Constructive Thoughts

3 reasons to not get certified

noreply@blogger.com (Sheldon) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 03:56:00 +0000

Aren't you tired of all this talk about certification? No one will tell you, but there are a few good reasons to save your time and skip the exams. Why waste the time and effort on something you probably don't need? If any of these reasons apply to you, sit back and relax - you're in great shape.

You're irreplaceable

Doesn't it feel great? The principals understand and love what you do, and the rest of the staff simply can't believe you know as much as you do. If you're a consultant, your clients realize there is no one else who can do the job quite as well as you. Sure, there might be other people who can do your job, but it's obvious to everyone, they are far less qualified. You're on top, and no one can take your place. Certification won't make you any more valuable.

You have a great job and you will never need another one

You have looked around, and it's clear there is no better place to work. You have a great compensation package, and, because you have been holding the same job almost twenty years, you know your firm or your clients are completely loyal. There is no way they would turn you loose or cut into your income or benefits. If you are approaching retirement, you know you will never need to work again. You're not going anywhere, and you don't need to be certified.

You make too much money

I'm sure you're quite comfortable with your salary, even after the sagging economy of the last few years. You make more than enough to take care of your needs, with plenty left over for your cabin, your annual vacation to the Bahamas, and your flourishing Keogh plan. Kids in college are no problem, and you may even have a fund set up for the grandchildren. You can't possibly make any more money even if you do get certified.

Reality check

I don’t know anyone who fits in any of these categories, and I don't know many people who would not benefit from certification. While certification won't make you irreplaceable, or ensure you'll keep your job, or get you a raise, it increases the possibility of all of those things.

Like it or not, the business world relies on credentials, at least for preliminary evaluation. A person who graduates from a school or apprenticeship program may have a good education, but when a company is hiring, the person with credentials is considered more valuable. A graduate architect or engineer has less to offer than a person with a professional license, and a master mason looking for work will have an advantage over an apprentice.

In the construction industry, CSI credentials are significant. As a specifier, I have great respect for the CDT. When new sales representatives visit my office, the first thing I look for on their business cards is CDT. If they have it, they automatically get more respect and credibility, because I know they are familiar with conditions of the contract and Division 01, and I know they have an understanding of the relationships between owner, designer, contractor, and supplier. If they don't have it, before they leave my office they get a brief sermon about the value of the CDT. I know I am not alone in this; virtually every specifier I know feels the same.

In my corner of the world, specifiers' jobs are rarely advertised; when positions open, architectural firms seek out those specifiers with the CCS, and recognize the value of the CCCA. Similarly, many manufacturers look for representatives with a CDT. Some require their reps to have a CDT; others may not have a formal requirement, but do encourage their reps to obtain CSI credentials.

When I became a specifier, I knew little about specifications and nothing about CSI. I had graduated from an accredited school of architecture, but the only reference to specifications I recall was a casual mention in our Professional Practice class. The school apparently believed there was nothing essential in contract documents - specifications or drawings, at least nothing that could not be picked up on the job with little effort.

Not long after taking the job, my boss suggested I join CSI. That being a time when a suggestion from the boss was tantamount to an order, I joined the local chapter, and quickly acquired CSI's Manual of Practice. Eureka! All was revealed! What previously had been a confusing collection of documents suddenly took on meaning, as, for the first time, I was able to see all of the documents as an integrated, coordinated whole. I joined the chapter study group, and passed the CCS exam about a year later. Without the understanding I gained from the MOP, and from studying for the exam, it would be much more difficult to do my job.

Well, it's certification season again. If you work with specifications, either preparing or reading them, I urge you to pursue CSI credentials. If you're new to the industry, studying for the CDT will be an eye-opening experience. If you've been around a while, but haven't taken the exam, you may be surprised to find that there is logic behind the documents and processes we use daily. "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." (Mark Twain? Will Rogers?)

Rather than give you all the details about this year's exam, and take the chance of providing the wrong information, I'll just refer you to www.csinet.org/certification. There you will find everything you need to know about exam dates, registration for exams, and a free online seminar that will help you learn about the benefits of the CDT.

CSI membership promotion - four days only!

noreply@blogger.com (Sheldon) — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:06:00 +0000

Don't miss this special offer! Join CSI by October 31 and pay only $192 for national dues -- a 20% savings.
1. Visit www.csinet.org/joincsi
2. Select "Join Now", and then click "Sign Up as a New Member"
3. Enter Promotion Code 1220ARCH when prompted
4. Click the "Add Discount" button
We recommend you also join a chapter, where you can attend local education sessions and networking opportunities (chapter dues are not included in this promotional offer).

Whose responsibility?

noreply@blogger.com (Sheldon) — Sun, 24 Jul 2011 15:14:00 +0000

Design professionals rely on manufacturers and suppliers for the information necessary to design a project, and to create specifications and details for incorporation of those products. Advertisements, specifications, and performance data distributed by manufacturers are a primary source of information used by design professionals to determine if a product will meet the requirements of a project. This information is supplemented by discussion with the manufacturer's representatives, distributors, suppliers, and installers, but the written documents must be accurate, factual, and reliable illustrations of how products and assemblies should be used.

It is not unreasonable, then, to expect that a product advertised for a particular use is indeed suitable for that use. Consider a company that produces wood doors. The company's literature calls them wood doors, it specifies them by standards used for wood doors, and it shows pictures of them being used as wood doors. An architect should be comfortable choosing this product for use as a wood door; a specifier should be confident that it can be specified as such; and the owner should have no doubt that it is, indeed, a wood door, with all that implies. But I'm not talking about wood doors.

If manufacturers do not stand behind their products, if they do not accept responsibility for the technical information they furnish, then the design professional, the contractor, and the owner must decide on their own what products to use and how they should be used - often with little experience on which to base their decisions.

Assuming you agree with the previous arguments, you wouldn't use a products from a manufacturer that wanted to absolve itself of responsibility for its products. Or would you? Consider the following statement, found in product date from more than one well-known manufacturer:

It is the responsibility of both the specifier and the purchaser to determine if a product is suitable for its intended use. The designer selected by the purchaser shall be responsible for all decisions pertaining to design, detail, structural capability, attachment details, shop drawings and the like. [Company X] has prepared guidelines in the form of specifications, application details, and product sheets to facilitate the design process only. [Company X] is not liable for any errors or omissions in design, detail, structural capability, attachment details, shop drawings, or the like, whether based upon the information prepared by [Company X] or otherwise, or for any changes which purchasers, specifiers, designers, or their appointed representatives may make to [Company X]'s published comments.

In other words, "We just make this stuff. Even though our literature shows what it should be used for and how it should be detailed, what you do with it is your responsibility. If it doesn't work, that's your problem, even if you used information prepared by us."

Gives you a nice, warm feeling, doesn't it?

In the past couple of weeks, I've been visited by representatives of three EIFS companies, and I was pleased to see that all have made significant improvements in recent years. A few years ago they added drainage, and now they include an air barrier/vapor retarder as part of the system. They also offer multi-year warranties, though at this point I'm not sure what those warranties cover. However, even with an oral promise that they will stand behind their systems, disclaimers like the one above offer little comfort.

Many other manufacturers have similar disclaimers, but few go to this extent. Without the ability to rely on manufacturers' published details and specifications, design professionals are in a tough spot.

Etched in stone

noreply@blogger.com (Sheldon) — Wed, 11 May 2011 02:53:00 +0000

What is the value of a signature? More to the point, what is the value of a "wet" signature? Although some states have taken steps to modernize the requirements for certification of construction documents and other legal documents, others are mired in practices that haven't made sense for a long time.

Of those states that allow something other than a manual signature to certify documents, some allow only software encryption, while others allow a facsimile of a signature. The result is a mix of methods, requiring design professionals to verify requirements for each state. To make things more interesting, states and local agencies are inconsistent in the way they interpret or use state statutes.

What really makes sense? Is a wet signature necessary? What does it prove?

The history of wet signatures is nearly as old as writing. Centuries ago, when few people could read or write, laws allowed a person to sign a contract merely by making an "X" or other mark. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that many documents were explained in terms not used in the documents, then used against those who "signed" them, the argument being that they agreed to the terms, even though they could not read them. Those laws are still with us, and remain subject to abuse.

Despite what is permitted by statutes, many architects and engineers refuse to make use of alternative methods of certification, and insist on manually signing documents. If wet-signed documents are required by statute there is no point in arguing, but when facsimile signatures are acceptable, there is no reason to continue using wet signatures.

With today's technology, anyone can go to the builders exchange, get a certification page, create an image of a signature, and put that signature into another document. After copying or printing, it will be virtually impossible to tell if copies of the new documents were produced from an original with a wet signature. Heck, I could have done the same thing years ago with old-fashioned cut-and-paste.

Consider a document that has a wet signature. Unless you were present when the document was signed, you can't tell if it had been signed by the person whose signature you see, or by someone else. So what does it prove? Should we take it a step further, and require notarization? Then we would have a signature, and a notary seal. But does that really prove anything? Not really; all it would prove is that a person with proper credentials - which might have been forged - signed the document.

It reminds me of a M*A*S*H episode, when Radar asked the colonel to sign a document, then initial his signature to show that he signed it.

Electronic and digital signatures

The terms electronic signature and digital signature often are used interchangeably, but there is a difference. To make it interesting, each state has its own definitions, and its own rules for how they are used, while the federal government has definitions and rules that apply to interstate commerce.

In general, an electronic signature is any electronic thing that is used to show that the intent the person who uses it is to sign a document. In common definitions, it can be a symbol, a process, or even a sound. In many cases, the symbol is a facsimile of the person's signature, reproduced as an electronic image, typically a jpg image or an electronically reproduced document bearing a "real" signature. Most of us use a form of electronic signature without thinking about it; any time you use an ATM or pay a bill online, you are using a process that indicates you agree to making that particular transaction.

In contrast, a digital signature is a form of encryption that can be used not only to verify the origin of a document, but to indicate if the contents have been changed. In practice, it is more "real" than a wet signature. For example, someone could alter the content of a fifty page paper document without much trouble, and with little chance of detection, as long as the page with the signature was left intact. Although technically possible, it is extremely difficult to break the encryption and alter a digital document. Digital signatures would appear to be the best certification method, but I doubt that many firms have the necessary software. Even if encryption were used, it's likely that many recipients would be unfamiliar with it, and would insist on "real" signatures.

Use of both electronic and digital signatures is essential for today's commerce. If we still relied on wet signatures, there would be no ATMs, eBay, or credit cards. We would be required either to appear in person, or to send paper documents with wet signatures (which are easily forged) for every purchase and bank deposit. Not quite what we've become accustomed to!

Federal and state governments not only approve, but encourage the use of both electronic and digital signatures. The Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (ESIGN) states that "electronic" means form, and that a contract or signature “may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form”.

The Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) required federal agencies to use electronic forms, electronic filing, and electronic signatures to conduct official business with the public whenever possible. A practical result many of us enjoy is electronic filing of our income tax returns, if anything related to the IRS can be considered enjoyable.

Certification of construction documents

Given the widespread acceptance of electronic signatures, requiring wet signatures for construction documents simply doesn't make sense. Beyond that, the statutes that govern certification of construction documents vary widely from one state to another, and can be a problem for the unwary.

Of the states I have worked in, most have a single licensing board for all design professionals, but one has one board for architects and another for engineers and surveyors. In that state, the governing statutes are similar, but not identical, for the different professions.

Some states require the use of a seal, while others allow an electronic image of the seal. Some require wet signatures, others do not. Some require that all drawings be signed, while others allow signatures to appear on only the cover page. All accept a single certification page for project manuals. When wet signatures are required, the number of copies required, and the purposes for which they are required vary. As if that weren't confusing enough, interpretation can vary within a state, and local governments sometimes accept documents that do not comply with statutes.

I think we're making progress, and someday, electronic signatures may be acceptable everywhere. But until you know what is required, ask the agencies you're working with what they require - and then check the applicable statutes.

Let bylaws be bygones

noreply@blogger.com (Sheldon) — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 01:39:00 +0000

Oh, if only! CSI's members approved amendments to the Institute bylaws twice in the last few years, and each time, those amendments required changes to region and chapter bylaws. Are we done now?

The answer will depend on how we want CSI to change. The Institute board may recommend that the bylaws be amended, as happened in 2006 when the board proposed changes intended to improve our governance process. Members also may propose changes; this year's amendment was the result of member requests to have a single type of full membership.

Let's take a look at bylaws, and see if we can dispel the mystique that surrounds them. I doubt we'll get to the point that you love them, but at least you should be able to say bylaws without a shudder.

I suspect most members have not read their chapter, region, or Institute bylaws. Until I became a chapter president in 2001, I gave them little attention myself; I figured they were someone else's problem. The general reluctance even to look at bylaws is not surprising. Written in the legalese we all love to hate, their very appearance is intimidating, and it seems they are discussed only at board meetings, and then only when required to try to solve a difficult problem.

Warning! Before we go on I must tell you - I am not an attorney, nor do I claim to be an expert on these issues. My comments are based on my last several years' experience on chapter, region, and Institute boards. Read at your own risk; past results do not guarantee future performance.

However, I am fortunate to have worked with members who are well versed in these matters, and, because I had to work with bylaws and with Robert's rules myself, I took the time to try to understand them. Although I wouldn't recommend them as light reading, they aren't really all that bad if you understand a few principles, and look at the big picture.

