Thinking Outside of The Box...
Author
Message
Anonymous
Posted on Wednesday, May 26, - 06:18 pm: What does it mean to never use Arcom Masterspec "Out of the box"? I have heard that so many times from various people and I am not certain what they mean. What if any work is required to Arcom that may not be required for something like Speclink BSD? What are the pro's or con's regarding one or the other...if any?
Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 34
Registered: 03-
Posted on Wednesday, May 26, - 06:33 pm: It means: Don't print and bind a section into a project manual without editing it first based on the following reasons:
1) Some things don't follow CSI standards (i.e. PageFormat, SectionFormat, Manual of Practice)
2) Each section contains various options that need to be narrowed down based on project requirements.
3) Most sections contain products or materials that won't be used on every project.
MasterSpec is similar to Speclink in that editing is a must before publishing in a project manual. Each has pros and cons, but we use MasterSpec in our office. I haven't used Speclink directly, but I've used their PerSpective software for performance specifications, and it uses the same principles as Speclink.
I like the support documents that are provided with MasterSpec, which provide indepth information for a particular specification section.
Marc C Chavez
Senior Member
Username: mchavez
Post Number: 33
Registered: 07-
Posted on Wednesday, May 26, - 07:40 pm: Well let's put it this way, Masterspec with notes and all text is 50 pages long
Without notes it's 36 pages long
My Speclink section is 10 pages with (granted fewer) notes. My final sections average about 8
My final Masterspec averages 15-20 pages and my Structural engineers home made is about the same.
Masterspec is more verbose. Speclink and Spectext are not.
Most importantly "out of the box" means no pre-editing. You have to make every decision every time. Now if you don&#;t ever use epoxy reinforcement delete those lines of text now save the document as your &#;standard&#; and you never have to make that decision again.
Get it? Got it. Good!
Now, next point. If you eliminate epoxy rebar and a year from now your working on a job that requires it. But you don&#;t remember what to write down (ASTM&#;s and all) you have no choice but to go back to the original and reselect the missing lines. Of course you can pre-edit all the sections using the Word reviewing tool and have them all pre-marked for deletion. But it&#;s not as easy to read.
Speclink is an additive process not a deductive one. And more importantly if you don&#;t want something it&#;s still there but grayed-out. You can add it in (and that choice alone will add other needed paragraphs in because IT&#;S A DATABASE) remember you can (and should) pre-edit speclink too! Oh! Think of the fun!
The real joy begins when you get your quarterly update. Masterspec using Word you have to go through a compare documents process per section. With Speclink you hit the go button and your done.
Mr Geren is correct in that the Masterspec support doc's are VERY good.
Good luck.
Anonymous
Posted on Wednesday, May 26, - 08:24 pm: Thanks for the feedback - and I am hoping for more!! However...I guess my interpretation of "out of the box" runs along the line of reference standards as an example. Does Masterspec have a comprehensive listing ASTM's or are there additions that are required that you would not have to make if using speclink? I understand that editing is required for both. it seemsthat speclink is more comprhensive and able to be edited right out of the box.
Tracy Van Niel
Senior Member
Username: tracy_van_niel
Post Number: 83
Registered: 04-
Posted on Thursday, May 27, - 07:49 am: To me, right out of the box means that you are using the "master" without incorporating and making a standard part of the master any specific requirements from past project history or project type. In other words, simply deleting and filling in the blanks.
We are currently subscribers to SpecLink for some of the very reasons noted above. Because SpecLink masters are based on an overlay type process, the underlying master is always current. We have developed our own "master project" that incorporates the specific items we want included in our projects based on past history and the project types we specialize in.
David R Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted on Thursday, May 27, - 10:52 am: It is agreed that Arcom is indeed verbose, and for a reason: It is intended to be all things to all people. As such, it contains both prescriptive and performance requirements.
