The Angst with Codes and Documents

I know that I promised you the final post in the 3 part series on "The Golden Rule" but Ralph Liebing's weekly "PER-SPEC-TIVES" article spoke to me this week and I wanted to share it with you all. If you don't follow Ralph's work, you should! Feel free to email webmaster@csibaltimore.org and I'll put you in touch with Ralph.

 

THE ANGST WITH CODES AND DOCUMENTS

By Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT, CPCA, CBO [former]

 

In the face of what appears to be a growing expansion and to some an intrusion, of code officials into the process of documenting projects, there is need for open, free and collaborative discussion. Both sides must understand the other-- fully-- and be ready to discuss, accommodate, compromise and resolve the entire issue, with mutual respect and conclusive results.

 

Two primary issues have impacted the code situation. First, cuts in agency personnel have caused offices to require "easily reviewed" documents-- i.e., documents where the information is obvious, "pops out at you", and is complete in one place. Two electronic documents and code applications and forms often are not easy fits. Word processing is most common, but code personnel do not "wish" or have time to search for pertinent information in specifications—the very place where a trove of information is easily placed. These factors, [and perhaps the wide differences—many appearing as unreasonable or unnecessary-- in local code regulations and review procedures] serve to confound quick and accurate plan reviews and prompt permit issuance, and create unfortunate raw nerves between design and code personnel.

 

The adoption of the International Family of Code has given a tremendous boost to codes, relieved much of the parochial codes and provided a more dynamic code change process. Overall this status change has also empowered code agencies to increase their impact technically and has caused most to change administrative processes, requirements and fees. To alleviate economic troubles in local governments, fees have also risen while demands of "more" information, and easier access to information have taken quite a turn. Here angst and "raw nerves" have become more prevalent and problematic to both sides—the code side and the design side. The resulting angst, unwavering absolutes and "unilateral "demands cannot stand in a rapidly moving construction world.

 

Building codes and other regulations need to be turned into "positive" elements of practice, and reduced to a functionally minimal process; i.e., the importance and need for regulation is valid, but researching and resolving the issues within a project should be reduced to a minimum time frame. There may be too much time spent either avoiding the regulations entirely, or in efforts to circumvent, or obviate them.

 

Design professionals cannot directly control the code agencies and personnel, but they can make comment and influence the political entities that enact the codes, etc. Here is where we need to get over the threat of retribution and work in concert for the common goal of safe construction. To make the code and permit process a confounding, and needlessly convolute, messy and elongated process is no advantage to any of the parties.

 

Perhaps a proposal, or a solution, is to start at the highest levels and begin to engage the processes of documenting and code compliance as they "should" interface. Might look good for progress there, but the final arrangement may well still lie in overcoming local and personal attitudes, expertise and summary judgments

 

We need meaningful discussion and facts-- we don’t need venom, nastiness, knee-jerk solutions and flat out anger. We do need incisive notes, situation citations, examples, and other forms of questionable requests. Of course, universal adherence to the results is necessary to eliminate the localized differences and demands for added documents goes without saying.

 

Interested in talking and truly discussing?