Corporations and organizations recognized by government agencies typically have a few basic documents that describe what they are and what their purpose is - articles of incorporation, bylaws, and policies or standing rules. In that order, each becomes more specific, and easier to change.

The foundation lies in the articles of incorporation. This document, especially for non-profit organizations, can be brief, stating the name of the organization, its general purpose, its home address, the names of those forming the organization, and a few other items of information. Many articles of incorporation refer to the organization's bylaws, which are used to provide more detail. Most states have specific requirements for articles of incorporation, and offer standard forms to simplify the process of incorporation.

According to Robert's Rules of Order, bylaws "should include all the rules that are of such importance that they cannot be changed in any way without previous notice…" In their simplest form, they need do only a few things, the most important being: define the makeup of the board of directors, describe the duties and powers of the officers, explain the procedures for calling meetings, define a quorum, and explain how to amend the bylaws. Bylaws usually defer further operational requirements to policies, standing rules, or an operating guide.

Policies govern matters that do not change the rights or responsibilities stated in the bylaws. For example, bylaws may require an annual meeting of the membership, and policy will state the specific date. Many things need not, or should not, be covered either in bylaws or in policy; the specific time of the annual meeting could be decided each year, based on availability of facilities.

As another example, bylaws may authorize the board to create committees, then allow policy to identify standing committees, what committee membership requirements are, and what those committees are to do.
Institute Secretary Sheryl Dodd-Hansen suggests thinking of these documents in terms we are more familiar with: the bylaws are the conditions of the contract, and the policy manual is the general requirements. The bylaws define the entities involved, their rights, and responsibilities; policies define the requirements for day-to-day operation of the organization.

In most cases, it is relatively difficult to amend bylaws, but easier to change policies. This helps ensure stability and continuity of the organization, but allows the board to act quickly to make policies fit changing conditions.

My experience tells me that the best bylaws are those that don’t go beyond setting the ground rules. Apparently, it’s tempting to expand bylaws with well-meaning requirements; often, these things sound good at the time, but later become obstacles that must be changed by amendment. Each provision should be evaluated to determine if it truly is essential in the long term, or if it is something better left to policy where it can be modified as needed. Is it necessary to state a specific date for an event? Some deadlines may be necessary, but before including a date in the bylaws, consider that an amendment will be necessary to change it. Does it make sense to have non-voting members on the board, or to require the presence of someone who is not a member of the board? Board members who are not able to vote may take their responsibilities less seriously, and a board is free to seek input from anyone, even if they are not board members.

Is it unusual to change bylaws? Well-written bylaws may not change for a long time, requiring amendment only in response to significant changes. Even though amendment is not a quick or easy process, bylaws should be changed when they no longer meet the needs of the organization. When change is necessary, begin by explaining the reasons for the revision, and leave the bylaws discussion for later. Members who understand why a change is necessary will find it easier to consider the uninviting text of the bylaws.

Although bylaws may not require change for many years, annual review of bylaws is a good idea, not only to see if there is reason to amend them, but to familiarize or re-familiarize members, especially those in leadership positions and those who aspire to leadership. Bylaws are more than a guideline; they are the rules that govern your organization, and the board is required by law to follow them.

With the recent changes in membership classification, this is a great time for all members to dust off those bylaws and learn what they say.

A tale of two companies

noreply@blogger.com (Sheldon) — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 04:13:00 +0000

Smoke and mirrors?

A few months ago, in "Go-to guys", I spoke of the many excellent product representatives I know, and how valuable they are to me in my job as specifier. This past month, I experienced something just a bit different. It wasn't that the product reps weren't helpful, but their corporate structure made it difficult for them to offer the help that specifiers need, which, in turn, makes it difficult for specifiers to properly serve their clients.

It all started with an e-mail from one of our construction administrators, about a substitution request. The subcontractor claimed that a substantial savings would result from using the proposed products, and went on to say that one of the proposed substitute products was, in fact, identical to one that had been specified.

I'm sure many specifiers are asking themselves, "If it wasn't specified, why didn't you just reject it?" That's a great question for a future discussion, but for the moment, accept as fact that there was more than one good reason to consider the request.

My research began with the supplier's claim that one of the proposed substitutions was the same as one that had been specified. As it turned out, this was not a simple claim that one product was very similar to the other, but that the two literally were the same. This was something of a surprise, as we had been using the specified products for more than a decade, while the supposed equal product was an unknown.

It didn't take long to determine that the manufacturers of the competing products were subsidiaries of a larger company. The fun began when I called the parent company's toll-free number. After identifying myself, the call went something like this.

"I'd like to talk with someone in your technical department, to find out if [specified] product A and [substitute] product B are the same."

"Where are you located?"

"St. Paul."

"Call your local representative at 555-555-0101."

"Does that representative deal with both A and B?"

"No. If you want the representative for B, call 555-555-0123."

"I'd like to speak with someone who is familiar with both products."

"You'll have to call your local rep."

"Do you mean to tell me that there is no one in your office who can answer the question?"

"That's what our field representatives are for."

It was clear that this wasn't going any further, so I said "thanks" and hung up. I called one of the numbers; the phone rang for so long that I gave up and tried the other. That rep was out of the office, so I left a callback message.

I then went to my secret source of information, the CSI member database. Ta-da! I found the name of a person who was a vice president of the parent company. I called and got a message saying that person was out of the office. Transferring to the operator, I again found myself talking to the person I had talked with a just a few minutes before. I'm sure she wasn't pleased that I was still trying to burrow into the company, but I wasn't pleased by the run-around.

A short time later, I got a call from the rep for product A. When I told him about the substitution request, and the claim that A and B were the same, he expressed frustration, and made comments to the effect that he had run into this problem before, that A and B were not the same, and that there was some confusion at the corporate level that led to the problem. He said he would look into it and get back to me.

I then got another call, which I assumed would be from the VP of the parent company. However, instead of returning my call, the VP had passed my request off to a head of the product B company, so I was unable to talk with someone who could speak for both companies.

"Mr. B, I have been told that your product B is identical to product A. Is that true?"

"They're not really identical. They do use the same material, have the same properties, and use the same MSDS, but the pigment and the name are different."

"So they're really the same?" Although Mr. B never came right out and said so, everything he said indicated that A and B are the same. He then spent some time explaining the distribution systems used by the two companies. One is sold direct to installers, while the other is sold through distributors. Furthermore, an installer of A is not allowed to purchase B, and vice versa.

"What I'm concerned about is that we've been specifying A for many years, and now it appears that your company is selling the same thing under a different name at a lower price. In other words, our clients may have been paying more than they had to. Is there a difference in the quality of installers?"

"No. We do have factory training, but we do not certify installers."

Giving up the battle, I asked if we could get a list showing all of the products of both companies, indicating which are the same. I'm certain someone knows this information, but I was told such a list is not available.

When I got back to my computer, I discovered an e-mail from the product A rep. He told me the proposed substitution wasn't available any longer, and had been replaced by another product. Mr. B said that was essentially correct - but the new product is really the same thing with a different name.

OK, maybe there is good reason to have two distribution systems for a single product, but why not just sell the same product and avoid the confusion? Is there a point to this shell game? Could it be nothing more than a way to get around public bidding requirements? Whatever the reason, it doesn't really matter. Apparently, we have two product representatives selling many of the same products under different names, competing with each other, and, understandably, not too interested in talking about the competing company's products.

Design professionals need straight answers, and episodes like this can quickly destroy a company's credibility.

Signature blocks on steroids

noreply@blogger.com (Sheldon) — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 02:53:00 +0000

The first time I get an e-mail from you I don't mind if you include your full name, title, phone number, cell phone number, and fax number, along with your company name, division, department, main phone number, address, and website, and even a logo or two. In fact, I like to get all that information at one time; it's a great way to complete my contact file for you without having to ask for missing pieces. I don’t need to see a message telling me that I should save paper by not printing the message (does anyone really do that?), but I'll let it go the first time you send me e-mail.

After that, all I need is your name and phone number. Your e-mail address is in the message; if needed, I can use it to bring up your contact file.

One of Outlook's underused features is the ability to have multiple signatures. I don't know about other e-mail programs, but I suspect they are similar. I have one signature block with all of my contact information; I use it the first time I make contact with a client or consultant. After that, I rely on Outlook's default "reply" signature, a handy option that seems to be a well-kept secret. My reply signature is just my name and phone number. After initial contact, it's usually all that is needed. Your clients and consultants know who you are, and after just a couple of contacts, anyone else will probably recognize you.

If the automatic reply signature isn't right for the situation, it takes only a couple of seconds to choose a different one. There will be times when you don't send e-mail to someone for a few weeks or more, and the person you are contacting might not remember who you are. When that happens, include your name, company, and phone number. If you serve as an officer or committee member for an organization, create a special signature block for each, so the recipient knows that you're writing on behalf of that organization rather than your employer.

What's the point of all this? One of the great things about e-mail is that it can provide a record of how a decision was made, tracking an entire discussion from first contact through resolution. The problem with bloated signature blocks is that they can expand just a few sentences of real content to fill a couple of pages. The message gets lost in needless text and images.

I realize that my e-mail use may differ from yours. Most of mine is with established clients and consultants, so my default signature is brief. You may be contacting new people every day, or sending mostly "official" messages, and need that corporate image. Regardless, before you click "send", take just a moment and decide what really needs to be in your signature. And if a prepared signature isn't right for the occasion at hand, be ready to strip out or add information as needed.

And please think about that lengthy disclaimer your company wants to use. Does it apply? If you send information that is destined to be re-used, don't tell me that I can't use it. It certainly doesn't apply when you're forwarding the joke you just got.

One more thing - never, ever, do I want to see that you sent a message from your Blackberry, or your iPhone, or whatever really cool gizmo you're using.

Convince me

noreply@blogger.com (Sheldon) — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 07:25:00 +0000

We've all heard countless times about the amazing technological changes of the twentieth century, going from horse-drawn buggies to a car in every garage and landing on the moon, from telegraph to cell phones, from dirt roads to superhighways, from fresh food to frozen, and so on. Many of those changes resulted in improvements in business or in our standard of living, and are so much an accepted part of our lives that we take them for granted.

Today we are witnesses to the birth and tremendous growth of social networking, and sensational claims about its future. What is that future?

In communication, the last century saw a remarkable increase in speed and convenience. Everyone in the US has known about telephones as long as they can remember. A few of the old crank phones were around for a while, but the rotary dial phone was common in the '50s, the touch-tone phone came along in the '60s, and cell phones in the '70s.

But while phones have been great for oral communication for nearly a hundred years, getting documents from one place to another was a problem well into the second half of the last century. There wasn't much choice; sticking paper in an envelope and entrusting it to the post office was about it. And then came the fax.

I remember seeing Steve McGarrett getting faxes on Hawaii Five-O. The facsimile machine (fax) would create an image - usually of a ne'er do well he was tracking - on a spinning drum, a process that seemed to take half an hour to complete. Faxes were common around the world in the '80s, when faxing by computer came along.

Although the fax machine must have been a hard sell at first - "Great! I can get a copy of a document anywhere almost instantly! But who else has one?" - there were very good, and explainable, reasons to have a fax, which soon became an indispensable part of business. It was days faster than mail, and though the early machines were expensive, the obvious advantages increased demand, which led to lower costs and improved performance.

The cell phone has a similar history. The benefits of being able to contact someone nearly anywhere, or of being able to make a call without first finding a phone booth, were obvious, and demand again led to lower costs and improved performance. The advantages, again, could be explained.

And then we have the Internet and e-mail. Again, a tremendous improvement in ability to communicate. Virtually instantaneous transmission of documents, audio, and video at little cost. Although there was a lot of hype about the Internet, its benefits were easy to explain. I was an early participant, and a promoter, as the benefits were so obvious.

In contrast, the proponents of cable and satellite TV promised a wonderful future, full of educational and cultural programming, free of advertising. The supposed benefits were based on assumptions. The reality? Instead of four or five TV channels, we now have hundreds of channels of re-runs, "reality" shows, game shows, and other drivel - along with advertising.

The fax, the cell phone, and the Internet offered substantial improvements in communication, and were obviously useful in doing business. Today, we're being told how important it is to use social networking, and that to survive, a business must use it. But, unlike the fax, the cell phone, the Internet, and e-mail, there has been no clear benefit associated with the social network.

Let me make a distinction here; I'm talking about business. I like satellite TV because I like to watch movies, and I have a Facebook account because that's where my kids put pictures of their kids. Much of the fun of Facebook comes from the free-for-all commentary in response to comments and pictures, and the ease of posting both. But does that work for business? While a website will always deliver the desired message and image, Facebook, and, increasingly, LinkedIn, are chaotic, with the last visitor defining to the next visitor what the group is.

If anything, the use of LinkedIn and Facebook groups for business has confused communication by increasing the number of places to store and look for information, and Twitter's tweets are more of an annoying buzz. I'm not saying that these things don't have a place; I just haven't seen a good example of their use in business. While I am interested in what my friends are doing, on a business level I don't need to see personal details - when they feel good, when they have a headache, what the dog's latest trick is, and so on. When I go to Facebook, that's what I expect, but I don't want to see it when I'm doing business.