So, if you are writing a prescriptive (or proprietary / semi-propretary) specification, much of the performance-related provisions can be deleted. If you are writing a performance specification, the proprietary information can be deleted. I know of no instance where it would be necessary to retain both. In fact, retaining both (as may be the case with some inexperienced specification writers) is what may lead to an overly large Project Manual, laden with so much redundant - and in some cases conflicting - information as to diminish it's credibility as a meaningful Contract Document.
A decently educated and experienced specifications writer should have a thorough enough working knowledge of both types of specifications so they know not only what to EDIT, but also what to DELETE / RETAIN.
Russell W. Wood
Senior Member
Username: woodr
Post Number: 15
Registered: 11-
Posted on Thursday, May 27, - 11:37 am: In addition to being long-winded, my problem with MasterSpec is it just looks so old fashion and funky.....with new times roman font and fails to follow CSI PageFormat. SpecLink looks fast and sleek by comparison! My motto is "if you can't make your documents be right.....at least make them look right!"
Anonymous
Posted on Thursday, May 27, - 12:11 pm: While MasterSpec's verbosity isn't as serious a problem as its inability to be updated conveniently, or the long interval between section updates (last I heard, they are done on a rotating basis, each section updated about every 3-4 years), it is at least as frustrating.
Wherever possible, it seems to use as many words as possible - such as "This Section includes the following" instead of just "Section Includes" - even though the longer expression is no more meaningful. I have long suspected that MasterSpec uses the longest phraseology it can get away with mainly to protect its copyright.
But the verbosity is only one aspect of an approach that seems to reflect an attitude that "Bulk is better, so make the book as thick as possible."
To this end, MasterSpec leaves two lines blank between articles, long numbered lists of short lines (like "section includes" list), and double-spacing where the MOP recommends single-spacing - lots of white space.
And it repeats whole portions of text - such as long lists of the same manufacturers listed separately for various products - within a section, not to mention its identical "Related Documents" article beginning each section - a blatant violation of the "Say it once, and say it right" principle. So it is inherently inefficient in its organization, as well. (If there's anything I can't stand, its something that is redundant, repetitious, gratuitous, superfluous and unnecessary...)
Of course, one can bulk up without MasterSpec; just use a Courier 10-pitch fixed-spaced typewriter font, wide margins, and print on only one side of the page...
Is the bulk supposed to impress the client? At one time, it might have, and still might impress some today. But it isn't good practice. There's no excuse for MasterSpec's wanton waste of words and paper. It just makes it harder to wade through, especially if one is trying to "trim the fat," which involves a lot of re-writing, not just massive deletion.
But, for those to whom such things matter, it IS wrapped up in the biggest "box" under the tree. It just takes a lot of time to get rid of all the embedded packing.
Like steriod use by athletes, bulking up specs is ultimately detrimental, whatever the perceived short-term advantage. It's time MasterSpec's masters radically changed their attitude and approach.
D. Marshall Fryer
Senior Member
Username: dmfryer
Post Number: 29
Registered: 09-
Posted on Thursday, May 27, - 05:15 pm: I often include a limited set of salient performance requirements in my prescriptive specifications, for example:
2.1 WIDGETS
A. Products: Subject to compliance with requirements, provide the following:
1. WidgCo., model no. W-123 widgets.
B. Material: 316 stainless steel.
Now everyone knows that WidgCo. W-123 widgets are made from 316 stainless steel, but what if they decide to change the W-123 to 304 stainless steel after I write the spec.? The client isn't going to be very happpy with his new beach house, is he?
This spec. language example may be rejected by some as redundant, but I find it can protect the Owner against manufacturers who decide to change or cheapen their product, between the time I specify it and the time the contractor procures it.
Also, it can make it easier for me to justify my rejection of unacceptable substitution requests, particularly when the contractor tries an end run to the client.
Contractor: You should use WidgTech Super widgets instead.
Owner: Sounds great to me.
Architect with no performance language: But the is made of zinc.
Contractor: You never said the widget couldn't be zinc.
Owner (to contractor): I like the sound of "Super ." Go with it.
Owner (to Architect): You idiot.
