Unraveling the Tapestry of Specifications: Office Masters vs. Guide Specs

In the intricate world of specifying, specifications serve as the quality standard for bringing architectural visions to life. Two key players in this realm are office masters and guide specs, each contributing distinct perspectives to the specification process.

Office Masters: Crafting Precision for Unique Identities

– Tailored Expertise: Office masters are like bespoke suits for construction projects. They are meticulously crafted by specific architectural or engineering firms to suit their unique preferences, methodologies, and standards (best practices). These specifications embody the accumulated wisdom and expertise of the firm, reflecting its distinct identity.

– In-House Advantage: One of the primary purposes of office masters is to streamline internal processes. They serve as a comprehensive guide for project teams, ensuring consistency in decision-making, material choices, and construction methodologies. This internal cohesion contributes to smoother project execution and fosters a sense of continuity across various endeavors.

– Continuous Refinement: Office masters are living documents, evolving with each project. As new insights emerge, or technologies advance, firms update their office masters to incorporate the latest industry standards. This continuous refinement ensures that the specifications stay relevant, efficient, and aligned with the firm’s evolving ethos.

Guide Specs: A Universal Compass for Construction

– Industry Wisdom: Guide specs are the industry’s way of offering a collective wisdom. Developed by industry organizations or associations, these generic specifications provide a foundational framework for a wide range of construction projects. They encapsulate best practices, general standards, and commonly accepted methodologies.

– Starting Point for Customization: Guide specs are not one-size-fits-all; rather, they offer a starting point for customization. Architectural and engineering firms use them as a baseline, tailoring the specifications to fit the unique requirements of their projects. This adaptability allows for flexibility while maintaining a level of consistency across the industry.

– Accessibility and Collaboration: Guide specs promote a collaborative environment by establishing a common language within the construction community. They facilitate communication between different stakeholders—architects, contractors, and suppliers—ensuring that everyone is on the same page regarding expectations and standards.

Conclusion: A Symphony of Specificity and Universality

In the grand symphony of construction, office masters and guide specs play harmonious yet distinct roles. Office masters echo the nuanced expertise of individual firms, providing a tailored approach that reflects their unique identity. Guide specs, on the other hand, act as a universal language, fostering collaboration and ensuring a shared foundation of industry best practices.

Together, these specifications weave a tapestry that defines the construction landscape—one where precision meets universality, and where the expertise of individual firms contributes to the collective wisdom of the industry.

Specs Are Worthless

50% And Not Worthless

Specifications are 50% of the Contract Documents, fact. These non-graphical documents convey the minimum quality standard and help to define the scope of work. The graphical documents, the Drawings, convey quantities, spatial relationships, dimensions, and also help define the scope of work.

There is no building without Drawings and Specs.

The Question

Why are Specifications given so little attention, on average, across the industry?

Copy Projects

The ease of copy and paste is tempting. It’s quick, it’s easy, and all the work is done. When working with word documents, who wouldn’t copy and paste. All of your budget goes towards TOC edits, headers and footers and that’s pretty much it. So what is the problem with copy and paste of projects… Just about everything!

Note: there are some instances where it makes sense. I have done quite a few copy and paste projects when it made sense. For instance, specifying 5 new gyms for a school district, who wants to repeat all of that.

With copy and paste, or simply copy projects, a team member copies the project manual or individual sections from past projects. Little time is budgeted, so therefore little time is spent on actually updating the specifications or fixing past mistakes. In some cases, the specs are copied the night before.

Ask any product rep about project specs. They see the same ones over and over with the same mistakes. Copy projects are a problem for everyone. RFIs, change orders, and just down right negligence of the contract documents doesn’t help anyone.

Specifications should be started almost every time from a fresh set. Why? Because you get the latest most up to date information and hopefully won’t be making the same mistakes. Start budgeting for specs and using a software that helps make the specification process efficient.

Specifications Are Difficult

False. Specifications are not difficult. Simply put, Specifications are broken down into 3 parts:

1. General – Administrative requirements the Contractor must submit for verification.

2. Products – Product types and manufacturers are listed along with any accessories.

3. Execution – How to install the product types.

Architectural schools and the industry fail in providing the younger generation the knowledge to produce well-written, coordinated specifications. If you have a great mentor that’s awesome! Most don’t.

