More specifications history

In the last post, "Where have I heard that before?", I used several excerpts from a 1920 edition of the American Architect magazine. The comments showed a general concern about the importance of specifications, and about the absence of specifications in architectural education, stating "the preparation of specifications receives less study and attention in proportion to its importance than any other phase of architectural or engineering practice."

While investigating the history of specifications, I was surprised to find references like this, as I had learned next to nothing about specifications in school (I think the word was spoken the first day of Professional Practice class, never to be mentioned again). It wasn't until I became a specifier that I understood what specifications are, thanks to my local CSI chapter. However, as good as the education and certification classes were, my understanding was that CSI pretty much invented specifications.

Where have I heard that before?

"It is probable that few members of the profession will disagree [that] the preparation of specifications receives less study and attention in proportion to its importance than any other phase of architectural or engineering practice. It is generally conceded that there is need for accurate, concise, yet comprehensive specifications in order to secure the best results from any set of plans. In our architectural schools … instruction in specification writing has been neglected to such an extent that those to whom the task of specification writing has fallen have usually been forced to educate themselves. As a natural sequence of this condition we find too many inaccurate and incomplete documents accompanying drawings under the guise of specifications."

If you participate in or visit CSI groups on LinkedIn, or follow discussions on 4specs.com, or talk with just about any specifier, it's likely you have heard similar comments. Most of those who work with specifications appreciate their value, and believe that, to be effective, they must contain all the information needed by the contractor, they must not contain irrelevant information, and they must be easy to understand. Following is more of the comment from which I took the opening quotation.

Excuse me, but your slip is showing!

I don't know how this issue has escaped me for nearly forty years, but I'm not alone. In that time, I have occasionally talked about coefficient of friction for floors, but I just discovered there has been no widely accepted standard for slip resistance. Not only that, but neither the IBC nor ADA define slip resistance, even though both require slip resistant floors and walkways.

How the heck is that possible? Think of all the very specific requirements in the building code. How did they miss this one? And think of ADA, with its Byzantine combination of Spock-like precision in some areas, and a "Take a guess and we'll see you in court" approach to other requirements. How can it be that the good folks who write the ADA requirements know exactly what so many dimensions must be, but they have no idea what they mean by slip-resistant? It seems to me that not falling on your arse is a lot more important than a quarter inch difference in the location of a water closet, but this apparently - no, this obviously important performance characteristic has had no definition.

Return on investment

I recently received an e-mail from CSI, encouraging me (and, I trust, thousands of others) to volunteer to work on an Institute committee or task team. It reminded me of how I became involved in volunteer work for CSI, and how much that work meant to my career.

When I became a specifier, in 1985, I had not written any specifications, nor had I heard of CSI. I knew that I had a lot to learn, but I have a natural interest in finding out how things work, so I was confident I could figure out what to do. Fortunately, my boss suggested I join the local CSI chapter, and within a couple of years I studied for and passed the CCS exam. So far, my interest was self-centered; I wanted to be the best specifier I could be, and I saw the benefit of networking with product representatives.

How did we get here? Chapters

In the last post, "How did we get here? Membership", we looked at a graph showing CSI's membership curve. I'm using the same graph this time, with a second curve to show the number of chapters. As was the case last month, it was hard to find accurate information, but the overall curve is close to what it would be if I did have all of the correct dates. For sources, I used charter dates that were given to the Bylaws Amendment Review Task Team, responses to an inquiry I sent to all chapters, Walter Damuck's history of the Institute, and 50th anniversary notices that appeared in various CSI publications. Along the way, eleven chapters were lost, a few by merger, and others because they fell below the minimum number of members required to keep their charters.

I want you!

A couple of years ago I wrote a tongue-in-cheek article titled "3 reasons to not get certified". My intent, obviously, was to explain in what I considered a humorous way why a person should get certified. One or two of the given reasons for not getting certified might apply to a very few people, but those looking for a real reason to avoid certification would not find it in that article. 

I'd like to revisit the subject, this time from a more practical perspective. To put it bluntly, I want you to be certified. Of course, if I never see you it won't make much difference, but if we're going to work together, I'd like to have some confidence that you know what you're doing. Regardless of whether or not you are certified, it will take time to establish the level of trust that allows both of us to rely on the other.

How did we get here? Membership

In the LinkedIn CSI Leaders group, Joy Davis recently began a series of discussions under the heading #CSIStats. The goal, as expressed in the first post of the series, is "helping CSI leaders understand where CSI stands by sharing facts about the Institute … to help you start and  participate in discussions about who CSI is and where the Institute should go in the future."

Each discussion has started with a few membership statistics about who members are and what they do, followed by links for recommended reading, and a question to start a discussion.

As often happens, each discussion has had a brief flurry of responses, then died. Part of the problem, which affects everything we do, is the limited number of participants. Because this is a locked LinkedIn group, discussion necessarily is limited to members of the group, who number 503. Still, these are by definition leaders of CSI, so it's not a bad place to have a discussion, though it would be good to seek input from the general membership. That is being done through the Institute website, where the posts are available to all. To date, they have garnered a total of three comments. (Contrary to popular belief, posting something to a website does little to get the word out, as few people visit websites except when looking for specific information.)

In Week 4 I posted a few statistics about the discussion.

Above and beyond…

Published each year, CSI's "Honors & Awards Guide" describes the requirements for each Institute award and honor, and contains the information needed to make a nomination. Despite the availability of the Guide, which is posted on the Institute website, many nominations are deficient in one way or another. Given the amount of information in the guide's forty-five pages, it is not surprising that questions arise, but staff, the chair of the Awards Committee, and the chair of the Jury of Fellows will gladly answer those questions.

Requirements for awards are relatively straightforward, each having specific qualifications that must be met. In contrast, honors acknowledge a body of work, often lifetime contributions of many types. In particular, there always seems to be a bit of mystery and confusion surrounding Fellowship.