So far, random thoughts are what social networking seems to be about. I recently read an editorial in Structural Engineering & Design, which talked about the magazine's expansion into social media. In the same issue, the following were offered as "Top tweets" on the magazine's website:

“Managers fear tighter budgets…”
“George Washington University tests materials…”
“Cleveland casino to break ground in 2011”
“…bridge collapses…”
“Will [one building be taller than another]?”

Not one of these offered information that was of immediate interest, or would affect most readers soon enough to warrant the use of their time to read them. I looked through more tweets on the magazine's website, and again found nothing critical; everything there could have been handled in a monthly update. A bridge collapse may be interesting, and might be of immediate concern to a very small number of people, but the date of the tweet was a day after the collapse, so it wasn’t exactly breaking news.

While writing this, I revisited the magazine's Facebook site. Virtually everything on the wall was a tweet, with a couple of Thanksgiving Day greetings, and a "hi everybody". There were several photos from a meeting, magazine covers, and no discussions. In short, it was mostly material that would appear in the magazine. The magazine is published both in print and on paper, so the Facebook site adds little that isn't already available.

A real concern is the fragmentation of communication. If I want to know more about something mentioned by Structural Engineering & Design should I go to the website, the LinkedIn site, the Facebook site, or Twitter? Does each have a unique function? If the same information is repeated everywhere, what is the point of having multiple sources? And if it's different, how will I know where to go? Who is making sure that it's current and correct? Of course, if Mark Zuckerberg has his way, there will be only one answer!

Many organizations and companies are struggling with these issues. Unfortunately, the unsubstantiated claims - “You must use Facebook!”, “You won’t survive if you don’t tweet!”, and so on - exacerbate the problem. I am not a Luddite; my experience with computers goes back to punch cards and FORTRAN, and I was an active and early promoter of websites and e-mail. I have created and maintained websites; e-mail and the Internet are essential to my job; and I have LinkedIn, Facebook, and even Twitter accounts.

CSI has about 120 websites, about forty-five LinkedIn groups, and half a dozen Facebook groups. About fifteen of the websites are down, and many of the remaining sites promote activities that are two or more months old as "coming events". The most recent comments in many of the LinkedIn groups are months old, and some go back more than a year. Isn't CSI the organization that promotes "say it once in the right place"? With information appearing in so many places, will it be clear, complete, concise, and correct? And isn't current important? It's better to have a static website with basic information than to have one that shows that no one cares about what is available.

Convince me! Would we not be better off with an organized, consistent Internet presence? If it's so important to be involved in social networking, shouldn't we be everywhere? If you click on the "share" icon on many websites, you get over three hundred options - should we use all of them? If we continue to create new groups in other networks, who will manage the content? Who has the time to follow all of them? At the moment, the lack of activity on nearly all of these websites and groups is not an enticement to join; instead, it indicates a lack of both purpose and interest.

I do not object to progress; I believe that most advances in technology and communication have valid uses. However, I also believe in use of the appropriate tool for the job at hand. I don’t kill flies with a shotgun, and I don’t see the value of telling the business world that I'm at a great seminar or that I had a hard day at work.

I do think it's possible to have a website as a formal source of information, and a more casual presence on Facebook or LinkedIn. Having a group for people studying for an exam, as suggested by Joy Davis, is a good idea, and I'm sure there will be more. But, instead of making vague claims about why we simply can't survive without social networks, show us a real benefit. Don't put up new websites and groups just because it's easy; figure out what you want them to do, make a plan to achieve the goals, and keep them current and active.

Please - convince me!

CSI: More than just one - or three - types of members

noreply@blogger.com (Sheldon) — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 17:34:00 +0000

In CSI membership - one more time, we reviewed the history of CSI's membership classification, and argued in favor of a single category of voting members. Although response has been favorable, two objections have been voiced, one regarding governance, the other related to practical aspects of communication with other members. The first appears to be more important, but the second affects day-to-day activities.

Board representation

As noted last month, CSI began as a group of specifiers, or, in today's terms, professional members. There also were a very few who would today be called industry members, but it was clear that this was an organization of design professionals, concerned primarily with the art of writing specifications. Over the years, the balance changed, and we now have almost equal numbers of professional members and industry members (for convenience, I'm considering industry and associate members as a single group). Along with their growth in numbers, industry members attained more rights and privileges, and there are now only a few small differences between voting members. Clearly, CSI has changed. It is not the organization it was in the beginning, but is an organization of design professionals and product representatives, with a smaller number of contractors and subcontractors.

Our bylaws presently mandate representation of professional and industry members on the Board:

The Nominating Committee shall select candidates for Officers and Directors at Large to ensure that at least three of the eight are either Professional, or Industry or Associate members.

While this may sound like a good idea, at least if you're concerned that industry or professional members might get the upper hand and drive out the other group, it ignores other factors that are at least as important when choosing candidates for office. It also does not take into account the fact that many of our professional members work for manufacturers; it is quite possible to meet the stated requirement for balanced representation, yet have only Board members who work for manufacturers.

Part of the proposed change in member classification is a new way to track members. We currently classify members in three ways: by membership type, e.g., professional or industry; by the occupation codes that appear on the membership application form; and by firm types, which also appear on the application form. If you look at that form, you will see fifty-eight occupation codes and thirteen firm types.

Combining all three classification types, we have 2,262 possible types of member. That may sound impressive, but in my three year term as Institute director, only occasionally would I see a reference to occupation codes, and then only as a statistical report; that information was not used for anything useful.

The new tracking system will have six groups:

Group 100 - Academic Occupations
Academic staff, educator, student, trade apprentice.

Group 200 - Construction Occupations
Construction craftsperson, construction manager, general contractor, subcontractor.

Group 300 - Design Occupations
Architect, BIM or CAD specialist, design consultant, engineer, interior designer, landscape architect, specifier, surveyor, urban planner.

Group 400 - Facility Occupations
Developer, manager, owner.

Group 500 - Product Occupations
A/E representative, dealer, distributor, manufacturer, manufacturer’s representative, manufacturers association, marketing, sales.

Group 600 - Related Occupations
Accounting, attorney, banker, building official, computer support specialist, financial advisor, graphic designer, inspector, insurance, labor representative, legal staff, public agencies staff, publisher, realtor, surety advisor, technical writer, testing lab personnel, trade association, other occupation not listed in any group.

These occupation groups are much more usable than the ones we currently use - more specific than three member types, and more useful and manageable than the current occupation codes.

Institute nominating process

Until recently, CSI nominating committees have been ad hoc committees, formed just before the annual election to find volunteers to run for whatever offices happened to be open in the next election. In theory, these committees give us qualified, capable candidates who will be able to run our organization and keep it current. From what I have seen at every level of the Institute, that is not always the case.

It is sometimes difficult to find volunteers for the nominating committee, and it may not get started on time. Only rarely does anyone actually volunteer to run for office, so the committee usually starts with a list of well-known members, whose qualifications may not be known; being friendly and a great guy aren't much to go on. Occasionally, the top candidates agree to run for office, but often they don't, and the committee works its way down the list. The scarcity of volunteers makes ballots with two nominees unusual.

A few years ago, significant changes were made to the Institute nominating process. It now is a standing committee, working year-round to find and evaluate potential candidates for the Institute Board. The process includes assessment of the current Board's knowledge and skills, which is considered when evaluating candidates. The nominating committee has always considered various factors, but it now focuses on finding candidates who will improve the Board's capabilities.

While it may be argued that the presence on the Board of one group or another is important, it is not the only thing to consider, and it probably is not the most important. Strong leaders have many characteristics: proven performance, good character and reputation, and, obviously, ability to lead; in comparison, what they do for a living is a secondary consideration. Availability also is important; Board service is demanding, and requires a commitment to do more than simply show up.

Gene Valentine, current Nominating Committee Chair, offers these comments about the restructured nominating committee.

"In the past two years, the Nominating Committee has embraced the spirit of the governance reform by intentionally broadening the potential candidate pool - especially for particular skill sets or experience. The committee has used the Balanced Scorecard system for attempting to identify the present skills and experience of board members, and then determining what gaps need to be addressed. The scorecard uses a comprehensive matrix for evaluating many factors, including skills, knowledge, age bracket, education, geographic location, and occupation to help identify the best candidates to fill a need or gap on the Board. The committee has focused primarily on the potential candidate's experience, background, and occupation rather than the traditional consideration mostly of immediate past service to the Institute or the organization. The committee has embraced a position that no individual is entitled to candidacy, rather that their past service is but one of the criteria used to evaluate their potential. In my opinion this has (and will) serve the best interests of CSI.

"The committee has placed greater emphasis on potential candidates' abilities to think, evaluate, and make decisions with broad perspective in their past businesses, projects, etc. I have always valued members individually for what they offered and contributed to the organization, and I think we all believe that one of the features that make CSI special is the synergy that is created by all members of the construction team."

Communication

Some industry professionals have expressed a more practical objection to the elimination of the current member categories. Put simply, they use those categories in their businesses. As one member said, "When I want to send out promotional mail, I give the secretary the mailer and the member roster, and say 'Send it to everyone with a P after their name.'" The same thing can be said for communicating other information. A chapter certification committee might want to contact specific members about a CCPR or CCS class, or a chapter might want to target students and teachers for a specific event.

A compromise between specificity and usability will always be necessary; the six occupation groups are a reasonable refinement of the three categories we now have. They make it easier to target specific members than is possible by relying on the current associate, industry, and professional categories, but are much more usable than the current occupation codes, which appear to be ignored in any case.

It's not that simple - or that difficult

Meaningful representation on the Institute Board requires consideration of more than a member's basic occupation. While it is important to include the perspectives of both those who write, and those who use, construction documents, it is more important to find leaders who are able to think, to lead, and to determine what is important for the organization as a whole.

Communication will be improved by refining member categories. Three categories aren't quite enough, but if the number gets too large, it is likely that several groups would be combined for most purposes. The six proposed groups are a good compromise, and will serve us better than the three we now use.

There is no perfect solution, but the proposed changes will help the Institute Nominating Committee to choose the best candidates, and will make it easier to target communication to specific recipients. And, by removing mandatory representation based on a single criterion, it will be easier to respond to changes in membership and needs of the Board. Yes, we must consider the needs of large groups of members, but we also must have the flexibility to respond to changes as they occur, without the need to poll the members every time there is a change in those groups.

CSI membership - one more time

noreply@blogger.com (Sheldon) — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:26:00 +0000

Last year, our annual election ballot included a proposed bylaws amendment that would have combined the professional, industry, and associate membership classifications into a single group. Although the amendment received over sixty percent of the votes, it fell short of the required two-thirds majority required to pass. The Los Angeles chapter brought the issue before the members at the annual meeting in Philadelphia, where eighty percent of the members voted in favor of again putting membership reclassification before the members, as an amendment proposal on the 2011 ballot.

Readers of this column may recall that last year I questioned the need for changing to a single class of voting members. I still feel the same as I did then about some of the issues, but in the last couple of months I learned a few things that led me to the conclusion that the time for a single class of voting members is long overdue.

When the suggestion to change to a single group of voting members was made a year ago, one of the most common complaints was that some members or potential members were or might be offended by the use of the word "professional", believing it could be seen as a reference to the manner in which members acted, or as a suggestion that some members are better than others.

This was somewhat surprising to me, as we work in an industry that relies on the correct use and interpretation of definitions. If you were to ask random people to name a few professions, it's likely they would say doctor, dentist, attorney, teacher, and perhaps architect or engineer. These are occupations that commonly are referred to as professions; they have in common a requirement for several years of formal education, and, usually, government control of the practice. It is highly unlikely that the same question would elicit contractor, mason, or salesperson as a response.

One of the examples given in support of that argument was that teachers or professors felt slighted because, as just noted, they generally are considered professionals. But, just as anyone can behave in a professional manner, so, too, can anyone profess to know a great deal about any given subject - and those same professors would probably object to a master mason claiming to be a professor. Given the derivation of the term professional, and the clear way in which it is used, I don't accept the political correctness argument that we should change the name simply to avoid the possibility that someone might be offended.

A bit of background

So what changed my mind? What led me to decide that it's worth changing to a single class of voting members?

At first glance, it might appear that all voting members (associate, industry, and professional) have equal status; all are allowed to vote, and all are allowed to hold any office. There are, however, a few bylaws requirements that remain from our distant past, when CSI was, in essence, an organization of design professionals.

Since I became a member in 1987, I have accepted as fact that all voting members are equal, and, as we often do, I imagined that was the way it's been, if not forever, at least for a long time. And why not? As long as I can remember, CSI has claimed everyone in the construction industry - "Architects, specifiers, contractors, engineers, building owners, facility managers, attorneys, academics, product suppliers, construction software vendors…" - as potential members. Unlike AIA, AGC, and many other organizations, full rights and privileges are not limited to one type of member. Well, almost.

In the beginning, there were only specifiers. In 1948, CSI was formed as an organization for architects and engineers; in other words, for members of the design professions. The bylaws allowed others to join, but those who were not professional members could not vote or hold office. Over the years, as membership grew, the number of members who were not architects or engineers increased. Along the way, the names of member groups changed, so for convenience I'll use the ones we have today, - associate, industry, and professional - and I'll include associate members with industry members. A few of the dates that follow are best guesses based on available information, but most are correct, and at worst a couple are within a year or two.

