technology based “automated” specification production systems promising to solve all these issues, and more! Are these systems right for your firm? How do they compare to the traditional method of producing specifications, based on the specialized knowledge and expertise of dedicated construction specifiers? How can firms “future proof” their specifications as the field of available specification writers age and retire? How do local manufactures succeed when design firms use nationally produced spec databases? Join us for what promises to be an invigorating panel discussion on this hot topic impacting so many members of our local industry." Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 212 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Friday, September 21, 2012 - 12:12 pm:    Nathan I think your topic is a good one. It does not need to be tied to "an aging workforce" or "as the field of available specification writers age and retire?" There is no evidence to support this - that the average age of specifiers is increasing - and that specifiers are about to disappear with the current generation. The discussion is about the need to have technically savvy professionals (which are often the specifiers) on board even in the face of automation. Liz says it well. Unless the architectural registration laws are revised, the architect is liable for the total design of the project. The goal should be to make "design oriented architects" realize that they will always need people with a high degree of building technical knowledge that know how to put buildings together. Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 106 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, September 21, 2012 - 12:16 pm:    Colin, if I was to follow the thread here, I would change the title to the future of specifiers. The title implies specifications and what changes to expect with the specifications. That is a discussion that many discuss (Sheldon jump in here) and really very little happens. As far as CMs doing design and drawings, well, that is something I do not see in the cards without major law changes. CMs typically avoid risk and for them to become an Architect of Record (required by law) would carry them into the world of risk. The Euro model works well for them due to the lesser amount of legalities that they have in their construction practices. What you discribe would be the actual death of architects and in turn, specifiers. Liz, architects that do not hold risk management as a priority are the ones that end up in expensive litigation sometime in their careers. Having the stamp and being an architect means risk. Designers do not have either of those. Anyone can be a designer. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 639 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Friday, September 21, 2012 - 12:34 pm:    Several years ago the St. Louis CSI and AIA chapters combined to sponsor a presentation by the late Ken Crocco FAIA FCSI on the future of specifications in the field of architecture. In his introductory remarks, he commented that in the 1970's, there was one specifier for approximately 20 others in the architectural profession. By 2000, that number had dropped to one specifier for approximately 100 others. I don't remember where the statistic came from or the methodology for obtaining it, but the magnitude of the numbers seemed (and still seems) fairly accurate. It points out the impact that automated specification programs had on this subspecialty initially in the 1970’s, coupled with the increasing access to product information from the internet and other technologies later in the millennium. It also illustrates cyclical trends in the industry among larger firms (those that can justify a full time specifier) where specification knowledge is either centralized in a full time specifier who is responsible for all the firm’s specs, or it is diffused among project architects and project managers each of whom is responsible for the specification on his or her project. As an example, in the early 1980’s I was employed as project representative here in St. Louis for a project designed by a large out of town architectural firm. When touring their office for my job interview, I asked about specifiers. They had none, they told me, because their project architects and project managers all used an automated software program and specifiers were not needed. By the 1990’s that same firm had gone back to dedicated full-time specifiers – (A couple of them frequent this board...you know who you are…) I think we are seeing the same thing with eSpecs and similar that we saw with Masterspec and similar, a first push towards “let’s get rid of the specifiers” followed by a realization that automation does not negate the need for the basic knowledge base that the professional specifier brings to a project and to an office. Two things I think will NOT change regardless of how much we tinker with delivery methods and how much evolving technology improves the way we run our production: 1) The basic things that specifications do best (quality, procedures, product information, installation) will always be basic things in designing and building stuff, and somebody on the team needs to understand and define those basic things. 2) There will always be, as an architect a half-generation older than me told me once, “…a place for old gray haired guys like us who know how to put buildings together.” So my take on it is that the job title “specifier” may become obsolete in the future, but the skills, talents, and passion we who are now specifiers bring to our profession – those things will always be needed. And whether we keep those skills, talents, and passion centralized in one place, or whether we diffuse them among many in the firm will continue to vary cyclically, and by firm. But it won't go away. George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA Ingersoll Rand Security Technologies St. Louis, MO Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 507 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, September 21, 2012 - 12:42 pm:    Regarding the perceived problems with IPD's. When implemented properly in the context of Lean Construction (ref www.leanconstruction.org/) these projects have been shown to dramatically reduce problems and litigation. In this context the question is does the architect continue to reduce market share and control or does he use this opportunity to expand the services he provides thus giving himself more control and higher fees. In order to do this the architect must embrace the technical aspects of the design. For example why should the Architect create complex BIM models, for minimal increase in fee, that the contractor then uses to finish the design when he could use the model to produce shop drawings and obtain a significantly higher fee. For example some structural engineers are sucessfully producting structural steel shop drawings. Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 107 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, September 21, 2012 - 12:43 pm:    Nathan, you are correct. So I ask the question, why haven't Arcom, BSD or eSpec working on new ways to transform specifications? Where is CSI on this? Transformation and the newer technology is what people (clients) are screaming for. They see everything else in their world change with the technology, but not architects and specifiers. Have you ever heard the term, "WordPerfect"? Transformation means uncomfort and new ways of doing things. Go beyond word processors and see where we go? What about specification delivery? Do we always have to have volumes of specs or can they reside on the drawings? What is in the BIM model? How is that delivered? Who delivers them? Who has the liability? Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 86 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Friday, September 21, 2012 - 03:14 pm:    Nathan, have you considered filming this panel discussion and putting it on YouTube or something? I'm sure it'll be very popular. I think that more firms will have to rely on in-house master specifications that project managers will have to edit, or will have to rely on model objects that Reviteers will have to define, but in both cases, those masters and those object characteristics will have to be edited by knowledgeable people (specifier-types) who will have to configure them specifically for that firm. As always, it's garbage-in-garbage-out. It won't take too long for people to realize that they can't do without technically-knowledgeable people for each firm, if not for each specific project. I think that in the future, more specifier-types will be working on more projects, or on more office masters for other firms, or something like that. I suspect that there are going to be more technical people out-of-house instead of in-house. scott piper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, September 21, 2012 - 04:07 pm:    Nathan mentioned the "automated" spec system in comparision to traditional construction specifier. I apologize if I am misreading this statement but it appears to imply that the two are mutually exclusive. The thing that makes a quality spec is the attention to the project particulars regardless of the delivery method. While I will admit that an "automated" system does pose the potential for a spec to be poorly constructed but so does the process of simply changing the header and footer on a Word document spec. The human element is what determines the end result and it's effectiveness, quality, value, etc. Disclaimer: We use BSD products (but I am by no means pushing BSD, it just works for our firm and our clients) Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 482 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Friday, September 21, 2012 - 05:39 pm:    I put "Automated Specs" in quotes because I think it is a huge misnomer, but that their are many firm principles and architects who are drinking the Koolaide J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 496 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, September 21, 2012 - 06:33 pm:    In my experience, "automated specification systems" will make the tasks of product identification, evaluation, and selection easier for an experienced specifier (which includes architects who may not do this full-time, but have the responsibility on their projects. These systems also greatly facilitate the production of the specification documents themselves. None of these products are "specs for dummies" (not my quote, but a good observation nonetheless). You still have to know that sand if fine aggregate, that concrete, mortar, grout, and cement plaster are essentially the same product, and that such products will usually shrink during the curing process. You also have to know the difference between "glazed CMU" and structural glazed tile units as well as the difference between face brick and paver brick. These are all relatively trivial bits of knowledge (TBK) that can become critically important if one does not understand how that TBK can affect a particular part of a project and perhsps cause a failure of a critical system. The automated spec systems out there provide the right buttons to do the research necessary to find out how these issues might be important. Of course, after practicing for 20 or 30 years, some of those TBK kinda stick in there and you don't need those particular buttons. There are, however, always more stuff that will require you to press the buttons. It has become more common for people to bypass the research/evaluation/selection steps in the design process before it even gets to the spec writer. I have had to tell designers that they could not use something that had already been accepted as a part of the design by the Owner because it was in some way inappropriate. The Reviteers make the same mistake that the CAD monkeys have made for the last 20 years; skill with a software program is mistaken for real design skill (off course we had that before with the guys that could draw circles around the rest of us, but did not really understand what they were drawing). I like that idea that has been proposed by a number of people that the traditional "spec writer" has usually