Specifications are also often viewed as a restricted legal document only a few can touch or review. Um… what about the Drawings? Younger professionals work on those all day so why not the specifications as well? It’s all about the Drawings, which by far take the longest to complete and eat up, most likely, over 99% of the project budget.

We need to start mentoring young professionals on all things specs from the start of their career. Stop making them so secret, it adds to the false narrative they are difficult. Have them review easy sections such as signage or parking lot striping, develop a 5 year plan for specification growth and watch as your document coordination grows.

Lack of Training

Why is there a lack of training? Because the knowledge lacks across the board. There is more emphasis on becoming a licensed Architect than learning the basics of project delivery. This is covered in the exam, but… On average, last time I checked it’s about, on average, over 15 years for someone to become licensed and pass those exams from their date of graduation.

If I am an employer, I am hiring any college graduate with a CDT. Why? Because they understand project delivery and have a basic understanding of specs. Basic training is done and I can focus on the more technical aspects of a project. My assumption is that college grads are not getting introduced properly to project delivery or specs until at least 5 years in. Within that 5 years, you can take someone “green” and turn them into a specifier, which makes them one of the more valuable team members, if not the most.

I see it all the time with training. Sorry but those that give the wrong name to Division 00 and 01, you aren’t specifiers, no matter how many years experience you have. A well taught specifier knows the difference between those two, knows the relationship between the General Conditions and the General Requirements, and knows how to coordinate all specifications, not just pick up red lines.

That is the training we need to provide. Anyone can pick up redlines. Very few can actually coordinate a project manual and coordinate with the Drawings.

Process Inefficiencies

Having a centralized or decentralized specification process doesn’t matter if it’s an inefficient process. The biggest culprit is word docs. STOP USING MICROSOFT WORD FOR SPECIFICATIONS. Using Microsoft Word is the equivalent to hand drawings, maybe AutoCad, maybe. Specification Writers are losing valuable time and not taking advantage of technology by using word docs. Integration with Revit, content automation, intelligent reporting, standards, and analytics are all capable with technology and have a massive impact on the spec writing process.

Incorporate the spec writer or the person responsible for the specs into the team and set up a communicative and proactive process. It can be done and it has been done. I decreased my initial project manual creation time from 8 hrs to 4 hrs which gave me more time to spend with the team to learn about the project.

Understand good spec data and use it to your advantage. Learn your most used specs to focus efforts on updates, learn task completion time to set priorities and most importantly, use date to make data-driven decisions.

The Return of Specs

Specifications need a boost, and we need to tackle this problem together. Ask any Contractor, the Contract Documents are getting worse. Knowledge about constructing a building is not being properly transferred to the younger generations, and although this is a large problem to tackle, we can start by first tackling the specification problem together. I have faith in the industry that we can do this, but we have to do this together. Let’s get started by communicating, forming a coalition, and enacting change within our own firms, and discussing approaches. We can all learn from one another. So let’s go and do this.

Should Specifiers Be Taking A Different Approach To … Specifying? (An intriguing thought exercise)

Just because we have been doing something a certain way for years / decades / forever, doesn’t mean we can’t change it. The art of specification writing, and yes it is an art, hasn’t changed much over time. I am not talking about the format, wording, placement of articles, etc, I am referring to the product information specified. Think about it. Have you changed your approach to how you specify product information in Part 2 over time? You probably have standard language you want for different products, and it all revolves around the “salient” properties. The “salient” properties…

“Salient” is defined per Google Dictionary as “most noticeable or important”. Specification Writers specify the MOST important product information, but who decided what was important? Was it the specification writer, the product manufacturer, or someone else? Deciding on what product information is important or “salient” seems subjective. I think we can all agree some information is important, like a material thickness, a fire rating, coating or finish, but what about other types of product information, like a list of ASTMs?

I’m not going to argue what specific product information is important and what is not, nor get into the different types of specifications related to product information specified. I am simply asking the question:

Are we specifying the right information that helps protect the established minimum quality and help protect the Owner?

When I specified products, the product information I included was what I DEEMED important, but was it really? We specify certain product information to protect the minimum quality set in the specification and protect the Owner. But… can we protect the minimum quality and the Owner a different way? Is the product information you specify the right information? These are important questions to ask because what if this is the wrong approach… or an inefficient and ineffective approach? Even though we have been doing it this way for decades…

What if the product information that should be specified is the information that the product manufacturer needs to provide a good estimate, therefore increasing their chance of winning the bid and protecting the established minimum quality and Owner. Think about it, why are we specifying information that is not important to the product manufacturer? Is it so we can justify the product quality, make a case for rejecting a substitution, having information handy in lieu of taking time to look for it? Wouldn’t the specification be better if the product information specified was applicable to the product manufacturer and allowed for a more competitive bid?

