As a MasterSpec user for about the past 19 years, and having worked in several firms ranging from 12 to over 150 people, I'd like to share some additional comments to this discussion thread.
First, users need to keep in mind what MasterSpec is - and what it is not. Basically, the folks at ARCOM have been pretty good about listening to their client base, their customers. As such, the product has developed and evolved into one that strives to be most suited for the greatest number of users; but it is not a one-size fits all or a panacea. A product that endeavors to cater to the broadest range of customers will, as a by-product, not be perfectly suited for everyone.
Too "Wordy"?: One must keep in mind that MasterSpec's subscribers range from sole-proprietor, one- and two-person start-up firms, to national firms with thousands of employees. As such, some of the smaller firms, or some firms that do smaller projects might find [misperceive] the content a bit "wordy" (I prefer to more properly classify the content as comprehensive); whereas larger firms might find - for the scope, complexity, and sophistication of projects and market sectors in which they practice - the content a bit lacking. That's okay; users are free to add, delete, or modify text as they see fit, to suit their needs, their practice, their location, their project, their client, their project delivery method, etc. MasterSpec is merely the starting point.
As for the comprehensive nature of the MasterSpec content, this is very deliberate:
- It contains reference standard information for those whose needs might require reference standard specs;
- it contains performance criteria for those whose needs might require performance specs;
- it contains descriptive criteria for those whose needs might require descriptive specs;
- it contains proprietary information for those whose needs might require proprietary specs.
If one desires to specify in only one manner, they are free to delete the text that pertains to the others. Nothing obligates the user, or even suggests that it is appropriate, to retain all text all the time. Indeed, to do so would make for a cumbersome and unwieldy tome, wrought with potential conflicts and discrepancies. Keep only what you need, and delete the rest; No big deal.
However, many if not most project manuals contain a combination of these methods; and in some instances it may be appropriate to combine methods in a single spec section.
So, viewing the product open-mindedly, in a [more fairly] global context, the product delivers, and succeeds, since it aims to satisfy the greatest number of needs most common to the greatest number and broadest diversity of its subscribers. Is it the perfect vehicle for every subscriber? Probably not; but it doesn't pretend to be. (Note: The discussion thus far has focused on the Full Length version. But it needs to be pointed out that MasterSpec also offers a Short Form, Outline, and Small Project specification libraries, for those who desire less content.)
Office Masters: Our office masters were originally derived from MasterSpec several years ago, and we continue to use MasterSpec to maintain and update them. We, too, have many specialized sections specific to the market sectors in which we practice (mainly healthcare). As such, over the years we have amassed a library of over 750 spec sections. Some of these were derived by taking some of the MasterSpec "broad-scope" sections and breaking them down into more "narrow-scope" sections. Sure - the consequence has been that updating these now takes a bit more time, but the time (and cost) savings on the production end has been more than enough to offset this. We knew going in that a larger library of narrow scope sections would take more maintenance time than a smaller library of broad scope sections. But we were willing to endure that, since we knew the editing and production time would be far less, especially for the number of projects we do in any given year. We also know full well that there is no magic button in MasterSpec that will help speed up the maintenance process, nor do we expect it. This especially holds true for our highly customized sections, and unique sections written from scratch for which there is no MasterSpec counterpart.
To MasterSpec's credit, however, they have been undergoing a campaign over the past year or so to segregate many of their broad-scope sections into more narrow-scope sections. For firms with office masters based on narrow-scope spec sections, this will certainly help speed up the maintenance process. And they are also working to improve and expand their automation tools, such as Linx and Spec Agent.
Maintenance Time / Budget: Firms that generate their project specifications directly from MasterSpec will most likely need less time for maintenance than those that work from office masters. Not counting wholesale revisions due to MasterFormat, SectionFormat, LEED, or other factors that have a ripple effect on many, if not all, spec sections, MasterSpec historically updates about 20 spec sections per quarter. Assuming about an hour per spec section, this equates to about three days maintenance per quarter, or about 4 ½ - 5 percent of their time. Of course, not all firms use all sections, so one will usually forgo updating a section they never use. And maintenance can be deferred, for those wanting to make all updates at once; nothing obligates the subscriber to make updates as they are received. Also, no one is obligated to make any updates at all; as long as the firm is comfortable with the content of their office master, they are free to keep on using it as-is.
We choose to do our best to keep our office masters current. In fact, our specification writers are encouraged to do so, and we allow them as much time as they feel is necessary to accomplish the task. Historically, this has been about 10 percent of their time, charged to overhead (risk management / quality assurance).
-------------------------------------------
David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA, Assoc. AIA
Associate Principal, Director of Operations
Perkins + Will
Dallas TX
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 09-07-2010 08:27
From: Wayne Chang
Subject: Specifications writing
This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Technology in Architectural Practice and Practice Management .
-------------------------------------------
My office is in the process of reevaluating our specifications software. Because our work is so specialized, we have set up several of our own standard sections. However, with our current software, Masterspec, it is difficult to maintain these sections with each Masterspec update. I am wondering if others can suggest a better way of handling office standard sections or if we should go to another software like Speclink? And for each project, we rewrite each section using Linx which can be a very lengthy process. Is there a better way or is it just a software issue?
-------------------------------------------
Wayne Chang AIA
Project Manager, Associate
CLRdesign, Inc.
Philadelphia PA
-------------------------------------------