A Spec Writer Looks at Revit

After flirting with BIM for years, our office is now committed to doing most new projects in Autodesk Revit.

I’m glad about this because BIM is clearly the future of design and construction.  It’s a smarter way to approach construction documents and building design.

So I’m now getting the opportunity to become familiar with Revit as I use the Revit viewer to survey in-progress models for information needed to edit specs for projects.  Our office has not switched to one of the specification writing add-ons that assist in coordinating Revit models with specs.  I want to look at that again soon, but my impression is that our use of nomenclature and annotations, as well as Revit families and variations thereof in the models, will have to get way more sophisticated, rigorous and consistent before it makes sense to make the switch.

So far, there’s not much difference between how I approach information-gathering for spec writing on Revit projects versus Autocad projects.  Or for that matter, just using hard copy in-progress drawings.  

I look at the model and/or the drawings on screen, and edit as much as I can with that information. Then I talk to the project teams to iron out the issues.

I still find differences between the model and written documentation such as memos and my notes.  

• A project memo may indicate that the client wants ceiling-hung toilet partitions; the model shows floor-supported partitions.

I still find nomenclature which doesn’t conform to industry standard lingo.  

• A Room Finish Schedule may indicate “acoustical tile” when the product shown on reflected ceiling plans and the model property box is “acoustical panel’.

I still occasionally find inapplicable details, mainly “drafted” details dropped into the model, or maybe just left there because they’re part of a project template of some sort.  Or awaiting editing and refinement?

• Ceramic floor tile edge details on a project that has no ceramic tile flooring scheduled in the finish schedule.

I occasionally find things in the models that are either erroneous or just suspicious.  The main problem seems to be that objects are chosen because their geometry comes close to the object that’s required, but they’re just not quite right.    A few examples:.

• An opening assembly in an exterior wall may say “interior” in its property box.
• A wall assembly may have a stated R-value in its property box that’s markedly different from what an experienced designer can ballpark using known insulation r-values for that type of insulation.
• Some things still show up as generic, such as “filled region - Sealant” or “rigid insulation”. More information than that is needed in order to edit specifications.
• An opening schedule may indicate that a particular opening has a flush door with no glazing, while an interior elevation in which the door appears shows it as having a vertical glazed lite.
• The property box for a roofing assembly may refer to EPDM roofing, even though annotations in the model, and the specs, specify TPO roofing.
• The property box for a coiling steel door may describe a rated assembly, while the Opening Schedule has the door as unrated.

The cure for all of these situations, it seems to me, is twofold:

• Patiently navigating the Revit learning curve, steadily building the skills to make the families and objects more accurate and reliable.
• Conversation and coordination with the rest of the project design teams. Lots of questions to clarify intent and careful editing, both model and spec, are necessary to create a unified, consistent, reliable package of information.

I’m not complaining about these things, mind you. I’m just pointing out that BIM is not a panacea for either architects or spec writers.  I’m grateful to finally have the chance to become familiar with BIM.

But just in case someone out there thinks that using BIM means that spec writing is now completely automated thanks to Revit, and that the model writes the specs:  Not quite yet.

Spec Writing Isn't Just a Living. It's Entertainment.

Spec writing isn't just a living. It's entertainment. For me, at least.

image by freeimageslive.co.uk - gratuit

I’m sure there are other roles in the AEC industry that provide professional fulfillment, satisfaction and entertainment. Structural engineers, for example, may get to design unusual, one-of-a-kind structures or modifications to existing buildings, and the satisfaction of having designed an ingenious, structurally efficient, solution. HVAC engineers, especially with today’s emphasis on energy efficiency, are in a unique position to have a positive impact on the future by reforming the way we use energy in buildings.  Ditto plumbing engineers and the use of scarce water resources.  And electrical engineers and their potential influence on better and more efficient lighting.  And technology designers with smart systems for buildings. Etc., etc.

Back to spec writing. I think I’m very lucky to be a spec writer at this point in AEC history. Not only do I get to work on projects both large and small, easy and tricky, fast-paced and slow-paced, I get to do this at a time when the very form of contract documents is about to experience profound change. A change from paper-based documents you can hold in your hands, to electronic file-based documents stored in the cloud and accessible to a wide-ranging team of project designers, builders, and the ownership team. And as a spec writer, I get to help build the bridge from the old way of doing things to the new way.

Our local Northern Illinois Public Radio station, WNIJ - DeKalb Rockford, has as its motto “Where you learn something new every day”.

That’s what spec writing is for me. Learning something new every day.  Or several somethings.

If you want to be a meaningful part of the AEC business, consider looking for opportunities to get into spec writing, either full time or as an adjunct to another role.  Don’t worry about little things like memorizing those pesky CSI format numbers. Repeated use of the system will sear most of the numbers into your memory anyway.  

To be a spec writer, you do have to be a good, detail-oriented, critical reader, as well as a careful writer, and a ruthless editor.  But fear not.  You’ll find that most CSI members are almost pathologically eager to help and mentor you.

THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS

A question from one of my students about how products and work results are categorized in CSI’s MASTERFORMAT got me to thinking about one particular number/title that seems to me to be an anomaly.

MASTERFORMAT has a great keyword index, and is indispensible in my efforts to organize and package construction information. And what I do all day, every working day as a spec writer, is package construction information for my firm’s projects.

What the Dewey Decimal System or the Library of Congress System do for librarians, CSI MASTERFORMAT does for spec writers.

(Before you read the next few paragraphs, I need to apologize to all those public-spirited volunteers who participate in the consensus processes that generate and update CSI’s MASTERFORMAT.  I really appreciate what you do. I really do. I use MASTERFORMAT every day of my professional life.  I was just too busy - doing what I can’t remember right now - to participate in the last review of MASTERFORMAT. I don’t mean to criticize your work. I promise I’ll make time to comment on the next update of MASTERFORMAT.)

