Changing the Specification Writing Paradigm
A case for improving architectural and engineering construction document quality through improved specification production protocols
By Michael C. King, RA, CSI
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein (attributed)
US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)
Stating the Issue
An internet search of the phrase “Construction Document Quality” will yield an extensive list of surveys, reports and student theses confirming the notion that there is a general decline in the quality of architectural and engineering construction documents being produced by design professionals across the world. It is the opinion of many in the industry including design professionals, contractors and building owners that the trend has followed a downward trajectory for the past 15 to 20 years.
Not wishing to dwell on the statement of the problem, the following quote will suffice:
“Survey respondents made it clear the value of well-crafted drawings, specifications and contracts cannot be overstated. When asked to rate the quality of construction documents today, nearly 60 percent of owners, architects, engineers, planners and construction managers surveyed said quality was “deteriorating.” An additional one-quarter of those who responded rated document quality as no worse but no better than in the recent past.”
Quote from an annual survey conducted by the Department of Engineering Professional Development in the College of Engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Design professionals are acutely aware of this trend and are in a constant struggle to improve documentation quality. They confront a daunting list of factors to overcome which obstruct the path to improvement including:
· Constricted delivery schedules
· Expanding owner expectations
· Stagnant fee structures
· Inadequately trained work force
· Increased building systems complexity
· Increased regulatory compliance requirements
Toward a Solution
QM/QC
In the mid-90’s “Total Quality Management” (TQM) came into vogue in A/E/C practice. This improvement effort was based largely on the successful implementation of the teachings and philosophy of Dr. W. Edwards Deming in the Japanese auto industry. Deming offered fourteen key management principles for transforming business effectiveness. The fifth principle is:
“Improve constantly and forever the system of production and service, to improve quality and productivity, and thus constantly decrease costs.”
Design professionals quickly implemented Quality Management / Quality Control procedures. While sound in principle these management practices have fallen by the wayside primarily because of scheduling pressures. To underline the point consider the following:
· List the initiatives taken by your firm in the past five years that are now part of your “Design Process” and that have improved the accuracy, completeness and constructability of your deliverables.
· Since implementing these initiatives has there been a reduction in project RFI’s and Change Orders?
CAD / BIM
A/E firms for the past three decades have been driven by competitive necessity and occasionally client mandate to maintain current versions of CAD software and the hardware to run it. Costs to operate and maintain this technology have soared. Highly specialized network managers are increasingly relied upon to keep the systems operational.
Then, just when we thought we had CAD standards resolved the cycle begins again.
As with CAD before it, BIM is being touted by vendors, academics and practitioners as the next “Must Have” the panacea that will save the architects from their documentation woes.
Here again the question arises: Has CAD and will BIM improve the accuracy, completeness and constructability of Construction Documents. History would suggest not.
A Personal Reflection
In 1971 I stepped through the threshold of my first architectural office and began my career as a draftsman (a currently politically incorrect title). Standing over a Hamilton drafting table I spent my first month completing Door and Finish Schedules using a mechanical pencil on 1000H Clearprint (translucent drafting paper). Lettering technique, line weight and correct use of triangles and parallel rules were critical and work was done under the watch full eye of the Project Architect. Then as now designs needed to be changed and details corrected. An old office adage was, “Don’t draw more in the morning than you can erase in the afternoon.” At the time I knew little about construction documents and even less about specifications.
Over the course of the next several years I continued to work in architectural offices both part and full time. My undergraduate degree was in Graphic Design followed by a Master of Architecture degree in 1978. I became a registered architect in 1981. My ability to draft and assemble working drawings had improved significantly. Still, however, specifications were completed by some “old guy” written out by hand on a yellow pad or cut and pasted from past projects to be transcribed and typed on a typewriter.