Not all contractors aspire to the same level of linguistic expertise as do CSI spec writers. The "say it once..." mantra is a nice ideal, but in practice some CYA is also necessary.
Anonymous
Posted on Friday, May 28, - 10:51 am: With all of the above said, how long does it take...on average...for ya'll to edit ONE ARCOM vs. Speclink section? I've just taken almost 50 hrs to "nearly complete" (i.e., there's still some remaining edits to be determined) 14 ARCOM full-length sections. Unforturnately, because of the updating process, our office "mandate" is to always start new projects from original ARCOM versions.
Any feedback?
Marc C Chavez
Senior Member
Username: mchavez
Post Number: 34
Registered: 07-
Posted on Friday, May 28, - 11:12 am: How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Pop? Let's see. One. Two. CRUNCH. Three.
I believe that Speclink is a lot faster "out of the box." for one reason only as I said before I have 10 pages to review ARCOM has 50. I have 1/5 the raw reading time.
The real question is pre-editing. With both products the editing time for CIP concrete should be "0" if you have pre-edited the concrete section. For most buildings MOST of the time concrete is concrete.
Give me the number of the Powers That Be at your office and I'll tell them that editing ARCOM&#;S product from SCRATCH every time is not only NOT what the manufacturer wants you to do but is bloody STUPID. (That&#;s putting it mildly.)
(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted on Friday, May 28, - 04:39 pm: Due to SpecLink's database/overlay structure (Users can't ever delete master text, only "hide" it), any project or section can serve as a "master" for a subsequent project. Unused text can be "turned on," and unneeded text "turned off," for the new project. In effect, any project can be used as a pre-edited master - you have as many "building type" masters as you have projects. It even gives you several pre-edited typical projects to use as starting points. And, you can collect pre-edited sections from several projects into a new one. Like sourmash whiskey or sourdough bread, each batch can be used to start the next.
SpecLink's big advantage here is the avoidance of the intermediate step strongly recommended by MasterSpec - the process of pre-editing its "guide" specifications into a customized master, which is valid only until the next update, when all such sections must either be re-pre-edited, or compared with the update, and the differences resolved one by one, a laborious and time-consuming process that, more often than not, doesn't get done.
And this is a big advantage - after all, it's the way most specs are done by most people (modifying a previous similar job). Since the whole master text is always still there in the background, SpecLink finally makes that process work better than any of the alternatives. In other words, SpecLink has taken the way specs are done in the real world, and finally made it work - optimized it.
That's its biggest advantage. But the utterly simple updates are a big bonus (virtually automatic, if you want them to be). And in addition to being quick and easy, SpecLink's updates don't wipe out your own modifications and added text, as MasterSpec's do - they survive intact in the updated version. Now, there's a benefit!
With SpecLink, the "out of the box" question is moot. It never boxes you in.
Anne Whitacre, CCS CSI
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 93
Registered: 07-
Posted on Friday, June 18, - 04:58 pm: what has been neglected in this whole discussion is that by using LINX, Masterspec sections can be quickly edited; the edit decisions saved for reuse; and the decision process "visible" to the editor. I can generally edit a spec section an hour using LINX, even on the big complicated sections -- and then a second edit cleans up the section and allows you to add any additional information.
I cannot comment on SpecLink because I don't subscribe to it and haven't used it.
As to the discussions about verbosity: as one of the review committee for Masterspec, I can comment that because Masterspec is attempting to be useful for clients all across the country, and doing a variety of project types and sizes, it does mean that about 50-65% of the text will be deleted for every project. However, there are also different versions of each Masterspec section: Short Form is condensed to those things that are "more typically done" by the greater number of people; there is also an Outline version of each section. This means... that you're not "boxed in" unless you want to be.
Richard L. Hird (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted on Monday, June 21, - 10:14 pm: Ann
The following is what is meant by verbose, not the inclusion of excess subject matter.