As the number of industry members grew, so did their influence, and so did their desire for full participation in CSI. Old bylaws not only limited the rights of industry members, but treated them as second-class citizens. If a professional member changed jobs, and no longer qualified for professional membership, the change to industry member was immediate. In contrast, an industry member who changed jobs and became eligible for professional membership had to wait for approval from the Institute Board.*

The DC Metropolitan Chapter's history speaks about their 1959 Winter Holiday Program, which was called "Associates Night". The remarkable thing was that nine industry members were allowed ten minutes each to present their products to the professional members - something that was not permitted at chapter meetings. (But I'll bet they were allowed to pay the bar tab!)

It wasn't until 1963 that industry members were represented on the Institute Board, and then only as directors. The first time an industry member was allowed to serve as an Institute officer was 1964, and then only as treasurer. Industry members were allowed to vote, but only for industry directors.

At some time in the 1960s, industry members were allowed to serve on chapter boards, but they could not serve as chapter president. In 1966, industry members became eligible for Fellowship. In the first year they were eligible, five of the eleven Fellows were industry members. Not a bad showing for second-class citizens!

In 1975, nearly thirty years after CSI was formed, Industry members were given the right to vote, and the office of Industry Vice President was added to the Institute Board. Industry members were at last allowed to serve as chapter presidents - but only after review and acceptance by two-thirds of the chapter's board of directors. You just can't trust a salesman!

In 1986, industry members were made eligible to serve as Institute president, and in 1989, Steve Blumenthal became our first industry president.

Last year wasn't the first time that an attempt was made to grant industry members full rights; the records I have indicate that changing to a single member category - thereby giving industry members complete equality with professional members - was considered in 1974 and 2002, and other information suggested that it also may have been considered in other years.**

We're not done yet!

What we have, then, is a long, slow, and painful journey, gradually removing obstacles to industry participation at various levels of the organization. Even though industry members now are allowed full participation, our bylaws continue to imply that some voting members are better than others.

To charter a chapter, fifteen members are required, twelve of whom must be professional members, and to maintain a chapter, it must have at least eight professional members. I suspect a chapter that had no professional members might not be as effective as one with similar numbers of industry and professional members, but if they can make it work, why would we stop them?
To have a quorum at the annual meeting, a majority of the members present must be professional members. If we have 300 industry members at an annual meeting, and only 299 professional members, does that really mean that we don't have enough qualified people to do business?

The bottom line is that industry members remain second-class members. The favoritism is subtle, and most members probably are not aware that it exists. While preferential treatment may have made sense sixty years ago, CSI has changed since then, and it no longer has a place in our organization. It must be especially galling to the many industry members we continually call on to finance all of our activities.

We have been talking about member equality for more than forty years; it's time to make it reality. Separate but not quite equal just doesn't work. When you get your ballot in February, vote in favor of equality.

*In the first post of this article, I cited the requirement that an industry member needed two professional members as sponsors. While this was true, the same requirement applied to professional members.
**Also in the first post, I indicated membership classification was an issue in 1983. It was, but the issue that year was the addition of the current associate membership category.

The Price of Gold

noreply@blogger.com (Sheldon) — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:19:00 +0000

One of my CSI hats is History of Fellows Chair for CSI's College of Fellows. As such, I search for background to create or update the biographies that are on the Fellows' website, at www.FCSInet.org. This often is a difficult task even with new Fellows, who either can't find the time or are too bashful to write their own biographies. Getting information grows more difficult as time goes on, and becomes a real challenge for those Fellows who are no longer with us.

While my search generally moves along at a pace dictated by work at office and at home, some events, such as each year's elevation of new Fellows, notable achievements of a current Fellow, or the passing of a Fellow, inspire greater effort. One such incident occurred in February of this year, when Joy Davis notified me that a collection of three CSI medals - for President, Past President, and Fellow - were being auctioned off on e-Bay.

Putting on my Sherlock Holmes hat, I tried to deduce who the medals had belonged to. The ad indicated that all of the medals were from 1985 or earlier, so I started with the list of past presidents. An obvious first step was to delete those whose presidency or Fellowship came after 1985; I then eliminated those who were not Fellows (there are a few), and, assuming that a living member would not sell those medals, limited my search to those Fellows who had passed away.

The result was a short list of twenty-two names. I was able to determine from the ad that the seller was in Missouri, but it wouldn’t necessarily follow that the original owner also was from Missouri, so I set that aside for the moment. However, because the advertised collection of medals did not include an Honorary Member's medal, I made a fatal mistake, and eliminated Honorary Members from the list, which was reduced to seven names.

I was tempted to put in a bid, but decided it would be better if an officer of the College of Fellows did the bidding, and started a conversation with Jim Robertson, College of Fellows Chancellor, Bob Kenworthy, COF Bursar, and Dick Robinson, COF Chancellor. We agreed that Bob would submit bids on behalf of the College of Fellows, and that, rather than raise interest by bidding early, he would not place a bid until just before the auction ended.

I sent an e-mail to the seller, asking whose medals they were, and was told that they belonged to Robert Vansant. (Vansant was an Honorary Member, but for some unknown reason, that medal was not included in the collection offered for sale.) The seller's response was especially interesting to me, as Robert Vansant is one of the names I remembered from my early days as an architect. He wrote a monthly article titled “Vansant’s Law” in A/E Concepts in Wood Design, which was always interesting and educational. As I recall, each month's article discussed a limited subject and how it was presented in specifications or drawings.
Robert Vansant is an example of one meaning of FCSI - “future continued service to the Institute.” He didn’t hang it up after becoming a Fellow, but went on to serve as Institute President, and wrote many articles to help others better understand legal concepts related to construction. In addition to A/E Concepts in Wood Design, his articles also appeared in the Construction Specifier, Consulting Engineer, the AWPA Reporter, and Water and Wastes Engineering.

An engineer and attorney at Black & Veatch in Kansas City, Vansant was a charter member of the Kansas City Chapter, which was formed in 1959. He became a Fellow of the Institute in 1970, served as president in 1973-74, received CSI President's Plaques in 1971 and 1972, and was made an Honorary Member in 1986, the year after his death.

Robert Vansant and Glen Ablanalp were instrumental in establishing the Engineers Joint Contract Documents Committee (EJCDC). Vansant also worked with the American Water Works Association, and served as chair of the AWWA Standards Council, and he received the National Society of Professional Engineers' PEPP Award in 1987.

Meanwhile, back at the auction, we saw a sudden flurry of bidding as the deadline approached. As it turned out, one of the bidders was our own Dennis J. Hall, who had seen the medals on e-Bay and didn't want them to be lost to CSI, but he said he had bid as much as he was going to, and dropped out of the bidding. Bob Kenworthy submitted the final bid just before the deadline, winning the auction. Afterward, he contacted the seller to ask about the missing Honorary Member's medal; alas, it seems to have disappeared. Bob mounted the rescued medals in a display case, which was exhibited at the CSI booth in Philadelphia. The medals have since been donated to the Institute, and will soon be on display at CSI's main office, in Alexandria, Virginia.

One of the many interesting things about this treasure hunt was learning what metals are used for CSI medals. What are those metals? Silver for Fellows, copper for presidents, bronze for former presidents, and gold for distinguished or honorary members. However, as former Institute president Gilman Hu said, "A medal awarded to you is only worth the honor that goes with it. A medal purchased isn't worth the metal it was made from."

What's a vendor?

noreply@blogger.com (Sheldon) — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 06:03:00 +0000

I’m not sure when it started, but in the last couple of years I’ve seen an increasing number of references to “vendor” with no definition of what a vendor is. In the context of the construction contract, there is no need to introduce another entity, as everything is the responsibility of either the owner or the contractor. That leaves exactly four options for any given item:

Contractor furnished/Contractor installed - the default condition.
Owner furnished/Owner installed - essentially the same as not in contract (NIC); the contractor has nothing to do with the item, other than providing concealed blocking or similar work when specified.
Owner furnished/Contractor installed - often used for toilet accessories, cubicle curtains, etc.
Contractor furnished/Owner installed - possible, but I’ve done this only a couple of times in twenty years.

Beyond that, it makes no difference to the contractor who furnishes or installs anything that is not in the contract. It either will be in the contract or it will be done by the owner; if it’s not in the contract, who does it is of no consequence to the contractor. Including non-contract work may be useful for planning or for the owner, but adding another entity is a needless complication of the contract documents. In general, there is no reason to include information that does not affect the contract; however, the equipment schedule offers an easy way to tell the contractor about NIC items that need concealed blocking or other preparatory work. Ideally, we would provide specific information about that work, but that often is not possible or practical.

From what I have seen, it appears that the term vendor is used for a company that performs work under a separate contract with the owner - but that often is not clear in the contract documents. While it may be clear to the designer who the vendors are, and while some contractors may interpret vendor correctly, it is important make it perfectly clear who the vendors work for. Without definitions, it’s difficult to bid or enforce contract requirements - and that can lead to trouble.

The following two general formats make it easy to indicate who furnishes and who installs what. They also are easier to interpret than CFCI, OFCI, OFVI, etc.

In the second example, P indicates provide, meaning furnish and install; F and I indicate furnish and install.

The entire schedule can be used for planning or tracking, and can be given to the owner. However, when included in the contract documents, the two columns on the right would be hidden. The vendor column also would be hidden unless needed to tell the contractor where to go for information about blocking or similar work. If the vendor column is included, there should be a note or check box to indicate those items that require that type of work.

Go-To Guys

noreply@blogger.com (Sheldon) — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 14:38:00 +0000

I recently received an e-mail from my local IMI (International Masonry Institute) representative, saying that she would be retiring in a few weeks. Even though I had known her all the twenty-plus years I have been a CSI member, and knew we were about the same age, it was a bit of a shock. After trying to convince her not to retire (not very hard), I thought about other favorite product reps - my go-to guys, some of whom retired or lost their jobs in the past couple of years.

Specifiers have a simple job: to know everything about everything. Which is interesting, given that they not only must try to keep up with new products and changes in old ones, but must somehow divine what it is that the rest of the project team has in mind. Of course it's impossible to know everything, so what they do know is phone numbers for their go-to guys. These are the people who have the right answer or know where to get it, help extract information from manufacturers' labyrinthine websites, respond quickly, and appear to remain unfazed by calls made just days - or hours - before bidding documents are issued. They're the ones who know not only their own products but those of competitors, and are able to offer advice about installation, maintenance, potential problems, and corrective measures for defects or failures beyond their control.

Thanks to years of experience, both good and bad, when I meet new reps I quickly develop a feel for their experience and knowledge, and my BS meter occasionally warns me that I'm not likely to get the straight scoop from a particular rep. I may call them later, but I remain uncertain about the value of what they say.

One thing that gives new product reps, if not instant credibility, a big step in that direction, is three letters on their business cards. You might think I mean CSI, but what I look for first is CDT; if I see both CSI and CDT, we're ready to rock! If the CDT isn't there, before they leave, they get a quick and friendly lecture about the value of CDT to a specifier. And if they are CDTs, I tell them how much I appreciate their efforts to understand construction documents. Although my go-to guys don't have to be CDT or CSI members, most of them are.

Not all of my go-to guys are product reps. Many of them are specifiers, architects, engineers, and others whom I trust in the same way as the product reps. Some of them I know only through online forums, but, as is the case with the product reps, most of them are CSI members.

I often am amazed at how personal business can be. In theory, you can get good information from any product rep, from any company's customer service department, or from any company's literature or website. And, also in theory, you'll get the same excellent support from those same sources. That being the case, I find it strange that a particular brand of hardware or roofing, for example, is dominant in one area while virtually unused in another. If one hospital or university believes it is the best option, why is it dismissed elsewhere?

The answer, unfortunately, is something that can't successfully be specified, but is realized only through personal relationships. It's the experience, knowledge, and trust that come from knowing that the person you're dealing with is someone you'll work with again, and will be there when needed. It's easy to specify that a manufacturer must have 24-hour service, or maintain a local parts center, but once the final payment has been made there isn't much an owner can do if those post-completion requirements disappear.

Perhaps more important is the confidence that this person will be not only honest, but will tell the whole truth. There are few things that will build credibility more quickly than a suggestion that the manufacturer's product may not be the right one for the job.

Just a few days ago, I put my network to the test. I got a call from one of our construction administrators, something about fireproofing. I thought I knew the answer, but to make sure I called my fireproofing go-to guy. She was on vacation, but the answering machine included the name and phone number of someone who would fill in for her. A nice touch, better than the usual "press zero and take your chances."

At this point, one of Murphy's laws kicked in; the less time you have to get an answer, the more difficult it will be to find a person with the answer. I called the back-up person and got another answering machine, this one telling me only that the person I called was not available; no indication of when he would be back or how to contact anyone else. My next move was to pull up CSI's online member database, and search for people who worked for the fireproofing company. Several names appeared, and I recognized one of them as a person I had worked with several years ago and, fortunately, one of my go-to guys from that time. He was in, and was able to confirm my belief immediately.

Another recent experience, which also started with a call from a construction administrator, confirmed the value of go-to guys. This one involved a proposed substitution for a specified joint sealant. Again, my go-to guy wasn't available, but this time, instead of looking for another CSI member, I called the manufacturer's customer service number. During the conversation, the person who took the call told me several interesting things; among them that the company does not provide information about expected life of their products, and that there is little difference between polyurethane and silicone sealants. I asked for a recommendation for use with masonry, and was given the name of a specific product. While we were talking, I pulled up the data sheet from the manufacturer's website, and found that it made no mention of staining masonry, while another product specifically said that it was recommended for masonry. I asked about the second product, and was told, "Oh, you could use that one, too."