So here’s the anomaly I’m thinking about:  Unframed mirrors.  

MASTERFORMAT puts unframed mirrors in Section 08 83 00 - MIRRORS, subordinate to Section 08 80 00 - GLAZING. This is in Division 08 - OPENINGS.  So the question that occurs to people, me included, is:  In what sense is an unframed mirror an opening? Unframed mirrors are only fixtures for reflecting images. They’re for grooming or decor purposes, and don’t open in any sense. Nothing passes through a mirror, not people, not air, not even light. I know, I know. We’re supposed to be talking about work results, not products, and in a sense glazed mirrors are glazing because most of them are made of glass, and maybe installed by the glazing trade.  But they’re still not openings.

Framed mirrors - at least the ones in bathrooms and toilet rooms - don’t open either, except for mirror-door residential medicine cabinets which are definitely in Division 10.

It seems logical to at least consider putting unframed mirrors in Division 09 - FINISHES. Some mirrors are used as wall finish, decor if you will.  You can see such applications of mirrors in restaurants and sometimes in retail situations.

Maybe the authors of MASTERFORMAT put unframed mirrors in Division 08  - OPENINGS because of a wistful hope that  mirrors will one day work as openings to another world, like the mirror in Lewis Carroll’s ThroughThe Looking Glass, and What Alice Found There?

CONVERGENCE

At CONSTRUCT 2011, CSI’s Joy Davis opined that social media are converging. That’s not all the convergence that’s going on.

Convergence of TV and Internet:  Google TV and Apple TV will soon turn TV and the Internet into one experience.

●      Old way with separate media, and separate apparatus.

●      Future, with access to both TV and Internet through TV sets. Apple and Google have both been working on this for years now, and it’s just a matter of time until one or both of them finds the right way to make it a hit with consumers.

Convergence of Spec Writing, Word Processing, and File Management:   This has already happened.  These tasks used to be performed by separate people. Now spec writers need all three abilities in their skill set.

●      Old way, with spec writers doing the editorial work via hard copy markups, secretaries doing keyboarding and managing files.

●      Current way, with spec writers responsible not only for editorial and technical content of specs, but also for  word processing production and file management. For me, file management has been particularly challenging, what with multiple reviews, multiple bid packages, addenda, and issued-for-construction sets.  In addition, most of us now are responsible for turning spec word processing documents into bookmarked combined PDFs for distribution on CDs and/or the Internet.

●      Future:  See below.

Convergence of Specs and Drawings:  Specs and drawings will eventually converge into the BIM model.  Since I haven’t yet had a chance to work on BIM-linked specs, I don’t have a clear picture of what’s possible or practical.  I’ve got a lot to learn about here.

●      Old way: Separate people produced drawings and specs, using separate production tools and separate production tracks. Users (builders, and then owners) have to refer to sets of drawings and volumes of project manuals to learn about the buildings they build and own.

●      Present and near term future: Software interoperability used mainly (I think.  Please correct me if I’m wrong) as a coordination aid in producing specs and drawings.  Linking software (at least BSD’s Linkman-e) isn’t part of the deliverable construction documents.  It doesn’t appear that there’s an industry consensus yet about how much specification data really belongs in the model. 

●      Future:  Hard to say exactly how it will work out, but as a minimum, graphic files and data files will be linked for ease of use by builders in building, and later to aid owners in managing the buildings.

And if that’s not enough convergence for you, check out futurist Ray Kurzweil’s fascinating website Accelerating Intelligence and his book The Singularity is Near, in which he posits (I think) the eventual merging of humans and machines.

Hang on. Everybody in the AEC business is in for a wild ride the next few years.  We will NOT be bored!

SCARLETT O’HARA, MY WRITING COACH

“I can't think about that right now. If I do, I'll go crazy. I'll think about that tomorrow.”  - Scarlett O’Hara, the indomitable but flawed heroine of “Gone With the Wind”, Margaret Mitchell’s 1936 historical novel of the old South.

Writers’ block does not just afflict creative writers.  It hits technical writers like yours truly, too.

When I get (spec) writers block, it’s not that I can’t write, really.  I don’t do much real writing anyway.  I mostly edit, and tweak, and modify language from master specs, and attempt to coordinate with project drawings.  No, my writers’ block takes the form of difficulty in getting an angle, of figuring out the overall strategy of the documents. 

CSI’s platitudes about making specs “clear, complete, concise and correct” are only indirect guidance when I’m trying to produce construction specifications for unusual projects (of which we seem to have quite a few). The specs may have to accompany drawings that are still in progress, making final terminology coordination difficult.  It may be tough to get the client’s attention, even though that’s vital to understanding his or her objectives.  There may be little or no documentation of project decisions and other needed data.  Key AE decision makers may be unavailable or have extremely limited time to give me the lowdown on the project.  All the while, project deadlines loom.

The biggest challenge is always to make the documents change-order proof and loophole proof, and that’s where the strategy, the angle, the AE business creativity if you will, comes in.

As a spec writer, I have come to take Scarlett O’Hara’s coping strategy - I'll think about that tomorrow - as my guide.   Whenever I’m stumped by a spec writing project, I put the project out of my mind, go home, and get a good nights’ sleep.  For years I thought I was just procrastinating, but now I realize I was on to something.

The next morning, usually when I’m tying my shoes of all things, an answer often comes to me.  I may think of someone from whom I can get good advice.  I may realize the current project is analogous to another from the past.  I may think of some way to coordinate better with the project architect even though he’s still detailing the project.  I may figure out a way to set aside other projects for a while so I can concentrate better on the current one.  The answer can take many forms.

Thanks for the advice, Scarlett.