"Excavate to indicated elevations and dimensions within a tolerance of plus or minus 1 inch (25 mm). If applicable, extend excavations a sufficient distance from structures for placing and removing concrete formwork, for installing services and other construction, and for inspections."
The statement has nothing to do with scope, type or location of the work. I would bet every Master Spec user leaves it in "as is", even though the only thing worth sayin is:
"Excavation Tolerance - plus or minus 1 inch (25mm)."
Anonymous
Posted on Wednesday, June 23, - 11:50 am: Richard
I would agree with you except...when a contractor asks for a change order to extend his excavations a reasonable amount to accomplish his work and it is denied, he will inevitably say "Well, where in the spec does it say to do that?" We are constantly adding verbiage to try to battle "so called loopholes" that the contractors are so adept at using to their advantage. I know there are a lot of arguments to use against the contractor, if they make that claim. I also know there are alot of arguments to use against a specifier using the words "if applicable" in their specs. However, whatever good we recieve from brevity, there is always the opportunity for a contractor to take advantage of our lack of saying something. Extended verbiage is usually a result of a bad experience in the field and the attempt to eliminate it from future projects. "Excavation Tolerance - plus or minus 1 inch (25mm)" is certainly clear, concise,and correct, but, in some cases, it may not be complete.
(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted on Wednesday, June 23, - 01:50 pm: Good point, Anonymous. But here the problem may not be the deletion of all that qualifying verbosity, but specifying a 1-inch tolerance for "excavation" in the first place.
Think about it. Does "Excavate to indicated elevations and dimensions within a tolerance of plus or minus 1 inch..." make any sense? What do we use for this, precision-calibrated backhoes?
Yeah, I know a really good dozer or grader operator can shave the ground with half-inch accuracy. But that's grading, not excavation. Except for earth-formed footings - and for drilled piers and boring, with their centerline location tolerance and minimum diameter - I can't think of a case where requiring such precision makes any sense. We typically specify what to do in case excavation goes too far (use more concrete). But tolerances? They should be specified for the work that is built, yes - but not the hole it goes in.
Perhaps this is a unique example. I certainly agree with Richard Hird's previous post on what "verbosity" really is. It's not the wide range of text to suit many possible conditions; that's good. However, whenever possible, Masterspec seems to use more words than it has to - up to twice as many (e.g., "This Section Includes the Following" for "Section Includes", cited above). That's infuriating because it takes detailed rewriting, not just deleting inappropriate blocks of text, to fix. And since that kind of editing takes way too much time, and won't even survive the next update, it's not worth it. So it never gets done.
Maybe Masterspec's verbosity dates back to when specwriters were paid by the word...
Anne Whitacre, CCS CSI
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 94
Registered: 07-
Posted on Wednesday, June 23, - 02:16 pm: the "verbosity" ... one of the Masterspec writers jokes that he gets paid by the page, but "anonymous" is correct in that oftentimes the language added to Masterspec is added to counteract just such a problem that one of us has had on the committee. I am as interested in short language and simple language specs as the next person, but I also do most of my projects with big-time sophisticated contractors who nit-pick every word and sentence in the specs.
Masterspec is not always the most elegant solution to the problem.. but it is a fairly consistent solution, and it is updated regularly, and reviewed regularly by practicing professionals who are working on projects in the field on a daily basis. we also tend to communicate regularly with the Masterspec staff, and with each other regarding changes in interpretation and usage. I have often thought that the concrete section is overly long.. but I also know that when that section is custom produced by some of the structural engineers in this area, it comes back a lot longer, and a lot wordier.. and just take a look at what you get from your hardware and elevator consultants!
(not to mention those folks who can take laboratory casework and write a full length book about it...)
Chris Grimm, RLA, CDT, MAI, CSI
Member
Username: tsugaguy
Post Number: 3
Registered: 06-
Posted on Monday, August 01, - 06:41 pm: Hoping to revive an excellent topic: Enter e-SPECS, an additive, AutoCAD or Revit drawing-linked, database driven program which works in conjunction with Arcom MASTERSPEC, as well as "home grown" office masters. (Please excuse the cross-thread posting - see also "ARCOM and e-spec partnership" in same forum topic.)