About then, I saw that I had another call coming in, from my go-to guy, so I took his call. He provided all the information I did not get from talking with the factory rep, recommended specific products, and discussed at length the differences between them. I couldn't help but compare my experience with the factory rep to that of buying a camera or computer from Target. The sales people are friendly and helpful, but their knowledge extends no further than the information printed on the outside of the box. Most calls I've made to manufacturers were much more satisfying, but I'll always prefer talking with someone I know to talking to a faceless person who might have started the same day.

There are times when I don't know anyone who is familiar with a given product. When that happens, my first stop is the member database, where I look first for certified members. When I find a likely source, I call and start by identifying myself as a CSI member, then go on to say that I found the person's name in the member database. Does that get me a better or faster answer? I'm not naïve enough to believe that every CDT or CSI member is going to be the go-to guy I need, but thus far I have not been put off or disappointed.

The longer I do this job, the more I know how much I don't know. So here's to the go-to guys who make it possible!

Success Story

noreply@blogger.com (Sheldon) — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 03:43:00 +0000

We are approaching the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of two seminal documents for the construction industry: "A Tentative Proposal for a Manual of Practice for Specification Writing Methods", and "The CSI Format for Building Specifications". The first led to the publication of CSI's first Manual of Practice (eventually becoming the Project Resource Manual), the second to MasterFormat.

Although MasterFormat is more widely known and used, the original Manual of Practice (MOP) embodied the essence of CSI's raison d'être - clear communication in construction documents. Along with MasterFormat, the MOP provided impetus for CSI's growth through the end of the twentieth century, as design professionals across the country sought to improve their specifications. Despite its relative obscurity, I believe the MOP's significance was second only to MasterFormat and AIA's contract documents in the world of building construction.

In 1947, the founders of the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) expressed five goals for the new organization:

Standardization of building codes
Better specification writing
Simpler specifications
Standardization of specifications for public works
Greater efficiency and cost effectiveness throughout the industry

Let's look at how these goals are related to the Manual of Practice and MasterFormat.

Standardization of building codes

Other than the basic principles of "say it once" and the four Cs, the Manual of Practice and MasterFormat appear to have little relevance to building codes. I don't know how much impact CSI or its members had, but some progress toward standard building codes was made with the introduction of the IBC. The result is somewhat misleading, though; most of the US has adopted the IBC, but virtually every state and locality has modified it.

Better specifications

In my first job as a specifier, I worked at the University of Minnesota, which has an excellent records department. While there, I was often thankful for the University's extensive record documents, including those for several buildings built in the late nineteenth century. Even that far back, most of the project manuals I looked at were well organized and easy to interpret. However, by current MOP standards, they had a number of deficiencies.

Document organization was not universal. The location of similar information varied from one project manual to the next, sometimes even when the project manuals were produced in the same office. Also, there was some tendency toward stream of consciousness specifying. The specifications might start with masonry, go on to carpentry, return briefly to masonry to specify mortar, and so on.

The 1964 publication of "The CSI Format for Construction Specifications" marked the beginning of a move toward standard organization of information. This document evolved into MasterFormat, which later became a joint publication of CSI and Construction Specifications Canada (CSC). Today's nearly universal acceptance of MasterFormat in the US and Canada clearly makes it easier to prepare and interpret construction documents.

Simpler specifications

The MOP offered a comprehensive, logical way to organize and prepare construction documents that was based on two simple concepts: say it once in the right place, and say it correctly. In other words, communication in contract documents is most effective when information is easy to find, and writing clearly expresses the requirements of the work.

You likely learned the first from your parents, though they probably said "A place for everything and everything in its place." In documents that comply with the MOP, every requirement is stated in a specific location, which makes it easier for both the writer and the reader to find the information they need.

The second is expanded in the MOP's famous "four Cs" - clear, complete, concise, and correct. Another way these can be expressed is, "Say exactly what needs to be said - no more, no less - in a way that can be easily understood." This should be nothing new to those who are familiar with Strunk and White's The Elements of Style, a standard reference for writers of all persuasions.

Standardization of specifications for public works

The founding members were, according to CSI, primarily "architectural specifications chiefs from various government agencies" who "discussed problems that resulted from non-uniform construction document policies." We must admire their audacity in setting standardization of public works specifications as a goal. Had they been successful we would enjoy the benefits of standard specification format and content throughout the country, and neither specifiers nor bidders would have to try to puzzle out what each government agency is trying to say. Unfortunately, this goal has not been achieved, and, despite all the improvements that have resulted from CSI's standards in other areas, government agencies remain the worst violators of the principles established by the Manual of Practice.

Typical government bidding requirements ignore the difference between bidding and contract documents, use a variety of terms interchangeably, repeat the same requirement in more than one place in different ways, include non-biddable policy statements and goals, and quote extensive excerpts from various laws and statutes, all with the unrealized intent of saving the poor taxpayer a few bucks - at least for the initial contract amount.

Those who interpret the rules seem to have trouble understand the meaning of "responsive, responsible bidder" and quickly back away from any threat of legal action. Bids are not required by law to be evaluated solely on the bid amount, yet low bid appears to be the most common basis for awarding public contracts.

Greater efficiency and cost effectiveness throughout the industry

This has been one of CSI's great successes, due in part to its Format series documents, and in part to its expansion throughout the country in the late twentieth century. Although there has been little success in bringing uniformity or simplicity to public sector documents, the rest of the industry has demonstrated acceptance and support of CSI standards. In the US and Canada:

All major master guide specifications are based on MasterFormat and SectionFormat.
The vast majority of design firms use MasterFormat and Section format.
Manufacturers produce literature with MasterFormat numbers prominently displayed on brochures, binders, and technical information.
There has been a great increase in the number of manufacturers offering guide specifications based on MasterFormat and SectionFormat.

It is hard to imagine doing business without the pervasive effect of CSI, and virtually impossible to estimate the effects on efficiency and cost that result from industry-wide acceptance of the Manual of Practice and MasterFormat. Without CSI's unifying influence, there might be several standards for writing specifications - or none at all. There might also be many filing methods; one office might file product literature by manufacturer's name, another by product name, and yet another by type of product. Some specifiers would begin their sections with a schedule, some with a list of products, and others with code information. And manufacturers would be less likely to present information in a common format, or to offer easily usable guide specifications.

Looking ahead

Although the wide implementation of CSI's Manual of Practice and Formats documents has been successful, work remains to be done, especially in the public sector. CSI should encourage government agencies to standardize and improve their construction documents through adoption of the principles of the Manual of Practice, and to encourage building code officials to learn and understand the organization of contract documents.

CSI got off to a great start; can we build on it?

Wood Door Finishes

noreply@blogger.com (Sheldon) — Sun, 30 May 2010 21:12:00 +0000

Last year, while updating our wood door specifications, I became a little confused while trying to figure out the finish systems specified in AWI/AWS and WDMA standards. In the past I had specified wood doors using AWI standards, but after investigating the relevant standards, I changed our wood door specifications to use the WDMA standards because they are more specific to wood doors. However, because some literature refers to AWI and some to AWS standards, and some refers to current standards while others refer to old ones, I created a conversion table so I don’t have to go back to the standards whenever we get shop drawings.

Standards of the Architectural Woodwork Institute (AWI) and the Wood Door Manufacturer’s Association (WDMA) have been similar for a long time, and in most cases, a door that meets Premium Grade standards for one will meet them for the other. Perhaps the most important exception is face veneer grades, but I'm going to limit this discussion to finish standards.

Architectural Woodwork Institute (AWI)
The AWI Quality Standards, 7th Edition, issued in 1999, had a table of finishes with designations like TR-1 and OP-3. Each numeric code corresponded with a type of finish, e.g., catalyzed lacquer, and the prefix indicated transparent or opaque.

The 8th Edition, issued in 2005, contained major changes to the table. The convenient type designators were eliminated and finishes were referred to by names. The order of finishes also changed, with the former TR-0 system moved, to between what had been TR/OP-4 and TR/OP-5. The system table was prefaced with this note: “This table does not represent all possible top coats. Other options will be found in the text on the following pages.” However, it appears from those pages that the main difference was splitting one category into two sub-categories.

In 2009, AWI joined forces with the Woodwork Institute (WI) and the Architectural Woodwork Manufacturers Association of Canada (AWMAC), and the three organizations produced the Architectural Woodwork Standards (AWS) Edition 1.

The new finish table has thirteen finish systems. The systems are the same as before, but only one of the designators is the same as those used in 1999. The rest increase by one or more numbers as old systems were split into two new ones. For example, the 1999 catalyzed lacquer became pre-catalyzed lacquer and post-catalyzed lacquer.

National Wood Door Manufacturers Association
The 2004 WDMA describes sixteen finishes. All of them, with one exception, appear to be identical to those in the 1999 AWI standards. In addition to brief descriptions, they have extended information for the three types of finishes that are most often used by door manufacturers: TR/OP-2 pre-catalyzed lacquer, TR/OP-4 conversion varnish, and TR/OP-6 catalyzed polyurethane.

I have all of the AWI/AWS standards referred to above, but I have only the current WDMA standards, so I cannot comment on the history of WDMA standards.

Finish System Properties
To make things even more interesting, the method of evaluating system properties has not been consistent. All of the performance tables use a 1 to 5 rating scale to rate various characteristics such as repairability and chemical resistance. All of the evaluation criteria rank 1 as low and 5 as high, except for the 1999 AWI standards, in which 1 is excellent and 5 is poor. The advantages of starting with 1 at the low end are obvious - total scores can determined by simply summing the scores of individual characteristics - and the new AWS standards again use that method of scoring.

Finish System Comparison
Assuming wood door manufacturers most often use one of three finish systems, let's look just at those.

The overall performance scores of the three finishes increase from left to right, the notable exception being repairability, where the order is reversed. In simple terms, the higher the performance of a finish system, the harder it is to repair, which makes sense.

The chemical resistance performance also increases from left to right, with respective scores of 86, 114, and 118. The differences between conversion varnish and catalyzed polyurethane are a marked increase in resistance to 77% sulfuric acid and a small difference in resistance to 10% TSP, both in favor of catalyzed polyurethane.

I sent these findings to both AWS and WDMA representatives, and was told that my conclusions are correct. The WDMA added that the system most often specified is TR/OP 6 - Catalyzed Polyurethane, which provides the highest performance properties of production finishes, and that they normally are roll coated using a high solids, VOC free material, then cured by an ultraviolet (UV) process.

WDMA also indicated that they are updating their standards, and one of the areas being addressed is the finishes section. Look for new standards to be issued in the fall of 2010.

Missing Standards

noreply@blogger.com (Sheldon) — Mon, 03 May 2010 03:08:00 +0000

Although there may be a few products that require little thought in specifying, most require some minimum amount of research, comparison of similar products, and determination of the right combination of characteristics best suited to a project.

Even then, the process can be straightforward and fairly simple, provided the type of product is common, governed by widely accepted standards for materials and performance, well-described in product data, and supported by reputable manufacturers and representatives. Hollow metal doors and frames are a good example. Most manufacturers produce them according to one or both of two sets of common industry standards, published by the Steel Door Institute (SDI) and the National Association of Architectural Metal Manufacturers (NAAMM). Unfortunately, not all types of building products can be specified by use of similar standards.

Before you start that e-mail telling me how difficult it is to specify hollow metal doors,
let me add that the number of grades, types, options, and finishes requires the specifier to understand the hollow metal door and frame standards before making the several decisions needed to write the specifications. Each of the hollow metal standards organizations has described every component of hollow metal doors and frames, how they are fabricated and installed, and which models are suitable for a variety of applications. All of those things are well-defined in the standards, and most manufacturers indicate which doors and frames comply with which standards.

However, some products are far more difficult to specify than others, despite abundant and readily available information. One group that comes immediately to mind is coatings. Unlike hollow metal doors, coatings have little in the way of industry standards, and there are many ways of achieving the same result.

For example, say we want a waterproof coating for an indoor floor. A variety of basic chemistries are available - acrylic, epoxy, polyester, polyurethane, and perhaps others. Some of these are better than others depending on what they will be exposed to, and some are more decorative than others, but it’s likely that all would be acceptable if they need to contain only water.

Even if one type of chemistry rises to the top as being superior to the others, there may be countless varieties of that type. To add to the fun, manufacturers use different combinations of primer and top coats, have widely different test results for physical characteristics, sometimes use different test standards for the same characteristic, combine different types of chemistries in different ways, require different preparation, have different application rates, and specify different requirements for curing.

One manufacturer may claim you need 6,000 PSI compressive strength and 200% elongation, while another says you need 10,000 PSI and only 125%. One says you need a primer for a given situation, another says you don’t. One says you need to apply two topcoats, another says only one. One says you need a seal coat, another says you don’t. And so on.

All of them make logical arguments for their particular systems, and all can produce long lists of local applications. All of which makes it difficult to logically select a product to specify, and makes it equally as difficult to evaluate substitution requests.

Paints are almost as bad as floor coatings, but, because they will be repainted every few years, the performance characteristics are far less important. Otherwise, paints suffer from the same problem as floor coatings - few widely accepted standards.