The irony is that little has changed! In the past and architect’s work product included two piles of paper, working drawings and specifications. We are still producing those two deliverables. The point is that we, as a profession, are relying on what Jo Drummond, FCSI, CCS calls “paraprofessional drafters” with limited experience to detail projects. I was one of them!
“Until recently, CAD systems in most firms have been operated not by a computer-literate design professional but by (at best) a paraprofessional drafter who knows far more about the tool (CAD program) than the output (architect and engineering).”
Specification production has been impacted as well. Mr. Drummond continues:
“In the arena of specifications production, as firm principals have become less involved in document production, text editing and specifications usually fall to one of the project architects or engineers, who is also responsible for production of the drawings. Urgency and expediency join together and, unfortunately, it has become common practice to simply modify previous project specifications rather than think through the need of the project and make the most appropriate selections of material and products.”
To the Point
Turning the corner and affecting gains in construction document quality is essential and most surely possible. A step in that direction is to expand the specification specialist’s role in the design team. Specification writers have developed a level of x-ray vision as far as construction detailing is concerned. Using this resource to assist design/drafters seems appropriate and acceptable. The specification writer needs to come out of the back room and assume an appropriate role with the design team on the studio floor.
Larger design firms with staffs in excess of 200 employees are typically able to retain the services of a full-time spec writer. Medium sized firms in the 50 to 200 employee range may commonly assign a senior staff member the role of specification coordination along with other duties. However, 80 percent of the architectural firms in the US have staffs of 6 employees or less. They are clearly not is a position to employee a fulltime senior level specification writer. The assignment is delegated to the principal or project architect who has other responsibilities which distract them from writing specifications.
Using a contract spec writer in an expanded role can be of significant benefit. The spec writer’s contract might include:
· Preparation of technical specification sections (Divisions 2 – 14)
· Verification and preparation of Bidding Requirements, Supplemental Conditions and Division 01 with Owner
· Coordination of engineering sections
· Coordinate Submittals, Testing Requirements and Product Warranties
· Edit LEED requirements to project requirements
· Coordinate naming conventions with the drawings
· Assist in construction detailing for consistency with products specified
· Participate in constructability reviews
Advantages of contracting with a Spec Writer
Using an experienced spec writer on a contract basis has the following advantages:
· Active knowledge of technically complex materials and building systems
· Familiarity with master specification systems including appropriate editing required for specific projects
· Proficiency in the efficient production of project specifications from masters
· Ability to write custom sections required by a specific project
· Ability to adapt manufacturers specification to non-proprietary requirements
· Used only when needed
· QC reviewer
· Cost effective (Fixed Fee Contract)
Conclusion
A single change in the design process will not of itself reverse the decline in document quality. However, making the paradigm shift to a Contracted Spec Writer is a viable consideration in the small to mid-sized architectural firm. This is especially true in firms seeking opportunities with institutional and larger commercial clients who require more rigorous specifications.
The systematic and managed application of all design team resources within a well thought design/production process will create synergies leading to higher quality construction documents.
For more information:
The Fifth Annual FMI/CMAA Survey of Owners was conducted by FMI in partnership with the Construction
Management Association of America (CMAA).
Decline in Design Document Quality
The problem of incomplete drawings was mentioned as one of the leading causes of cost overruns. Drawings and construction documents ranked high on the list of concerns for owners in this year’s survey. Seventy-four percent of owners polled said, “yes,” they have experienced a decline in the quality of design documents. In fact, 63% agreed that the quality of design documents has declined to the point where subcontractors, such as electrical and mechanical, are actually completing the design through the shop drawing. Nearly 60% say that approach creates miscommunication and delays, while almost 30% say that it just gets the job done in another way. Nearly 50% of respondents say the construction documents prepared by the design team that are presented to the construction team at the beginning of a project still have “significant information needed.” Another 15% say construction documents are “insufficient with major information needed,” and 5% say these documents are “inadequate with major information needed.” Put another way, only 30% of projects start out with construction documents that are “adequate” or better.