Manufacturers do not sell products to Architects. They sell an information service (the rep) and supply information. If they cannot provide that, my bet is they aren’t specified too often. So what if the approach specifiers took is by asking the product manufacturer what information should be specified in order for you to provide a competitive bid? In lieu of asking “I need a cut sheet, guide spec, etc that has this and that.” This question and approach (asking the product manufacturer what information should be specified) is a complete 180 approach to specifying. With thousands upon thousands of products specified, who are the specifiers to say what product information should be specified? We are far from product experts.

The manufacturer is the product expert, they presumably then should be the ones who determine the product information to specify by simply providing it upon request or make it know what needs to be specified. They know what information should be specified. I want to make this point again:

What if the product information that should be specified is the information that the product manufacturer needs to provide a good estimate, therefore increasing their chance of winning the bid and protecting the established minimum quality and Owner.

Specifiers, we should be able to rely on the true product experts to help protect the minimum quality specified and protect the Owner by allowing them to have a voice within the specification writing process. Not dictate what product information WE need.

Why do lesser quality products end up on projects? Cost. So why can we, the specifier, help out the manufacturer as I described above, by allowing them to provide us the “salient” product properties?

This was a very interesting thought exercise I put myself through and tried my best to put it down on paper. Again, I am not arguing one approach or another, but simply asking if there is a better approach to specifying by giving the product manufacturer a voice.

Building product manufacturers, I would love to here from you on this! Please feel free to reach out to me in the comments or email me at jeffrey.Potter90@gmail.com.

One More “C”

Those of us that took the CDT know well the four C’s of the industry: Clear, Concise, Complete, and Correct. When following these 4 C’s during development of the Specifications AND the Drawings, it can bring them to a whole new level and easily see them as a complimentary set of Contract Documents. I’m not saying if you following the 4 C’s your Contract Documents will be perfect. There will still be miscorrdinated items, errors and omissions, and the need for clarifications. What I am saying is that if you are following the 4 C’s, you have the potential to limit your risk and have a set of Contract Documents that is easily understandable. I do like the 4 C’s and promote the practice when developing Specifications and Drawings, but I do think it’s time for an update. If you are on the Manufacturer or Contractor side, think about what is missing with those 4 C’s.

I’ll give you hint: gypsum board vs. gypsum wall board. Here is another hint: weather barrier vs. vapor barrier vs. air barrier.

Looking at the Specifications you might see gypsum board, while looking at the Drawings you see gypsum wall board. Or you see weather barrier in the Specifications and Vapor Barrier or Air Barrier on the Drawings. The first example, gypsum board, probably doesn’t have any cost impact, but it’s rather annoying the Architect or Specifier can’t use consistent terminology right? The second example, weather barrier, may have cost implications. If you see a specification for weather barrier and the product is a weather barrier by definition, but the Drawings have air barrier or vapor barrier everywhere, what does that mean? Did the Architect or Specifier use inconsistent terminology or not specify a product? Without looking at the set and not knowing the assembly intent, your guess is as good as mine. It would need an RFI to the Architect for clarification. Which costs time and money for the Architect to process.

What I am getting at here and what I want to add is a 5th C for … CONSISTENCY. Architects and Specifiers need to be consistent with their terminology across Specifications and Drawings. Using same terms and verbiage, so as to not cause confusion. If you call gypsum board, gypsum board, in the Specifications, you better call it gypsum board on the Drawings. It was one of my biggest pet peeves to see Drawings with multiple keynotes or sheet notes with various terminology describing the same product. Boy, I would redline the heck out of those sets. AIA Contract Documents published an Article in October 2021 titled, “The Top Five Overlooked Contract Terms and Conditions”, which stated should be reviewed prior to signing contracts. Guess what the #2 reason was?

“Specification Terminology”

My interpretation of that is Architects and Specifiers are not using CONSISTENT terminology or not using industry standard or recognized terminology. The International Building Code does a really great job of defining terms and those should be the definitions and terminology we should be following. If not indicated in that definition chapter, using industry recognized terminology is the next best.

