EYEWASH? BOILERPLATE?

I don’t think I’m especially thin-skinned about my work as a spec writer.

Point out something you want changed in one of my specs and I’ll probably change it, after making sure it’s an informed decision. After all, spec writing is a collaborative profession, integral to the production of contract documents, and I like being part of a smoothly functioning, respectful, team.

Point out an error in one of my specs and I’ll thank you for telling me. Then I’ll promptly make the correction.

Ditto for alerting me to a contradiction between one of my specs and the accompanying drawings. It’s common for production of drawings and specs to proceed simultaneously, and for differences in nomenclature between drawings and specs to be discovered during onboard and final reviews of the construction documents. So I expect to constantly make adjustments to specs in progress.

But I am very thin-skinned about a couple of words and the attitudes they reveal. The two words are “eyewash” and “boilerplate.”  

Eyewash, definition from The Random House Dictionary of the English Language:  “...nonsense, bunk.”.

Boilerplate, from Wikipedia:  “...those parts of a contract that are considered ‘standard language’.”  Even though many provisions in the contract conditions and in the specs may be standard, that doesn’t mean they’re not meant to be part of the contract’s requirements.

A speaker using either of these words seems to me to regard the specs as inapplicable, or only partially applicable, to his role in the current project, and by using them may be signalling his intention to follow the specs selectively, as he chooses.

These words also convey the speaker’s disdain for the size and complexity of the specs.  As I said in my blog post Why is the Project Manual So Big, “...the minute that any of the actors in a construction project need support for a position they’re taking, where do they look?  The spec. If the spec has information that settles the issue, everything’s fine. But if the answer can’t be found in the spec, the spec writer puts on his or her thinking cap and wordsmiths something to make the documents better on the next project.  That’s why the spec book is so big.  We spec writers get a lot of feedback.  And we’re driven by the need to strive for a loophole-proof set of construction documents. The inevitable result of such feedback is more words and more pages in the Project Manual.”

Remember those hilarious Pink Panther movies, in which the antics and incompetence of Parisian police Inspector Jacques Clousseau elicited facial tics, and worse, in Clousseau’s boss, Chief Inspector Charles Dreyfus? Here’s a YouTube collection of scenes of the great actor Herbert Lom playing Inspector Dreyfus.

Calling specs “eyewash” or “boilerplate” will have a similar effect on me, and I suspect, other spec writers.

You wouldn’t want to be responsible for that, would you?

POP QUIZ: WHAT'S A FOUCAULT PENDULUM?

The reason I ask about Foucault pendulums is that I saw one last night here in Rockford at a USGBC tour of Rock Valley College's new  LEED (soon to be) Gold Jacobs Center for Science and Math, designed by Rockford architects Saavedra Gelhausen.  The pendulum is the focal point in the building's three-story entrance/atrium.


I won't even attempt to explain what a Foucault pendulum is, because Wikipedia does such a good job here.


For more detail on the Jacobs Center, Rock Valley College's extensive sustainability efforts, and the design and construction team, click here.


This new building is a great place to be, as well as a great place to learn.


Here's what the pendulum looks like.

BLOGGERS SHOULD READ ZINSSER'S "ON WRITING WELL"

Scanning my bookshelf a few days ago, I came across "On Writing Well" by William Zinsser.  I bought the book several years ago. I read and enjoyed it at the time.


I'm reading it again, and I strongly recommend it to bloggers.


Here's why. Internet addict that I am, I follow many interesting blogs, mainly on construction, architecture, and spec writing.  Many are well written and interesting.  Others are interesting but not so well written.  I have to work harder to understand the writer's point. Sometimes I lose patience before finishing a poorly written item, and navigate to something else on the Internet. 


We bloggers want to persuade or to inform, or we wouldn't be going to the effort of blogging.  This book will help us to write good blog posts.  I had several essay/posts in progress when I started reading  "On Writing Well", and the lessons I learned in the book have triggered a serious rewrite of all of them. Who knows when I'll finish them, but I know that they will be clearer and more persuasive as a result.


"On Writing Well" isn't some dry collection of rules about writing.  It's an interesting and amusing book about the craft of writing.  How to be clear, how to keep the reader's interest by putting yourself in her shoes. How to build ideas the way a good lawyer builds his case. 


It takes a master wordsmith to write an interesting book about writing and Mr. Zinsser has done it.


Put "On Writing Well" in your library.  Here's one place to get it.

TIME FLIES

It seems like only yesterday that I was a young architect in the office of C. F. Murphy Associates in Chicago.  


The office was busy, and one of their premier projects was the new FBI headquarters building to be built in Washington, D. C.  I didn't work on the drawings for the FBI building, but I watched a large and dedicated team of people labor for many months to produce the drawings.


Today I came across an article in Huffington Post  citing a report by the GAO, casting doubt on the future of the building, which has reached the ripe old age of 36 years.


Oh, well.

CONFESSIONS OF A FLIP-FLOPPER

I admit it.  I’m a flip-flopper on the subject of integrated project delivery (IPD).

Some days I’m a pollyanna.  Some days I’m a cynic.

The pollyanna in me wants to believe that the age-old conflicts between AEs and Contractors can be suppressed to the point that we can devote more attention to getting the design right and the documents clear, and less time practicing defensive architecture. 

The cynic in me wonders whether the long, contentious history between AEs and Contractors can be neutralized any time soon.

My inner pollyanna whispers to me that maybe I’m dwelling too much on that history and that I’d be better off focusing on the present, and concentrating on my positive mental attitude.

Things usually work better on design/build projects than on design/bid/build projects because the contractual ties between AE and Contractor have a way of settling issues while the construction documents are in progress.  Thus things don’t get out of hand after it becomes expensive to make changes.

The tortured history between AEs and Contractors arises mainly out of design/bid/build projects, where the interests of AEs and Contractors diverge because of their differing stakes in a project.  Here are a few of the viewpoints I see:

●      Contractors:

○      frequently assert that drawings and specs are riddled with incompleteness,  errors, and contradictions; and that when a hapless contractor finally forces an AE to deal with a mistake or contradiction, the AE blames the contractor and says the contractor failed to draw the proper “inferences” from the construction documents.

○      complain that AEs take too long to review submittals.

○      think the AE’s design is too sophisticated (read: expensive) for the project at hand, and complain about it to the owner.

○      think that AEs are too inflexible and suspicious of Contractors.

●      AEs:

○      sometimes see Contractors as mercenaries who place a low priority on the project owner’s interest.

○      suspect Contractors of blithely ignoring the requirements of the contract documents and of trying to sneak quality compromises under the radar rather than getting the explicit informed consent of the owner to make a change.

○      suspect Contractors of shamelessly front-loading the payment process, to the owner’s financial detriment/risk.

○      think that Contractors sometimes shirk their contractual responsibility to coordinate the work, and instead view themselves as essentially purchasing agents with little inclination to coordinate the work.

Can an IPD agreement really get AEs, Contractors (and Owners, too, by the way) to play together nicely?  I sure hope so.  Under the right circumstances, and with the right players, it can probably work well.  Just look at the success of design/build projects, where AEs and Contractors are collectively responsible for the design.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could all just get along? 

We’re in the midst of our first project designed under an IPD arrangement.  In a year or so, I should be able to say that I’m no longer a flip-flopper about IPD.