been a knowledge manager and a keeper of the flame of corporate technical memory). The loss of that position in mid-size firms is a real blow to the firm's knowledge base since that person usually "touches" every project. There is an old computer maxim: GIGO (garbage in; garbage out). The corollary in the CAD/BIM world is that if you have a mess, automated systems will automatically generate a bigger mess faster. Someone has to ensure that the system inputs are not garbage. On a large project, this is not a task you want to delegate to someone two years out of school just because they understand the software. Jo Drummond, FCSIJODRUMMONDFCSI (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, September 21, 2012 - 06:30 pm:    Thank you, Colin, and thank you to all the contributors to this discussion. I will represent the "past" on this panel next Tuesday. I started writing specs about 45 years ago, and have been doing it ever since. So I saw the introduction of the 16 divisions, the 5 digit numbering system (what a help that was!), Masterspec, etc.,and all subsequent changes, additions and improvements. It amazes me to think about the magnitude of change that has taken place. Because change has been exponential rather than linear, and i assume it will continue that way, what will the future bring? I can't imagine it. I look forward to this discussion. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 580 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2012 - 11:31 am:    What are comments of those who attended the Orange County CSI presentation of past, present and future specifications? Richard HIrd (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, October 02, 2012 - 11:44 am:    Scot's "Specialization in any profession can lead to unstability in terms of job security" The process you suggest is great for a small firm, but is tough to pull off in a large firm. You need to know a lot about everything to produce good specifications in a large firm. We all specialize. The question is do you specialize vertically or horizontally; a small firm that sticks to residential for instance, or a large firm that serves multiple commercial, industrial and institurional work. Recently both took a tumble and both specialists and generalists were hit. If you are in the construction industry, there is little long term job security just by the mere nature of capital projects. Both you and your firm need to be needed. scott piper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, October 02, 2012 - 01:14 pm:    I completely agree with Richard Hird. It would be much more difficult in a large firm to minimize specialization. However I was responding to the observation made by Richard Howard that contended that full time spec writers suffer layoffs in greater numbers (% wise) than others in the field. It would be very difficult to diversify your talents in a large firm (one reason why I have prefered to work for small to mid-size firms) but i still believe it would be advisable to try and develop a well rounded set of talents and contributions for your firm. Dale Hurttgam, NCARB, AIA,LEED AP, CSI Senior Member Username: dwhurttgam Post Number: 113 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Friday, October 31, 2014 - 10:54 am:    I recently heard of a CSI Forecast/Study that was done in the mid-1980's that forecast that within 30 years, specification writers and construction administrators would begin to greatly decline in numbers (near extinction). I would like to see the study and what it actually forecast - is anyone familiar with this or know of a location where it can be viewed (ideally online)? George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 772 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Friday, October 31, 2014 - 01:21 pm:    There was a seminal study done by CSI and the Stanford Research Institute in 1967, titled "Survey of current practice in the use of automated techniques for specifications and detailing practices: a research study" by Charles E. Diehl. Ken Crocco referred to this in his presentation I mentioned in my 9/21/12 post above. The Rosen/Kalin/Regener specifications book also makes reference to this document, so perhaps Mark or John know of a source. I don't know that you can find it online. Robert E. Woodburn, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bob_woodburn Post Number: 115 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Friday, October 31, 2014 - 01:50 pm:    So this "seminal study" is 47 years old (about as old as MasterFormat) and the mid-80's forecast of decline within 30 years is about 30 years old... I was in in architecture school in 1968 when Paul Ehrlich, a famous professor on campus, wrote the book "The Population Bomb" predicting worldwide starvation due to the population explosion in the 1970s. Didn't happen. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 773 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Friday, October 31, 2014 - 02:16 pm:    The Stanford study was seminal in the sense that it set the guidelines for CSI's development of SpecText and was a precursor of the other automated systems that followed. And that mid-80s forecast was prescient enough, if you believe the ratio of specifiers to others dropped from 1:20 to 1:100 between then and now. Those numbers seem to paint a fairly accurate picture of what happened. It's hard to get predictions correct, and I'll admit to being gullible when someone smarter than I makes a educated sounding prediction. I'm still waiting for my flying car... Jonathan Miller, FCSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: jmma_specs Post Number: 21 Registered: 04-2009 Posted on Friday, October 31, 2014 - 02:33 pm:    I would think the future of specifications is tied into embedded smart objects in a three dimensional drawing model. For example... Click on a WALL and it would first give you the choice of: - structure (metal stud or wood (stud or post) framing or masonry, etc.), - then sheeting (GWB or wood paneling or FRP or...), - then choice of finish (paint or manufacturer's prefinish selection and color-texture). Someone with experience (a specifier along with and overseeing many product manufacturer technical representatives) needs to populate the smart choices in the model for the project designer / architect to select. Included in the smart tags are detailed product specification information. Traditional specifications will focus more on the process of how the building is constructed and shift how construction products are defined and interface to BIM. That is where I foresee the profession moving towards. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 924 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Friday, October 31, 2014 - 02:37 pm:    Robert, Where I don't find a problem with your point about old studies, but the analogy to the population bomb and worldwide starvation is not the best example. It was during the late 60s, at the time everyone was concerned and writing about the coming population explosion and the fact that food yields were not increasing that one man, James Borlaug, created from cross breading different strains or wheat the high yield disease resistant semi-dwarf wheat. This was happening as the work of one man at the same time the starvation forecasts were being made. Its first use was in Mexico, and yields soared. This was followed by India and Pakistan. We are talking essentially doubling the output. In 1970 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for this, for specifically avoiding world famine. The specifier's failure to disappear as predicted is just a bad prediction. There was no math, not statistics, just assumptions. The famine/population bomb was a totally valid analysis, factually supported, not even a prediction. It was avoided by a timely 'invention'. There are other issues associated with this particular wheat, but that's a different story. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate WDG Architecture, Washington, DC | Dallas, TX Scott Piper Senior Member Username: spiper Post Number: 12 Registered: 08-2014 Posted on Friday, October 31, 2014 - 05:15 pm:    I am concerned about the scenario that Jonathan suggests. I agree that if sufficient time, expertise and oversight is involved you could include all required information into smart tags. However, I am afraid that the BIM model will fail to address specific and potentially crucial information. Will the smart tags be as "smart" as they need to be? I may just be "to long in the tooth" for this next step as the profession moves forward but I have concerns about the individual producing the model even knowing what is needed to make the tag smart. Years ago I was putting together information so my boss could do a simple spec for a masonry wall and I asked my coworker about the through-wall flashing. His response to me was: "you don't need to spec that, I already called it out on the drawings" I asked: "Okay. What type of flashing did you call out". He looked at me with a puzzled look and said: "through-wall". Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 204 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, October 31, 2014 - 06:08 pm:    Scott, what Jonathan is suggesting that the model be the source that is connected. One point I would like to make is that as long as specifiers continue on the same path as they are (using the same process that they currently use) that study may be prophetic. Using new tools and thinking of more concise ways to get the contractors to even look at the specs. Ask Jerome. The clients are asking to eliminate the specs. In other words, they want it on the drawings. I personally have had 3 projects in my career that they requested that very thing. Your example is not a good example. There are many uneducated interns today doing the documents and little to no oversight or QA/QC process to catch these kind of errors. There are very few firms out there doing technical research. They instead are researching things of the design. Until quality of their instruments of srevice becomes a main issue they will continue down that path of minimizing their roles. Same holds true for the specifiers. The future of specs follows the same path as the future architects. In the words of Thom Mayne, "Change or die." Many times I hear the discussion that the architectural profession is dying. As architects continue to hide from risk instead of managing it, that may be prophetic. When they accept and manage the risk then the importance of the specifications will rise. The future of specifications means just that. The future. Typically the future requires change and so far there is little to no change in the processes. Specs today are being done pretty much the same way as they were done 30-50 years ago. All of this is in my humble opinion. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1273 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, October 31, 2014 - 06:10 pm:    Regarding specifications and BIM, this is something I've been discussing with others for over a year now. Contrary to the advice of author R.L.Trask*, I'm going to use a buzzword that is considered verboten: the world of specifications is rapidly approaching a "paradigm shift." The era of bound paper specifications is coming to a close right behind the bound set of drawings, which has a slight lead. As the world of BIM expands, the integration of specification-type information into a model is almost a given. The problem is that nobody knows how this specification-type information should be entered, stored, and retrieved. CSI is poised to be the one (and only!) organization that has the expertise to tackle this behemoth task. I say "behemoth" because the problem is so nebulous that it will be a major task just to lay the foundation for beginning such an endeavor. The problem we face now with BIM is not much unlike the one CSI members faced in the 1960s when developing MasterFormat, SectionFormat, and PageFormat. The only difference between now and then is the medium for the specification information. For the nearly 67 years of CSI's existence and further back, the medium for specifications has been a sheet of paper roughly 8-1/2 by 11 inches in size. The technology that