Here is another example: SS. What does SS mean? To an interior designer it could mean solid surface, to a structural engineer it could mean stainless steel, and to a plumbing engineer it could mean service sink. It is extremely important to not only use the same terminology, but to stay consistent with the abbreviations as outlined on the Drawings.

On a side note, I am not advocating for the Division 01 Section that states definitions nor am I advocating for a definition article within each specification section. This is the 21st century, if you really have to define something, then it should be a brand new product that no one knows what it is. Specifications, in general, need an update, and excluding definition Articles or sections is a must. This is a whole other conversation, so back to…

CONSISTENCY

Architects and Specifiers need to use consistent terminology across Specifications and Drawings to limit risk. Not having firm standards or following industry recognized terms creates an unnecessary risk that is easily avoidable. Manufacturers and Contractors would love this and would thank you for being consistent across your Contract Documents. Those with pet peeves similar to mine, would love this. So let’s get CSI to add in the 5th C and start practicing consistency.

Building the Relationship

I would be interested to know what percentage of Architects, Specifiers, and Designers still use the manufacturers hard copy product catalog. It would also be interesting to know what percentage of manufacturer reps still carry these product catalogs. When I first started at HMC roughly 6 years ago, there were two walls of book shelves, probably 20 feet long, 6 feet high, filled with product catalogs. The day after the Director of Specs retired in 2017, myself, along with another specifier, spent half the day throwing them out. Why? Because no one ever used them and they were covered with dust. The information contained in those product catalogs was irrelevant. Not just because of product changes, but because of the internet. All the information in those product catalogs could easily be found on websites. For sometime after, reps would bring in updated product catalogs, and I said no thank you to them. I wasn’t interested in rebuilding a dust collection. What I was more interested in… building a relationship with them.

I bring up the product catalogs because I believe they were a major contributor to the relationship between an Architect, Specifier or Designer (ASD) and a manufacturer rep. The rep was ‘forced’ to come and update the catalog every couple of months or so and have that face-to-face with the ASD. Now, with all information on the internet and email communication, that update doesn’t happen, theoretically lessening that face-to-face meeting frequency and lessening the strength of the relationship between ASD and rep. I think it was an easy sell for a rep to say, “Hey, can I stop by for 5 minutes, update the product catalog and see how things are going?” The ASD needs updated, current information, so why would they say no to that. With product catalogs becoming and now obsolete, what’s the benefit to having reps come in for the ASD when information can be found via the internet or communication through email?

Relationship Building. Nothing replaces a face-to-face conversation in a conference room. Nothing replaces the handshake.

Designing and then constructing a building today can be extremely complicated. Yes, it has always complicated, but with the thousands of products out there, new technologies, energy code requirements, specific project conditions, etc., how is the ASD supposed to KNOW EVERYTHING? We can’t. Simple as that. We must rely on the rep to help us out and tell us how and where their products work. ASDs are not the product experts in most cases, the reps are. They have the training and tools to provide the required information to the ASD for the use of their product. This is why building a relationship and MAINTAINING it are so important to the ASD. The ASD should be including the rep, when needed, early on in the project. They should be sending drawings and specs out for a quick review to them. I don’t think that happens too much. Partly because the relationship isn’t there, and partly because certain project delivery methods inhibit communication…

I wish we could end Design-Bid-Build. I wish we could end Public Bid in California. Those two inhibit communication between the ASD, the rep, contractors and trades, and the Owner. This is a whole other post, but in short, I wish everything could be integrated project delivery (IDP) where we get all parties involved early and often to produce a great set of Contract Documents, construct a building with few hiccups, and thus giving the Owner a building they love on time and on budget. IDP helps build these relationships between all parties and we can see the successes from it. Especially the development of the relationship between the ASD and reps.

Because of the pandemic, my rep meetings have become virtual. It’s not an exact substitute for a face-to-face, but it’s the next best thing. I’m learning that having strong relationships with my local reps is a huge benefit. Not just because of the information they provide to the project, but because of the VALUE that can be added. Reps are the experts like I mentioned before. ASDs need to fully utilize them in their projects from beginning to end. I will say, the project will be better for it and the knowledge gained will only help.

I want to thank all the reps in this industry, especially the ones I have a relationship with. Thank you for the help you have provided and I look forward to continuing our relationship. Only together can we make change, positive change, in this industry.