Providing Technical Education

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

Author Message Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 226 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - 01:10 pm:    The idea for this thread came from the "designer thrashing" comments at the end of the adjoining thread on copper. I am curious as to how much technical education is provided by specifiers in this forum. I am not talking about CDT type education relating to contract documents, but rather building technology. Also not talking about one-on-one technnical education related to work on specific projects. I am talking about technical education sessions open to everyone in a firm to raise the technical knowledge level of the firm. In addition to yourself, such sessions might also include outside experts as presenters. I am talking about topics like the basics of exterior wall construction, the various types of roofing, etc. This is obviously easier for in-house specifiers than it is for independent consultants, but it is certainly also possible for the latter with on-going clients. Have you ever been asked to do this? Have you ever volunteered to do this? What was the reaction? If you have provided such technology education sessions, what has been the reaction? Were they appreciated? Did people ask for more? If you have not tried this before, do you think it is worth a try? Do you think your firm or clients would be receptive? Do you think it would enhance your position in your firm or with your clients? Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1322 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - 01:32 pm:    Bob- I did a three year series (I worked through a typical project manual one session a month) for one employer and I typically got 6 people to attend at lunch time, our of an office of more than 300. The management of the firm supported my efforts (technically) but there was no actual support along the lines of "hey, you guys need to go to this". I set up these presentations with one of the old guys in the office who provided photos of construction-gone-wrong on the job sites, and the details that lead to the bad result -- and then I discussed the issue from the spec and materials standpoint. At another office, I provided a monthly technical series on specs and we typically had 35 attendees -- out of 150 staff. We did two series: one a month on green materials and systems, and one on specs/technical issues. About 30 years ago, when I was at NBBJ, we had a two year long series of technical programs (weekly) , and the managing partner selected an attendee list of about 45 staff members, and he tool roll at each presentation. That's the model I've held in my head since then. I think the best results come from when upper management of a firm says either overtly, or individually, "our firm supports your technical education and we want you to learn this information". If the firm partners indicate that they value technical prowess as much as they value "design", then it works. And finally, when I consulted, I used to gather my clients together once a month for a "lunch and learn" that a product rep put on at my office -- I would guarantee them people from at least 6 offices, and I would guarantee the architects a free lunch. typically the reps woulnd't do a presentation to the small offices I worked with. I've found that (circling back to the other discussion) the REALLY good designers I've worked with are very diligent about educating themselvs about materials and systems. The mediocre designers don't see the need for actual information, since they appear to be getting inspired by the muse. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 479 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - 02:05 pm:    Bob, as you may remember from our days in Baltimore, I organized an series of 'Avoiding Material and Design Failure' classes at a local community college for several concurrent years, sponsored by CSI Baltimore. We charged almost nothing, hoping to entice Architects, Contractors, anyone, to come in and listen to true experts in their fields. We brought people in from out of town to speak. We posted notices in the AIA Baltimore newsletter. We sent out postcards to individual AIA members using the AIA Baltimore mailing list. We made not one penny. At best, we'd get 15-20 people at the most popular talks despite having room for 100+. Some of the interns at our old firm had the nerve to ask me what job number to bill their time to. I've found that one-on-one is the only way to find those Designers who want to be Architects and who understand the difference. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1381 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - 02:39 pm:    I've given over 250 sessions at each of the four firms I've worked for recently [since 1995]. Wide range of practice and technical topics; good reactions from 3 to 65 participants, including those in other departments [many with Associates degrees]. Taught basic construction information and documentation course wth ave. 85 students per year. Great joy in this, and stil receive comments from previous "students" who remember the sessions and appreciate what we did for them-- amazing! Also, firms saw upgrade in valueofthese folks and production with understanding. Also, taught for 20 years on same type of topics at collegiate level. Ave. 85 students per year Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 118 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, March 29, 2013 - 12:47 pm:    I would like to open up the discussion some. What I am finding is that classroom style education has been part of the failure. One reason is that it happens only when there is an instructor. If the instructor was busy sick or moved on, no more training. Do we really have time anymore? What I thought about was getting to self training programs. I was having a conversation with a friend of mine about their industry (auto industry) training. They have courses entirely on-line. To get promotions you have to do the training along with the fact that they had required training every year. They had tests to pass (again it was on-line) after the training course. Us architects do this as part of our licensing. So shouldn't training be moved to a professional level? Same with technical training. While classroom presentation is just as important, it should be more about certain topics that happens occasionally and cover the base courses with on-line training. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 487 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, March 29, 2013 - 01:33 pm:    Isn't that part of the problem? To maintain licensure, Architects have to take continuing education classes. The critical requirements pushed by AIA have moved from HSW to 'green' credits. HSW courses rarely seem to address how to select products or solve real-world problems. The education process has been taken over by the 'industry' side because it's a great way for them to market their slant on issues. What is supposed to be non-proprietary information rarely is and no one is enforcing it. AIA is making a fortune by poisoning the water. It's painful to watch. Continuing education in our industry has become a train wreck. Those who are anxious for useful information, IMO the vast majority of Architects, are reaching for whatever they can get ahold of. Too often they haven't been taught how to look at the information offered with a critical eye. There's a lot of 'stuff' out there, some of it good and some of it useful, but largely it's tainted. Setting up courses like Avoiding Material and Design Failure classes is great but it's a lot of work, especially when only one person is pulling it together. When few people show up, it's discouraging. The need is there. The resources are limited. Most of us who are qualified to teach are too busy and too burned out. The disconnect grows wider. Frankly, even if we suggested to every Designer we knew that they should join in the 4specs forum my guess is that the industry would benefit greatly. At least people would know where to go with questions. Jo Drummond, FCSI Senior Member Username: jo_drummond_fcsi Post Number: 51 Registered: 06-2007 Posted on Friday, March 29, 2013 - 08:06 pm:    In the Los Angeles area, a couple of us arrange the equivalent of lunch 'n learns for the consultants. They are held in a restaurant at the expense of the presenter, and limited to 90 minutes. They have worked well, and have provided current technical information. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 623 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Saturday, March 30, 2013 - 07:19 pm:    As in the Los Angeles area, independent specifications writers have been meeting, up to two occasions a month, with building product reps hosting the lunch. The sessions are typically in a private dining room at a restaurant. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 227 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Saturday, March 30, 2013 - 08:31 pm:    Not really asking about specifiers getting continuing technical education. Asking about specifiers providing some building technical education for others. Richard Gonser AIA CSI CCCA SCIP LEED Senior Member Username: rich_gonser Post Number: 38 Registered: 11-2008 Posted on Saturday, March 30, 2013 - 09:03 pm:    I have a slightly different take, I hate to have to say this in my cynical way, but "untainted" information is a myth. The companies selling products are the one's who have the money to do these studies using third party labs when enough of us Architects challenge them to "prove it". In order to sell their products, they need to distinguish themsleves from the rest. This is what challenges them to improve their products. Of course, these are the factors they might emphasize over another product. I don't beleive that the AIA makes much money, if any, on these CEU's. The people making money are the ICC and UL test labs getting minimum $30,000 for just one narrowly constructed proprietary test, that takes months to schedule. It doesn't matter if it works, it just has to be approved by these Royal labs(approved only by the King BeareaucRATs). Never mind the fact that these procedures are clearly spelled out and can be done by most anyone with the proper equipment. After all, don't we need these Government Masters to save us slave citizens from ourselves? Have something new and innovative product? You need a few million dollars and 3 years just to get started. It's just another way of paying off the boss in charge. Each entity serves their own purpose. And we have NO choice but to live with it. We take what we can get, apply judgement and experience, then make a decision. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 553 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Sunday, March 31, 2013 - 01:20 am:    Richard Not to challenge your basic premise but ICC-ES does not perform any tests. In most cases they do not even observe the tests. The manufacturer hires the testing lab. Concern has been expressed about the potential for manufacturers to provide only favorable test results. Thus there should be a bias in favor of products that are addressed in the building code. In these cases the conditions of acceptance are well defined and the ability to fudge the results is less. Richard Gonser AIA CSI CCCA SCIP LEED Senior Member Username: rich_gonser Post Number: 39 Registered: 11-2008 Posted on Sunday, March 31, 2013 - 02:10 pm:    Mark, These comments are coming from my Libertarian political bent. I agree with your statement about the ICC-ES. They have a definitive important role to play in the building industry. My issue is that the number of labs are limited; then more and more tests and regulations are required that have nothing to do with the safety of people of buildings. The same for NFPA. One simply has to look at the size of the building code from 30 years versus today. The goals were the same then, as they are now. Now it just has more minutae that we have comply with. I just did a simple accessible restroom and minor meeting room remodel and occupancy change to a 1 story building. It took 18 24x36 sheets of drawings! Execessive regulations stifle innovations and increase costs. It also protects those manufacturers that are already producing approved products. This is done by designing the tests around existing product performance characteristics. Its like the generals that are always fighting the last war. It makes those in power feel good that they did something, even it is worthless. As an analogy, just look at the the price of an average home compared to the median income of a family of the last 30 years. Is these building constructed 30 years ago are so dangerous and unsafe why aren't we required to tear them down? I am totally enamored with construction science and believe there are many advances yet to be made. But Science is the operative word, not politics. Politics is how the code is made reagrdless of the technical arguments. Just look at the LEED/CHPS point systems. This forum is the absolute best place for real technical knowledge in the building industry. People like you are essential in sharing that knowledge. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1099 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Sunday, March 31, 2013 - 02:35 pm:    UL testing is only required when UL certification is desired. The IBC does not dictate who is required to do the testing beyond the requirement that testing be conducted by an "Approved Agency," which is defined by the IBC. Any testing agency that can prove to the building official (not ICC or UL) that the agency is independent with no conflict of interest, and that the test conformed to the standard's prescribed testing procedures, should be considered acceptable. I agree that regulation can be over done. No one need look further than to California--the poster child for over-regulation. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 554 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Sunday, March 31, 2013 - 09:06 pm:    There is a lot of confusion regarding approved agency. According to the IBC approval means approved by the local building official. Thus unless the building official has approved specific testing agencies there are no approved agencies. Since most building officials have not officially approved the testing agency that performed the tests then they are not in compliance. When a product is addressed in the building code the only value of an ICC-ES evaluation report is that it summarizes certain information . As far as the code is concerned you only need test reports showing that the product complied with the designated standards. Since ICC-ES does not perform any testing the ICC-ES report does not satisfy that requirement. Thus for products that are addressed in the building code ICC-ES evaluation reports are primarily a marketing tool. If you are requiring evaluation reports for these products you are likely unnecessarily excluding code compliant products. For a product that is addressed in the building code the building officials ”approval” is limited to verification that the criteria in the code has been satisfied. If we exclude public schools and hospitals you may find that in most cases there is little difference between the IBC and the CBC. The primary difference is that California is generally more conscientious about enforcing the building code. Richard Gonser AIA CSI CCCA SCIP LEED Senior Member Username: rich_gonser Post Number: 40 Registered: 11-2008 Posted on Monday, April 01, 2013 - 11:47 am:    If you exclude schools and hospitals (most of my work) AND local building departments in California, then I would agree with you, Mark. However, in this hyper-politcized California, the practical effect is as I described. The local building offical only knows the rules of the code and does have the time to vett a lab. As a result, only the ICC-ES and UL reports are accepted. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 228 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Monday, April 01, 2013 - 12:20 pm:    Richard Could explain what this discussion about testing that you started has to do with the subject of this thread - specifiers (not talking about manufacturer's lunch and learns) providing technical edcuation to others in their firm and clients? ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 488 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, April 01, 2013 - 12:49 pm:    Bob, in your similar LinkedIn thread, Sheldon Wolfe offered some great thoughts and caveats about this topic. I strongly suggest everyone read it. I particularly liked his idea about the "Hot Flashes and Motion Sickness" class. One of the better opportunities I've seen lately are the Arc-US/ArchiSpec forums that offer educations sessions paired with 'speed-dating' between design professionals and manufacturers. CSI's Master Specifiers' Retreat is similar but is limited to specifiers so it's not as pertinant to this discussion. The speakers at these functions are usually innovative architects and specifiers but also include other innovators in our industry. Most sessions are well presented and well received. Unfortunately, these are still aimed at relatively small groups of people, usually decision-makers, not the rank-and-file who need the information the most. One disturbing trend that seems to be ongoing over the many years we've been having this conversation has been the fact that those who need the information the most are those who are least likely to attend sessions when they are offered. They tend to go to the lunch-and-learn propoganda sessions, I suppose since they don't have to go far and the programs include a "free lunch" they see it as their least painful alternative. Unfortunately they turn down the opportunities for 'best bang for the buck', often because it takes a little effort on their part. Not sure how to overcome this obstacle. It would seem to me that with all the smoke CSI has been spouting about losing membership and not being relevant, this is our biggest downfall. There is a HUGE need and we are the ones who should be filling the gap. As Bob has been saying for years, what brings in people is programming. We need to stop having product reps provide "technical educational sessions" at our meetings and functions that are usually little more than slanted marketing hype. We need real experts and consultants who are learned hands-on practitioners who can get up, show some photos, and tell their war stories. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 555 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Monday, April 01, 2013 - 12:54 pm:    Even in California the building officials do not vet labs that do not perform special inspections locally. Thus the lab at UL and most of the labs that perform tests that will be submitted to ICC-ES are not approved by the local building department. Yes there is a bias towards ICC-ES and UL reports but that is a result of the building officials ignoring the laws. When a building official bases his acceptance solely on whether there is an ICC-ES evaluation report or not and not upon the underlying data then the building official is creating a monopoly forcing the manufacture to hire ICC-ES. This not unique to California and is not a function of over regulation. The building code recognizes that individuals, including building officials, can rely upon lab reports. ICC-ES evaluation reports are not lab reports. They summarize conclusions but provide no test data and are not lab reports. They are not engineering reports because they are not signed by a licensed design professional. My contention is that if the provisions in the IBC were enforced as required by the IBC you would find that in many cases commonly accepted products could not be used. Thus the complaints are tied to the fact that there is enforcement and abuses of the enforcement process. Where there are problems with the regulations in California you may find that the same problem exists in the IBC. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1331 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, April 02, 2013 - 05:28 pm:    I really see continuing education as part of the purview of the specifier in a firm. Typically there is no one else in the office who sees the majority of the office projects (unless only one person signs all the drawings) and only the specifier hears problems on all the jobs in the office. After a couple of years, I think a good specifier can get a sense of what additional information the staff needs, and then go find that. Part of our job is to be connected to the professional community, and that includes knowing people who are expert in both their topics and their presentation skills. As senior people on the staff, we are in a position to discern between what information we think the office needs to know (based on what we see in the documents) - and what the "next new thing" is. I see my oversight into the lunch and learn topics and speakers as being the critical link in the programs. If we've had issues with something, I'll ask the speaker to address it; if the speaker leaves out (what I think is) critical information, I'll ask the question to bring out the point. The Socratic method works well in those situations.