helped us specify on those small sheets have changed significantly over the years, but we're still producing specifications on letter-sized paper. The problem that faced those CSI members back then was how to organize the information in the manual and on the sheet. The problem facing us with BIM adds an entirely new dimension to specifications--linking that specification information to BIM objects. Storing specification information in a database is nothing new, but current specification databases are tied to the old specification paradigm (sorry, that word again). A Building Information Standards Task Team was established a couple of years ago and determined that OmniClass was the best tool for organizing specification information in BIM. That's fine, it's a start, but it didn't go far enough. Selecting a organizational tool that is concealed behind a software platform is like running electrical power to and through a building, but not providing any convenience outlets to allow people to plug in and use it. CSI must grab a hold of this opportunity before the software companies take it upon themselves to develop it and force feed it to us. And, most likely, each company will do it in their own format without any consistency in structure between them. Sorry for the length. You'll be hearing more about this from me in the future. *Mind the Gaffe, 2001 Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 700 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Friday, October 31, 2014 - 06:50 pm:    Great post Ron. However (I say with tongue in cheek) according to every e-mail I receieve from one of the leading providers of construction specification software, they has solved this delema. Helping project architects author the spec manual fully coordinated with the BIM models throughout the entire design process. How come everyone in my reqion does not "know how this specification-type information should be entered, stored, and retrieved." My goal for fiscal year 2015 is to figure this all out. I look forward to your future posts. I need all the help I can get. Wayne Scott Piper Senior Member Username: spiper Post Number: 13 Registered: 08-2014 Posted on Monday, November 03, 2014 - 09:59 am:    Alan; I agree with what you are saying and I understand the intent of making the "model be the source of the connection". I was just trying to say that I am concerned about the goods and services of the architect while this process is being implemented. When CAD drafting first appeared many of the early efforts included drawings that lacked the information that hand drawn plans did. As the programs improved and (more importantly) as architects got a better handle on the use of the programs the "product" improved. I foresee a similar slip in the area of specifications as this new "paradigm shift" (apologizes to Richard for plagiarizing his point) is implemented. I completely agree that we must change the way we produce our goods and services. I am not fighting that change but I remain; concerned. I apologize if I made is sound like I am fighting for the status quo. Vivian Volz, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: vivianvolz Post Number: 142 Registered: 06-2004 Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2014 - 05:05 pm:    I suspect that one problem with linking information to BIM objects is the same problem we started experiencing in the early 90's when drawings started happening entirely in CAD. At that time, the experienced architects, who mostly did not work in CAD, could no longer see the drawings until the drafters printed them out, so their ability to walk around and look over shoulders was reduced. It took a long time to adjust, and then BIM came along and more adjustment had to happen. A lot of firms never got really good at supervising the drawings and mentoring the people drawing them, once the paper came off the drafting boards. Supervision has yet to experience its own "paradigm shift", in my observation; it's just gotten difficult and poorly executed. In the same way, linking the spec information to the BIM objects offers the opportunity for the information to be hidden in the BIM, unless we're very clear and careful about how it's cataloged and reviewed. Since we've already established, in others' posts, that the people drawing don't always know what information should go along with the drawing, this hidden information can easily be incorrect or uncoordinated. We need some really good practices for supervising staff and coordinating digital information if our BIM-based spec information is going to work in the real world. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1274 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2014 - 08:16 pm:    Good point, Vivian. I envision specification writing for BIM to be very similar to the way contractors and estimators do scheduling and estimating, respectively, for BIM--they use a third-party application that can read the model and allow the attachment of additional data to the objects. Thus, with my Spec-o-matic Version 1.0 (to modify John Regener's product), the software would allow the specifier to interface with the model, review the 'preliminary' selections that were made and revise as needed, and insert the additional requirements/data that only a specifier can add. The specification data may be directly imbedded in the model or could be a separate database linked to the model. The data entry may be via text fields, dropdowns, checkboxes, etc. based on what is being specified. The format may loosely follow SectionFormat, and the content will be heavily streamlined (i.e. Subject: Data/requirement). This is just my current image of BIM specifying, which is coming from a complete BIM novice, but one who understands databases to some degree. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 804 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2014 - 10:14 pm:    "the content will be heavily streamlined (i.e. Subject: Data/requirement)" That's the way specs should be written anyway; it provides a convenient checklist that makes it easier for bidders and for CA when the submittals arrive. If you look at a section using that simple format, you'll see that it won't be difficult to translate it to the properties table of an object. One of the problems is describing properties in a way that allows competitive bidding, assuming that's what you want. The danger of simply plugging in manufacturers' properties is that they have a tendency toward sole-sourcing. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1275 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2014 - 10:40 pm:    Sheldon, to a great extent, yes, specifications should be using the streamlined method. I'm thinking that it could even be more so to the point that the data/requirement part will be very succinct--possibly breaking what may have previously been written in a single paragraph into several 'streamlined' phrases. This makes it easier to work with a relational database. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 805 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2014 - 11:54 pm:    Yep. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1276 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, November 05, 2014 - 12:03 am:    ^^^^ Speaking of being succinct... Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Michael Heinsdorf, P.E. Senior Member Username: michael_heinsdorf_pe Post Number: 21 Registered: 01-2014 Posted on Wednesday, November 05, 2014 - 09:12 am:    This is a little off topic, but something that I feel we should be aware of when formulating a plan: Google's plans. Take 30 minutes and look at this website (www.flux.io) and this video: http://vimeo.com/107291814. Flux was spun off from Google two years ago. To date about $20m has been invested, and it appears that their "industry partners" are Gensler, Arup, and SERA. I'm a little peeved that there are no engineers involved. It's not yet a threat - there are some technical and legal issues, and software developers still don't get that the intersection of software and the real world is messy at best, but this has the potential to change how A/Es work. It's interesting how they are calling it a tool for "real estate development," which makes it seem fairly innocuous. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1277 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, November 05, 2014 - 10:34 am:    Michael: Not a great speaker, but the subject was interesting. However, I have a concern about architectural style. Using the Monterey cypress that was mentioned in the video, in the end the tree is still a Monterey cypress--it has just taken a form that was influenced by its environment. The building shown takes different forms, but the overall architectural style remains the same. How would an architect program the application that grows buildings based around that architect's style? I see this more as an advanced site-adaption planning tool that is used in limited locations and for a limited set of building types, such as housing, since that is their basis for developing such an application. She mentions zoning codes, but not once mentioned building codes (although an attendee mentioned building codes during the Q&A). Unlike many zoning codes, building codes do provide a lot of flexibility and offers a variety of paths to building code compliance--I'm interested in how this software would give the "designer" the ability to make those decisions. I would also like to see how they plan to address the "contract documents" aspect--especially specifications. Maybe CSI should reach out to them... Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 697 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, November 05, 2014 - 03:58 pm:    Michael How can Arup be in the list of involved firms and then assume that no engineers were involved. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 806 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, November 05, 2014 - 04:04 pm:    And so begins another article... Michael Heinsdorf, P.E. Senior Member Username: michael_heinsdorf_pe Post Number: 22 Registered: 01-2014 Posted on Wednesday, November 05, 2014 - 05:22 pm:    Ron, I'm with you on most of this. Realistically, quite a bit of what they are doing is already assisted or automated to a certain extent. This is just a different and flashier way of doing it. Like I mentioned, there would be some legal challenges involved in using this tool instead of a designer and those seeds only reflect the designs and experience of whomever programmed the system. Mark, Good point. I stand corrected. What I should have said is while there are three architects who directly work for Flux, it appears that there are no building engineers who directly work for Flux. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 774 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2014 - 04:39 pm:    CSI's Specifying Practice Group today was on BIM and Specifications. Brok Howard reprised his presentation from CONSTRUCT 2013 in Nashville. If you haven't had a chance to catch this presentation and are interested in this discussion, check out the replay on CSI's youtube channel. It will be posted soon. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 809 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2014 - 05:21 pm:    And don't forget to vote for Brok for Institute president. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 704 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2014 - 05:24 pm:    A very good presentation by Brok Howard. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1920 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, November 14, 2014 - 03:40 pm:    Sheldon, "LIKE" Louis Medcalf, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: louis_medcalf Post Number: 40 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2014 - 01:30 pm:    David Stutzman gave a very interesting presentation on this subject at Construct 2014. I got Dave to reprise the presentation for the October 2014 Specifying Practice Group, and you can access it here as well as Brok Howard's November presentation: http://www.csinet.org/Main-Menu-Category/Communities-2109-14280/Practice-Group/Specifying/2014.