Our A/E firm is currently doing a pilot test of the program. Has anyone else tried it? At this point we are curious what the MASTERSPEC update process is like. How close is it to Unregistered's 5/28/04 description of BSD: "...the utterly simple updates are a big bonus (virtually automatic, if you want them to be). And in addition to being quick and easy, SpecLink's updates don't wipe out your own modifications and added text, as MasterSpec's do - they survive intact in the updated version." ?
For our office, that sounds great... but, we can not part with the completeness of MASTERSPEC content. LINX has been an enormously helpful tool for managing it since we have been using it for a few months.
Interestingly, e-SPECS Linx will be the replacement for the LINX program in the near future, so we've been taking a close look at what e-SPECS / InterSpec has to offer. So far it has been an amazingly flexible program.
Going beyond where LINX left off, it let's you 1) customize the semantic text relationships, 2) pull sections into your project based on the presence of items in your drawing, and 3) establish some semantic text relationships between spec sections.
www.e-SPECS.com
Architectural Data Systems (ADS) has also entered the market and formed an alliance with Arcom MASTERSPEC content. Their program appears to have rich features with Architectural Desktop for selecting extended CAD object properties, and integrating specs with drawings also.
www.architecturaldatasystems.com
Anne Whitacre, CCS CSI
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 226
Registered: 07-
Posted on Monday, August 01, - 08:24 pm: The text for e-specs right now is the Masterspec short form sections. Arcom has purchased an interest (20% I think, but I may be wrong on that) and therefore the text will continue to be the Masterspec text. The version you are testing is a beta version as e-specs and Arcom work out their working agreement.
The use of any of these systems does not preclude a knowledgeable editor however: the biggest problems I see with specs edited by many professionals is that they don't take enough data out and there is always that issue of details that get done at the very last minute and never even given over to the spec writer. E-specs will provide you with about a 60% spec (they claim 80% but it isn't there yet); and a 60% spec will still need to be refined before going out the door.
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan
Post Number: 104
Registered: 05-
Posted on Tuesday, August 02, - 10:16 am: By using MasterWorks, a few VERY simple macros, and templates with styles, I do some "pre-edit" for visual aspects--took me about 4 hours yesterday to do the entire set of new MasterFormat specs.
As for updating, I do a file search on the relevant date that ARCOM puts in the header and work on those; takes less than an hour to find the documents (usually between 15 and 20), do the pre-editing, and save them to my "current sections" directory.
I do have some office masters derived from MasterSpec and am tending to make more use of them, but I find that our project mix is getting more diverse (by geography and building type), so I do go back to the "original" commercial master quite often.
When I use Lynx, I do pre-edits for content on most sections in less than 10 minutes per section. It takes substantially less time to do the final editing. I do have to go back and apply my office template, but that takes about 15 to 30 seconds per document. I am looking forward to seeing for myself what e-spec will do.
On our typical projects (and any project where we use a previous project as a "go-by"), I am finding it difficult to discover what is different. Most project managers will tell me that this project is just like Project ABC we did last year. It is never "just like" even when the new building is part of the same complex of buildings. That one needed to be sprinklered; this one doesn't. That one had a service corridor with fire-rated partitions and doors, this one doesn't. That one did not have an overhead door, but did have a single exterior rear service door, multiple interior service doors, and an exterior door to a fire sprinkler equipment room; this one doesn't have an overhead door or a fire sprinkler equipment room, but has multiple exterior service doors. That one had a tilt-up concrete parapet with a metal coping; this one has that and a tile roof over a tower. You get the idea.
Often these differences can be readily seen with a little more than casual glance at the Drawings, but it is these projects where time is of an essence and there is more tendency to just copy the last project manual done for the project. It does help the project's quality to go back to the master whether it is back to the office master or the the commercial master even if it takes longer to produce the spec.
25mm rebar coupler rebar mechanical splicing ...