I’d like to have a rational basis for making decisions about coating properties. By that, I mean a scientifically derived set of standards based on actual performance requirements. I’m fairly certain that the reason manufacturer A says you need 6,000 PSI tensile strength, and manufacturer B says you need 10,000 PSI, is that those are the values their products have. I have yet to see someone say, “Oak Ridge National Laboratory has determined that a floor coating system should have a minimum compressive strength of 4,792 PSI.”

Coatings aren’t the only problem; foam thermal insulation is another. We have specified extruded polystyrene with 25 PSI compressive strength for a long time, not because of any research, but because that’s what is required by ASTM C578 - and that is because that is what is produced and commonly used. Polyisocyanurate roofing insulation is available in 16, 20, and 25 PSI varieties. How do we compare the two types of insulation? If extruded polystyrene should be 25 PSI, should not polyisocyanurate also be 25 PSI? What is the rational basis for making this decision?

Going back to hollow metal doors, I doubt there is any research that tells us what the thickness of the face sheets should be, but in this case I don’t think it’s necessary. The gauges used probably are based on empirical evidence, but more important, one manufacturer isn’t trying to tell me that the face sheets should be one thing while the other manufacturers are saying something else.

It has been stated that industry standards such as those published by SDI and NAAMM are not sufficient, as they tend to reflect the lowest performance of the association members. Even if that is true, those standards still provide a valuable service by specifying a multitude of characteristics, allowing the specifier to use them as a base. After that, it is relatively easy to specify that a hinge reinforcement or some other component be something different from that required by the standard.

By setting standards, industry organizations serve a valuable purpose. While I encourage coating manufacturers, suppliers, and installers to cooperate in establishing standards for their industry, I also encourage the same for other products that suffer from missing standards. And if those standards are based on analysis rather than just a consensus of what is available, so much the better.

Follow me at Constructive Thoughts, LinkedIn, Twitter

Moving on

noreply@blogger.com (Sheldon) — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 02:16:00 +0000

We just went through another round of bylaws amendments, and unless we decide to throw everything out and start over, we should be about done. The reason behind many of the amendments goes back to the governance initiative recommended by the Board and approved by the members just a couple of years ago. As you may recall, one of the biggest changes was to reduce the board of directors from twenty-nine members to eighteen. We’re well on the way now; we soon will be down to twenty board members.

The intent of the governance amendment was to create a smaller board, one that would be more nimble, more efficient, and more forward thinking. With that in mind, let us consider two Board activities: creation of a new committee to oversee the way members use their dues, and expanding CSI’s visibility and influence through increased participation of corporations.

Region Allocation Program Oversight Committee

Along with the reduction in size of the Board came a division of responsibilities. Institute Directors now will focus primarily on matters pertaining to operation of the Institute, while operation of the regions, formerly part of the Institute Directors’ duties, now is delegated to the regions. This created a problem; while Institute Directors had annual travel budgets for visiting chapters, region officers would now have to find other sources of funding for region business.

The response was the Region Allocation Program (RAP). Under this new program, regions no longer have to rely on chapter assessments for operating funds. Instead, the Institute sends a percentage of the basic membership dues directly to the regions. Kudos to the Board for implementing this program, which, at one stroke, nicely addressed three problems: the lack of funding for region travel, the difficulty of collecting assessments, and the “missing” income that was not collected from at-large members. The result is essentially the same process used for chapter dues - the Institute collects them along with Institute dues, then sends the money for local dues to the chapters, a system that has worked for a long time without attention.

It then was decided that the transfer of funds to regions required supervision by the board of directors, and a Region Allocation Program Oversight Committee was formed, the intent being to “administer the Region Allocation Program (RAP) and evaluate the program’s effectiveness.” Since then, the oversight committee has since been quizzing regions and chapters, trying to figure out what’s going on.

In either case, is it not the members’ money, to be used as the regions or chapters determine? The Region Allocation Program was a good idea, but do we need an oversight committee to decide if regions are spending their money wisely?

It's easy to think that all chapters or all regions run the same and manager their finances in the same way, but that isn't true. Some chapters allow their committees to meet at lunch or dinner time, and charge the cost of the meal to the chapter, while others do not. Some operate with only a small amount of money in the bank, while others have a sizable reserve. Some give to charities, while others spend money only on chapter business. Some reimburse members for travel and/or lodging for the annual convention or region conferences; others don't.

Regions have similar variations. Is it really necessary to find out how they spend their money? And once that information is known, what should be done with it? The oversight committee could debate this for years, arguing which expenses are justifiable, and which should be prohibited, and we could end up with a ten-page guideline to further complicate the operation of the regions.

Increased participation of corporations

Another topic our board of directors has discussed many times is corporate participation in CSI. To put this in the proper perspective, our bylaws state that “Firms or corporations are not eligible for membership” and I certainly don’t want to try to change the bylaws to allow corporate membership. However, it seems that we should be able to allow companies to participate more fully in CSI without being corporate members, and to publicize that participation through use of the CSI logo and other expressions of their relationship with CSI. This would benefit both the company and CSI, by showing the company’s support and by making CSI more visible. AIA and USGBC have shown the value of cooperation between companies and organizations; it’s time CSI stopped trying to ignore the importance of those companies that pay the bills.

We often have lamented the fact that while ordinary people are aware of AIA and have some understanding of what it means, they have no idea what CSI is. And in only a few years, USGBC has become possibly the most-recognized name in construction associations. Both AIA and USGBC encourage and profit from corporate participation; in turn, companies that actively support those organizations gain recognition and credibility.

Should CSI pursue greater involvement with companies? Should corporate participation be acknowledged by allowing companies to display the CSI logo? Isn’t it time to gain more visibility by promoting CSI through every means possible?

Express your opinion!

How are the Region Allocation Program and corporate participation related? They’re not. They are two separate activities, each of which requires some of the Board's valuable time. Given a choice, which should the Board spend its time on? And it is a choice, as, along with the reduction in size of the Board comes a reduction in time available.We have fewer people available to do the work of the Institute.

The new Board not only can, but must focus on those things that will make CSI more visible, more useful, and more attractive to new members. At the same time, it must avoid activities that sound good but do not contribute to the survival and success of the organization. There is no question in my mind that members will be better served by more visibility and recognition than by oversight of region finances. Even if it could be shown that region oversight is necessary - something I doubt - it could be done by a task team, allowing the officers and directors to concentrate on more important issues.

Each year we have an annual membership meeting at which members have an opportunity to express their views directly to the board of directors, and to submit resolutions. While it is too late to submit a resolution (which is non-binding anyway), these and other issues still may be brought to the floor as “Other Business.” If you have suggestions for improving our organization, take advantage of this annual forum! If you're interested, contact your Institute Director and ask for a copy of the procedure.

Scar on EnergyStar

noreply@blogger.com (Sheldon) — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 17:11:00 +0000

EnergyStar-approved gasoline-powered alarm clock? Heater with feather duster and flypaper?

When the interest in green design took hold, I observed that an organization with a lot of money would be required to establish green standards. The typical design firm doesn't have the capacity to investigate and evaluate the source, processing, transportation, installation, performance, content, recyclability, and so on for even a single product. It is even more difficult than that, as the same analysis is required for each thing that affects or is affected by the product being studied. Throw in the effects of government subsidies, market preferences, conflicting claims from competing sources, and more, and trying to determine how green even a simple assembly is becomes virtually impossible.

And even if each firm were capable of doing all that, why should all that work be duplicated? Each firm doesn't determine the required characteristics of structural steel or foam insulation, then test the material to make sure it's what it should be; instead, we let someone else - ASTM, for example - set standards and then require compliance with those standards. Why not do the same for green products? Use of industry-wide standards helps achieve consistency and reliability, and makes it easier to specify, manufacture, and install most construction products.

The organization with the most money is, of course, the Federal government. I said it then, and I’ll stay with what I said - this is a job the government is in the best position to take on. Unfortunately, these are the same people who wrote our tax code, see football blackouts and deregulation of cable TV as more important than infrastructure, and try to justify building a $400 million bridge to serve an island with fifty residents.

So we shouldn’t be surprised when a government-backed green standards organization exhibits the typical civil serpent’s approach to reviewing submittals. The March 25 online New York Times carried an article titled “Audit Finds Vulnerability of EnergyStar Program” in which it is reported that EnergyStar-approved products included a space heater with a feather duster and flypaper strips, and a gasoline powered alarm clock.

read the article; read the GAO report

A Request to Industry Professionals

noreply@blogger.com (Sheldon) — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 03:35:00 +0000

Among CSI's 13,000 members are the top experts on construction products - the people who make and install them. Despite this wealth of knowledge, one of the most common complaints of newsletter editors and website managers is, "I don't have any articles!" To solve this problem, all we need do is turn to our industry professionals. Who better than the manufacturer of a product knows its characteristics or how it performs? And who knows more than a qualified installer about conditions required for a successful installation?

When manufacturers and installers see specifications or drawings that are unclear, incomplete, or simply wrong, they are presented with a great opportunity to help design professionals do better. Does the indicated assembly require another component? Is that manufacturer out of business? Are the specified accessories incompatible? Is the detail impossible to construct? Have the referenced standards been updated?

Many of these problems and conflicts can be discussed in short articles, then submitted for publication in chapter newsletters or websites where they can be seen by design professionals. To ignore a recurring problem - or just complain about it - doesn't do anyone any good. So the next time you see a problem, especially if you've seen it more than once, take a few minutes to explain what is wrong and how it should be done, and send it to your chapter editor. Specifiers will love you!

Finish Mock-Ups

noreply@blogger.com (Sheldon) — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 06:52:00 +0000

I recently received an e-mail from one of my favorite architects, asking for help with an unsatisfactory drywall installation. Using the Gypsum Association's GA-216 - Application and Finishing of Gypsum Panel Products as a reference standard, he had specified a Level 5 finish, yet he still was having a difference of opinion with the installer.

I was a bit surprised this was an issue. We specify Level 4 for almost everything and have had few problems; it’s hard to imagine not getting a good Level 5 finish when specified. The exceptions, as you might expect, have been walls at an angle to large windows, or walls with down lighting, and the higher the sheen of the paint, the worse the problem.

The main effect of the skim coat required by a Level 5 finish is to give the same texture to the entire surface. If you have done your own do-it-yourself taping and sanding, you probably noticed that after sanding, the joint compound is smoother than the paper face of the drywall. Depending on the gloss of the paint and the way the surface is lit, this difference in texture can be quite pronounced. A Level 5 finish addresses this problem by requiring a skim coat of joint compound over the entire surface to minimize variations in texture.

The Master Painters Institute, which has defined seven levels of sheen - flat, velvet-like, eggshell, satin, semi-gloss, gloss, and high gloss - recognizes the Gypsum Association recommendations and standards, and states that a Level 5 finish is required for eggshell or higher sheen. That's a nice theory, but in practice, a Level 5 finish often is considered too expensive, and is used only for surfaces that will receive a semi-gloss or higher finish.

Unfortunately – and this bothers me - many terms we use in specifications are poorly defined, or not defined at all, making them essentially impossible to enforce. One person’s expectation may differ substantially from another’s, but it’s often the case that neither can accurately define what they mean. Specifications regularly require that installation be true to line, plumb, level, securely fastened, free of defects, smooth, and so on, usually without a reference standard. The terms "plumb" and "level" have definitions, but they are absolutes, as is "free of defects", and I'm sure most people think of "smooth" in the same way. The problem is that perfection is unattainable, so tolerances must be included or the specification is not literally enforceable.

Many industry organizations have gone to great lengths to help you specify what you want in a meaningful way, but even they can go only so far. For example, the Architectural Woodwork Institute (AWI) has three quality grades, each of which dictates how wide a piece of wood or veneer may be, how many knots it can have in a given area, how visible machine marks are, and so on.

For masonry construction, the Brick Institute of America’s Technical Notes 9A sets limits for dimensional tolerances and chips, and ASTM C216 - Standard Specification for Facing Brick states:

Other than chips, the face or faces shall be free of cracks or other imperfections detracting from the appearance of the designated sample when viewed from a distance of 15 ft (4.6 m) for Type FBX and a distance of 20 ft (6.1 m) for Types FBS and FBA.*

That sounds good, but what I can see at fifteen feet may not be the same as what you see, and we may disagree on what an imperfection is.

For drywall finishes, we could create something like the flatness and levelness numbers used to measure concrete slabs, add limits for the size and spacing of pinholes, and specify the sheen of the sanded surface, but at some point the definitions become unwieldy, and the cost of verification unreasonable.

To get what you want you must be able to define it. That means you must understand the limits of the materials and installation processes, detail and specify precisely, require mock-ups for critical finishes, monitor the work, and notify the contractor immediately when the quality strays from the approved mock-up. This won’t eliminate differences of opinion, but at least you have a basis for discussing what can be done. If you still can’t agree, you may be able to get a representative from an industry organization to help define what constitutes locally acceptable practice. And don't forget manufacturers’ representatives, who usually are willing to offer advice, especially if their products are being used. My experience with both industry and manufacturers’ reps has been very good.

In practice, mock-ups sometimes work against installers, as they try to do a really good job on the mock-up, only later realizing that maintaining the approved level of quality is too expensive.

Example: Here is a picture of a mock-up for an exterior stone wall:

and here is a picture of the wall as first constructed:

It appears that the masons responsible for production were not the same ones who prepared the mock-up. While the production work in this example may be unacceptable, the mock-up created an unrealistic expectation. Even though perfection is the ideal, design professionals should have a realistic understanding of what can be done. (The wall in the example was rebuilt, not quite as well as the mock-up, but much better than the first week's production.)

References:

Architectural Woodwork Standards (joint publication of AWI, AWMAC, WI)
ASTM C216 - Standard Specification for Facing Brick
ASTM C840 - Standard Specification for Application and Finishing of Gypsum Board
Brick Institute of America’s Technical Notes 9A - Specifications for and Classification of Brick
GA-214 - Recommended Levels of Gypsum Board Finish
GA-216 - Application and Finishing of Gypsum Panel Products
MPI Architectural Painting Specification Manual

*Reprinted with permission, from ASTM C216-07a Standard Specification for Facing Brick (Solid Masonry Units Made from Clay or Shale), copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken PA 19428

History Lesson

noreply@blogger.com (Sheldon) — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:45:00 +0000

In February 2007, John C. Anderson, FCSI, Distinguished Member of the Institute, charter member and first president of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Chapter, and fourteenth president of the Institute, passed away. A visionary, John foresaw the value of computers for bringing automation and consistency to specifications, and was a founder of the Construction Sciences Research Foundation (CSRF). John continued to serve CSI and the construction industry in many ways long after his term as president; in addition to serving as a CSRF director, he also was active in AIA, a member of AIA's Professional Development and Intern Development Program Committees, and a member of the National Panel of the American Arbitration Association.

In 1986, the Minneapolis-St. Paul Chapter named its highest award in his honor - the John C. Anderson Award of Excellence. Because he was a member of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Chapter and an important influence in my life, I prepared a tribute to honor his memory at our chapter awards banquet. While working on that project, I confirmed something I had previously suspected - for an organization that is heavily involved in documentation, we have done a poor job of keeping our own records.

Beginning at what seemed a logical point, I asked what was available at Institute and in our chapter. In each case, all I received was a copy of John's Fellow's biography, which had little information. Going on to CSRF, I got even less. Fortunately, John's daughter was able to give me an outline of his work history, and I was able to contact some of the firms he worked for. Most of them no longer existed, and of the two most recent, one offered only the briefest comment.

Our organization is at least middle-aged. We haven't been here as long as AIA, which celebrated its 150th anniversary, but we have been here more than fifty years. About twenty of our chapters have reached that milestone, and we had our fiftieth annual convention a few years ago. As CSI grows older, we must face reality - our members will not be with us forever.

In the past few years we have lost other members known for their leadership - Gary Betts, Andrew Drozda, J. Stewart Stein, Hans Meier, Larry Dean, Walter Damuck, Philip Todisco - as well as many members who were prominent in their regions and chapters. As of this writing, twenty-four of our fifty-four Institute presidents are no longer with us, and about a third of our Fellows are gone. With each passing we lose a little more of what CSI is, and how we came to be where we now are. Because of our lack of records, much of CSI's early history is, or soon will be, lost forever.

Does knowing our history make any difference? In a sense, it does not; we will continue to have meetings, offer education and certification classes, develop and update standards, and so on, regardless. In another sense, it is very important, as knowing your history establishes a foundation for what you do. It also honors and preserves the memory of those who worked so hard to take CSI from a small group of specifiers to an organization recognized for its leadership in standardization of construction documents. From a strictly practical perspective, knowing what we have done in the past lets us see what has been tried before, what has succeeded, and why.

A few years ago I began work on a website for CSI Fellows, at www.FCSINet.org. This website is the online repository for Fellows' biographies and other information related to CSI Fellowship. When I began converting the biographies, I started with the more recent ones, as better information was available. Fortunately, Dick Eustis encouraged me to concentrate on the elder Fellows, and I have been spending more time on earlier classes of Fellows. Obviously, I am limited by the information I have; merely reformatting a brief existing biography does nothing to add to it.

I encourage each chapter and region to dig into its records and put in writing how it began, who the leaders were and what they did, and how they affected our industry. I have been told that some chapters do have good records, but even then, the information is often disorganized and inaccessible. If your chapter stores its records in cardboard boxes in the back of a garage, find someone to collect and organize them. Computers and related technology make this task much easier than it once was; the cardboard box of mildewed paper has been replaced by the files in online storage where they can be accessed by anyone - but someone still has to remember to save the information.

In case the message isn't clear - make this an agenda item for your next chapter or region meeting! As I have found through experience, the time to get this information is limited, and the longer you wait the more difficult it is. And at some point, it becomes impossible.

On the other hand...

noreply@blogger.com (Sheldon) — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 04:32:00 +0000

After CSI’s October 2009 Board Flash, I wrote “A rose is a rose…”, in which I questioned the need for a change of member classification based on the vague explanation that was offered - “The Board believes the condensing of member classifications better reflects CSI's core value of building teamwork among construction professionals.” I also asked for more justification.

In response, I was accused of “old thinking.” Interesting, given that all I had done was review a little history, show that - with the exception of choosing leaders - there is no difference between members, and point out the need to again change chapter bylaws if the amendment is approved. I hoped we might have a little open discussion, and that advocates of change would provide sound reasons for the proposed change.

Remembering how much fun I had I college, taking any side of an argument just for fun, I decided to give the proponents of change a little help, and look at reasons for making the change from three member types to one. There is a good reason for making the change, and we’ll get to it. But first, I’ll comment on the claims that were posted. Sorry, but you’ll have to put up with more of my old thinking.

Following is the proposal, as stated on the ballot.

CSI should change its membership classifications to reflect its operations and to transparently welcome all members of the construction team, thereby solving the following problems:

The current membership classifications create the perception of class distinction and hierarchy among members.
The current membership classifications limit growth because they do not address the increasing diversity of the construction industry.
The current membership classifications do not address the continuing changes in the project delivery methods within the design and construction industry.
Prospective members cannot always readily identify their niche in the current membership classifications.

I’m not sure what it means to “transparently welcome all members of the construction team” so I’ll let that one go. It is claimed that there is a “perception of class distinction and hierarchy among members.” It is possible that there are some who, because of their occupation, believe they are better than others. If so, those feelings would exist even if we had only one type of member, so that is no reason to go through the work required to make the change.

It is claimed that “current membership classifications limit growth because they do not address the increasing diversity of the construction industry [or] changes in the project delivery methods....” Under the current classifications, you either:

write, interpret, enforce or oversee the completion of construction documents,
use and/or comply with construction documents, or supply materials for construction projects, or
provide service, support and assistance to the construction industry.

That seems pretty flexible and all-inclusive to me. If you fit into more than one category, you get to pick the one you want, and changing category is a simple process. I have no idea what project delivery systems have to do with the issue. Because memberships are individual, one person working for a design-build firm may be a professional member, while another may be an industry member.

As for teachers, their offense at not being considered "professional" is amusing for a couple of reasons. They of all people should be accustomed to using defined terms that often include or exclude things that might otherwise not be, for the sake of convenience. They also have a strange reverence for the term "professor", which, according to its definition, could be used by anyone who has a soapbox, yet they reserve that title for only some of those who teach.

It is claimed that prospective members “cannot always readily identify their niche in the current membership classifications.” Again, our three types of members are simple and easy to understand. Although showing that another organization's approach is worse than ours is not justification for what we do, before you accept this argument, take a look at the membership applications for AIA, AGC, NSPE, and USGBC. If a complicated membership application is an obstacle, USGBC and AIA would be out of business.

“A single Member classification would reinforce the way that members interact with each other and the way the organization relates to the design and construction industry as a whole.” Member interactions are based on what they do, not on their member classifications. As far as I know, no member’s interaction with other members has been limited by existing classifications.

“While simplifying classifications, CSI would continue to capture current occupation codes [which would] be included [for] end users as needed.” I’m not sure how it will be an improvement for chapters to use the fifty-six member codes instead of three members types. If we’re concerned about how complicated the membership application form is, removing occupation codes would have more impact than eliminating member classification.

“…instead of simply ‘Professional’, specifications writers, architects, and engineers would be identified by their occupation; ‘Industry' members would be identified as contractors, manufacturers’ representatives, and so forth.” Does this mean we’re going from referring to all members simply as members, to calling them “Product Manufacturing Representative Members” and “Specification Writer Members”? If we’re after a single member classification, why mention occupations at all?

Eureka!

Is there a good reason to change to a single type of member? As it turns out, there is, though those who advocate this change appear reluctant to state it.

About the only time member classification comes into play is when we’re choosing nominees for elected office. Institute bylaws require that Institute and chapter boards of directors have representation of professional members and of industry or professional members.

As long as I have thought about such things, I have been told that a balance of member types is a Good Thing, and I have had reason to believe it. Imagine a chapter with only specifiers, or one with only manufacturers’ representatives, or one with all contractors; there would be none of the interrelationships that make it worthwhile to be a member. And requiring a certain number of each type of member on a board of directors is a Good Thing in that it prevents one group or another from becoming dominant; of course, this could be avoided by a nominating committee charged with trying to maintain some sort of balance. If all members are equal it shouldn’t make any difference who serves on the board of directors.

A valid reason for having a single member type is this: It allows nominating committees to look first for the best candidates, and later to consider what they do. As the Institute Board reaches its final size, it is possible that meeting a mandatory minimum number of one member type or another would mean passing over a superior candidate in favor of one less well qualified. The same applies to chapters, many of which have trouble finding enough volunteers to fill board positions. Should they be required to pass over volunteers just to maintain a balance?

And so, in addition to the things I asked you to consider before - which remain valid concerns - consider which is more important: the need for balance or the ability to vote for the best candidate.

A Dickens of a Tale

noreply@blogger.com (Sheldon) — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 06:49:00 +0000

Scrooge was an old man, set in his ways. And why not? He had been doing things the same way for many years, and the resulting success was sufficient evidence of the wisdom of continuing in that path. Whenever it was suggested that change might be a good thing, “Bah, humbug!” was his response. “I like things the way they are! I started this business, I’ve been doing things the same way for sixty years, and I don’t see any reason to change!”

One evening, a strange series of events befell our dear Mister Scrooge. Having had a particularly trying day, he tried to enjoy a rich repast and a few glasses of wine in an effort to forget his problems. As he fell asleep, he was thinking of how much fun he had had in his youth.

The First Spirit

“Wake up, Scrooge!”

“Who is that?”

“It is I, the Spirit of the Past. Come, let us revisit those wonderful days!” As the words were spoken, they were transported to a city long ago. They stood in the midst of a group of young men busily engaged in excited discussion.

“Good Heaven!” cried Scrooge, looking about. “I know these people! They are specifiers, one and all! Oh, what a marvelous time that was, with the construction industry expanding, and so much work to do.”

“Yes, it was. Do you recall why these people met, what they planned to do?”

“It comes back to me now! We were a group of specifiers who were unhappy with the haphazard way specifications were done. Not surprising, considering we worked for the government! We met and decided specifications could be improved, and we formed an organization to work toward that end. We thought that, by working together, we could improve the practice of writing specifications, make them simpler and easier to understand, standardize government agencies’ documents, standardize building codes, and bring greater efficiency to the industry as a whole. Ah, those were exciting days!”

“You certainly were enthusiastic, and set some lofty goals. And in the early days, you made significant progress.”

Although it seemed to Scrooge that he and the Spirit remained stationary, the scene around them shifted and changed; different locations came into focus, and vivid images of people and documents materialized, then faded away.

“There is Carl Ebert!” Scrooge exclaimed. “He was there at the beginning - Institute President, first editor of the Construction Specifier, charter member of the DC Chapter. I see Ben John Small, a founder of the New York Metropolitan Chapter, and author of a column in Pencil Points. He was a great promoter of the value of good specification writing. And J. Norman Hunter! When he was president, we added twenty-two new chapters!”

“Once you started growing, what did you do to address the issues that brought you together?” asked the Spirit.

“Why, isn’t it obvious? Look there - it’s the CSI Format for Construction Specifications. The industry needed organization, and building designers quickly began using it to bring order to their specifications. It was so useful, it was also used for filing information about products, and it became the industry standard MasterFormat. And see there? It’s SectionFormat. We didn’t stop with an overall grouping of information, we also established an order for the information for a specific product - or 'work result' as today’s young whippersnappers say! There again, we saw the need for better communication through standardization, and we responded. And what about PageFormat? Once more, we created a standard for the industry!”

“Yes, you did all of that - and you created a forum where design professionals, product manufacturers and installers, and contractors could meet and discuss problems and solutions. CSI grew from a handful of people to a nationwide organization of nearly twenty thousand. Indeed, those were the good old days!”

Suddenly, the Spirit disappeared, and Scrooge found himself wondering if he had seen the Spirit, or if it was just something he ate for dinner. He took a couple of antacid pills and went back to sleep, remembering the way things were, so many years ago.

The Second Spirit

“Wake up, Scrooge!”

“What is it this time? Are you real, or am I having indigestion?”

“I am the Spirit of the Present. It isn’t your dinner, though you really should take it easy with the hot sauce. You seemed to enjoy your visit with the first Spirit, so let’s take another journey.”

“If it’s like the last one, it will be fun. Let’s go!”

Once again, Scrooge and the Spirit were surrounded by changing scenes of places and faces. But it wasn’t quite the same.

The construction industry was even stronger than before. Despite a few economic setbacks along the way, there were many more design professionals, contractors, and building product manufacturers than ever before. The industry appeared to be moving ahead at a frantic pace, with plentiful new construction and renovation of existing buildings, seemingly without limits. Projections of future work indicated more work would be done in the next several years than ever before.

The results of Scrooge’s earlier work were evident. That part of the construction industry involved with buildings was making good use of CSI’s Formats: manufacturers included MasterFormat numbers on their literature; design professionals and contractors alike knew where to look for whatever information they needed; and, even though specifications often ignored the rules established in CSI’s venerable Manual of Practice, communication was much improved over that which existed before CSI’s standards existed. And, where before specifiers were forced to create their own documents, there were now several commercial master guide specification systems, some of them automated to the point that the user no longer had to worry about section numbers or titles, cross references, or all of the other nagging minutiae that consumed so much of a specifier’s time in the past.

Scrooge was delighted, thinking he would continue on and become even more successful. Still filled with such thoughts, he was taken aback when the Spirit showed him a smaller part of the industry - his own organization. “Whatever is happening?” asked Scrooge. “The industry is growing by leaps and bounds, yet my own part of it is not keeping pace! There are so many fewer members, and the chapters that once were thriving and growing have lost their vigor! Is it possible I am mistaken? How could I have missed such ominous portents?”

Sadly shaking his head, the Spirit replied, “What you see is what now is. From the time of your visit with the first Spirit, your membership has decreased by a quarter. Many of your chapters seem to have trouble understanding what they are to do. And, in the comfort of your middle age - I’m trying to be kind - you lack the energy and purpose of your youth. You have become complacent, satisfied with your great accomplishments of days gone by.”

“You have been, perhaps, too successful, and, pleased with that success, failed to see the opportunities to further improve communication in your industry. You have continued to concentrate on paper documents, even though the problems of the past have been solved, and little remains to be done with them. It is in electronic communication that today’s challenges lie.”

The Last Spirit

The second Spirit vanished, only to be replaced by yet a third Spirit.

“Judging by what has gone before, am I correct in assuming you are the Spirit of Yet to Come? If so, I fear what you may have to say. And yet, I sense that the visits by you and your kin are meant to help, and I am ready to listen.”

Scrooge and the third Spirit were transported to an indefinite, yet not distant, future. Around them appeared a group of young people, engaged in serious conversation.

“I thought CSI was a TV show way back when!” exclaimed one.

“Well, yeah, but there was this organization with the same name, that had a huge impact back in the middle part of the twentieth century. They did some really cool stuff, like organizing construction information - back when it was all on paper. You wouldn’t believe how crazy construction documents were before CSI came along.”

“So what happened to them? If they had so much going, how did they let it slip away?”

“I don’t understand it myself. What they did for paper later needed to be done with electronic documents. Maybe it was just a case of turning into a bunch of old farts, who didn’t understand computers and couldn’t see the new problems.”

“Didn’t they do a lot with education and certification?”

“They did, but they were so busy telling each other how important they were that they forgot to tell anyone else. Here’s a funny thing: After all the good things they did, and not telling others how important those things were, other groups came along, and in just a few years each convinced government agencies across the country that what they did was the most important thing. First it was energy-efficient buildings, then accessible design, commissioning, design-build, construction management, 'sustainable design', and somewhere in there was 'partnering'. All of which should have been done by design professionals all along. In the end, the things CSI did were absorbed by other organizations, and they didn’t have anything to do anymore.”

“I bet it was pretty sad in the end, when it was just a bunch of the same old people getting together, reliving the good old days, waiting for each other to die.”

Scrooge cried out in agony, “Spirit, please tell me that what you have revealed is only what might be, rather than what is destined!”

After a pause, the Spirit replied. “It’s not that you no longer do useful things. Your work with interoperability and global standardization are truly worthy efforts, and one day will make the industry better - but those things are of no immediate concern to your existing members, and they won’t bring in new members. You have not accepted the possibilities of the near future, when the value of information itself will far outweigh the value of explaining it in words - a process that continues to demand less and less expertise.”

“Some have said that all professional organizations have suffered loss of members and inability to connect with younger people. That may be true in most cases, but it is not an excuse to relax. Those organizations that survive will have found something of value that will attract new members. You claim to represent all those involved in construction, yet you have done little to attract most of them. They represent an untapped resource of knowledge and challenges that can carry you into the future.”

“You do have much to fear, and much to do if you are to avoid the future we have seen this evening. That is but one possible path, though it is one that becomes more likely with each day you do nothing to avoid it. It is possible to regain your former stature, but only if you look to the future. What was it that made you great? It was your ability to see the needs of communication in the construction industry and to provide solutions for those problems. Yes, certification has become more important in the construction industry, but if that certification is not required, it has minimal value. And yes, education is important, but there are many well-established sources of education, and you have little chance of displacing them.”

The End?

We leave Scrooge on the verge of waking. What will he do when he wakes? Will he regain the vigor of his youth, or will he be content to rest on his laurels, meeting old friends until they are no more?

Sensible Stimulus

noreply@blogger.com (Sheldon) — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 02:28:00 +0000

infrastructure: the roads, bridges, rail lines, power grid, and similar public works that are required for an industrial economy to function

I know enough about government to never expect too much, but when the federal stimulus package was proposed, I envisioned a large investment in highways, bridges, dams, and other civil works projects. I won’t pretend to understand the economics or details of the public works programs of the 1930s, but there are countless examples of well-designed, useful, long-lasting projects of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). My own state, Minnesota, has numerous state park buildings, highways, dams, bridges, and utilities that were built seventy years ago and remain in service today.

The subject of my article, “Return on Investment”, was the ancient buildings I saw while on vacation in Europe, and how they continue to be useful today. This month, we’ll look at more recent construction, particularly the infrastructure that supports our lifestyle.
In December 2009, I finally joined the twentieth century and had satellite TV installed in our house. We had talked about it for a couple of years, but saw little reason to increase the sources of garbage available from five channels to more than a hundred. The few channels we were interested in - Discovery, Food, HGTV, and History - were not quite tempting enough to entice us into dealing with all the rest. Also, I had a fear of spending all my waking hours watching the History Channel. The deciding factor turned out to be financial; we could get a bundle with phone, unlimited long distance calls, DSL, and HDTV for less than we were paying.

And sure enough, I’ve been captivated by the History and Discovery Channels. One of the recent shows, The Crumbling of America, was fascinating - and chilling. Opening with the collapse of the I35W bridge in 2007, the show went on to look at the potential for catastrophe in virtually every part of our infrastructure. Much of what we have was built in the early part of the twentieth century, with a design life of fifty years. The continued serviceability of that work is a tribute to the engineering and construction quality of that time, and though service life can be extended with regular inspection and maintenance, there comes a time when replacement is necessary. Unfortunately, it’s a lot easier, and more fun, to build new than to maintain existing buildings; I believe most of us have seen that the maintenance budget is often the first to be cut.

Needless to say, I was disappointed by the stimulus program’s small investment in infrastructure. Of the $770 billion (or is it a trillion? or two trillion?), about $140 billion is earmarked for transportation, water projects, construction and repair of buildings, and upgrading the electric grid.
That sounds like a lot of money, but how much is needed? Those most likely to know are the civil engineers, who are most familiar with the design and maintenance of the systems in question. And indeed, they have something to say. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has a website named “Report Card for America’s Infrastructure”. The ASCE website discusses fifteen infrastructure components, giving each a letter grade, the amount of money needed to bring it up to date, and the amount of money already budgeted. The highest grade is a C+; the average is a D. The total recommended investment, over five years, is $2.2 trillion, approximately twice the amount budgeted from all sources. Another look at infrastructure costs is found at "America's Infrastructure Really Is Crumbling". This one estimates over $3 trillion is required, with almost $2 trillion going to just roads and bridges.

To me, the logic of making this type of investment a high priority is inescapable; there is little value in other stimulus spending if the services we depend on fail. Sadly, it seems the money isn’t available to do the necessary maintenance until a levee or a bridge fails, when legal fees and cleaning up the mess further increase the costs.

It’s easy to say, “You think that only because you’re an architect,” but that’s not true. While a few architects would profit to some extent, engineers and contractors would be the main immediate beneficiaries. Of far greater value would be the indirect benefits to the countless others whose lives depend on services that work.

The importance of our utilities and transportation systems hasn’t been entirely ignored. In 1998, President Clinton’s Presidential Directive PDD-63 set up a national program of "Critical Infrastructure Protection", which was superseded in 2003 by President Bush’s HSPD-7 (Homeland Security Presidential Directive No. 7) - but the focus of these directives is on protection from attack, and on reconstruction after an attack. Perhaps a smart terrorist would simply wait until our infrastructure collapses from neglect.

Return on Investment

noreply@blogger.com (Sheldon) — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 02:06:00 +0000

maintain: to keep in an existing state of repair; to preserve from failure or decline

Although logic tells us our world is built on the past - the inspiration, artistry, genius, and brute labor of our predecessors - it’s easy to forget what has gone before and accept everything we see as normal. If we occasionally took the time reflect on the wonders around us, or the long chain of events that led to their creation, we might better appreciate what we have, and plan better for the future.

To celebrate our sixtieth birthdays, my wife and I took a three-week vacation in Germany and Italy, beginning in mid-September. Before that, our foreign travel had been limited to a trip to Puerto Morelos, Mexico in 1998 and a CSI/CSC convention in Winnipeg in 2006. Our longest vacation had been ten days, so this was quite the adventure for us.

One of the major contributing factors was my work schedule. For the first time in the last thirty years, there was a hole! Despite the economy, I had been working overtime, so to see a couple of weeks with nothing scheduled was a bit of a shock. Hmm, what to do? Work anyway, and lose the vacation time? Stay home and try to catch those pesky gophers? Or - hey! here’s an idea - do something you’ve talked about doing for twenty years!

And so, in just a few weeks, we planned our trip. At first we were going to play it safe and take a short trip to England, but we quickly decided to make the most of the opportunity; we added a third week and began planning a tour of the continent. Our list of cities continually expanded and shrank as we alternately added interesting sites, then cut things to avoid the “if it’s Tuesday it must be Belgium” syndrome.

We were a great team, both in planning and execution. We split the itinerary, with Linda focusing on Italy and I on Germany. Once we had that more or less settled, she worked more on accommodations, while I worked on transportation. By the time we left, we knew where we were going and when, with one exception - but that’s another story.

The weather could hardly have been better. We had one misty morning in Immenstaad, and light drizzle on our last day, in Limburg. Otherwise, all sun and light breeze, enhanced with the occasional glass of wine. We relied primarily on rail transportation, with a couple of bus trips and a few cruises thrown in for variety. I can’t say enough about the rail system, especially in Germany; there was no comparison with my Amtrak experiences. In short, it was as perfect a trip as I can imagine.

Of the many remarkable things we saw, the most pervasive was the sheer age of the buildings and artifacts. Coming from a country just over two hundred years old, I couldn’t help but think about the fact that every place we went had a history many hundreds of years longer than ours. It was an odd sensation, sitting in a restaurant that was doing business long before Columbus set foot on North America. In Pommern, Germany, we toured a winery that had been in the same family since 1610. In both Germany and Italy, we saw countless buildings that were centuries old, yet still in use today.

In some areas, I was struck by the apparently poor condition of buildings that were not in obviously poor areas. The paint was peeling, the roofs were damaged, and some had holes in the walls. Yet there they stood, still serviceable after hundreds of years. The secret of their longevity? They were built of stone, concrete, and plaster.

In many parts of Italy, I was amazed by the countless terraces built to allow agriculture on the steep slopes. In a dark, lower-level room in Rio Maggiore, I found a room-sized museum that showed how the terraces were built. While most of the masonry construction we are familiar with uses manufactured masonry units and mortar, the terraces I walked among were built of dry-stacked, rough-cut stone. This method of construction requires both the meanest grunt labor and sophisticated artistry; the mason had to carry each stone to its location on a steep hill (often 70 degrees), then choose the right combination of stones that would produce a stable wall with a relatively smooth, planar surface. According to the information I was able to find, the terraces in this area contain more than ten million cubic yards of stone. (For an aerial tour of this area, go to http://snipurl.com/tdkfq. The scenes of Manarola and Rio Maggiore include a good view of the terraces surrounding those cities. If you’re interested, some of our own pictures are online at http://snipurl.com/trgm5.)

It’s interesting to consider what I saw in the context of “sustainable” design. I’m pretty sure the Europeans weren’t terribly concerned about sustainability, yet they built cities that survived to this day with essentially no maintenance. Not that they necessarily had that in mind, but when you build with stone, you’re building for the long haul! Those ancient structures have proven to be impervious to all but the worst disasters, and it hasn’t mattered that someone forgot to paint them for a few years - or a few hundred. They also demonstrate the recyclability of stone; many a castle has contributed material for the construction of a newer building.

Unfortunately, stone buildings can’t be built fast enough, and they require too much labor to be affordable in today’s world. Modern construction relies heavily on complex technology for production of materials and labor-saving equipment, and for maintenance and operation of building systems. Our challenge is to create materials and systems that make better use of existing resources, require little maintenance, and will either last a very long time or be easily reused or recycled. Instead of designing for performance on the day of occupancy, we must evaluate the total cost of each material and system, including maintenance and replacement, and base our decisions on the life cycle cost of the entire facility.

Without maintenance, I wonder, how many twentieth century cities would be intact and in use a thousand years from now?