There's often a lag between the time something new comes along and the time it is fully incorporated into our lives or work. When websites first came online, in the mid-'90s, they had obvious potential but companies weren't sure what to do with them. As I recall, many of them focused on the history of the company, stocks and market activity, and various other things useless to most visitors. The content was what the company owner thought was interesting; it was not what the prospective customers needed.

When I became a specifier, in 1985, all of the projects I worked on used the "traditional" design-bid-build (DBB) delivery method. And when I started my current job at BWBR in 1996, all we used was DBB. That shouldn't be a surprise because, at the time, there was nothing else, at least in the building construction industry.

How often have you seen a standard confidentiality disclaimer at the end of an email? An email I recently received ended with this:

This email together with any attachment(s) is proprietary and confidential, intended for only the recipient(s) named above and contains information that is privileged. You are hereby notified that the dissemination, distribution or copying of this email or its contents including attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, or are not the named recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and doing so constitutes a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. Although precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present in this email, [company name] cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage that may arise from the use of this email or attachment(s).

Among the things specifiers grumble most about are the typical architect's lack of knowledge about how things work and how they go together, and the belief that "If I can draw it someone can build it!"

Comments have been bantered about in the CSI community about the value and worth of supporting the CCPR- Certified Construction Product Representative exam as part of the certification offerings of the Certification Committee and CSI. These comments are many times attached to a conversation about the financial viability of the entire Certification program. Granted, the CCPR exam does not get as many exam registrations as do CCS, CCCA and CDT. Many hours of effort and validation have gone into revamping the CCPR exam. I can personally attest to the work done to properly align the exam to the study documents, having chaired the CCPR sub-committee for the past three years. I would like to thank Lee Ann Slattery CSI, CCPR, TJ Gottwalt CSI, CCPR and Tan Diep CSI, CCPR, for the countless hours they have invested in making the CCPR exam overhaul a success. We are seeing an upswing in registration for the CCPR exam. Do numbers of registrants alone give value to the CCPR certification? The answer is no. There are other reasons why the CCPR certification has value and should be considered as part of the overall long term CSI certification offerings. The balance of this article will be devoted to discussing the reasons for “Why CCPR”.

"It is probable that few members of the profession will disagree [that] the preparation of specifications receives less study and attention in proportion to its importance than any other phase of architectural or engineering practice. It is generally conceded that there is need for accurate, concise, yet comprehensive specifications in order to secure the best results from any set of plans. In our architectural schools … instruction in specification writing has been neglected to such an extent that those to whom the task of specification writing has fallen have usually been forced to educate themselves. As a natural sequence of this condition we find too many inaccurate and incomplete documents accompanying drawings under the guise of specifications."

IN THE PUBLISHING INDUSTRY, IN E-MAIL, AND ON THE INTERNET, USE OF UPPERCASE IS LIMITED. STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THAT MOST PEOPLE FIND IT HARDER TO READ UPPERCASE, AND TODAY'S DIGITAL ETIQUETTE VIEWS USE OF ALL UPPERCASE AS SHOUTING. WHY, THEN, DO WE CONTINUE TO USE IT ON DRAWINGS?

It's about time to get the new FY started for CSINext. I wanted to start off the year with a little "safety" humor. Most of these images have been going around in email and the internet for years. But I thought it would be funny to have an one stop shop for the pictures. This is part to of a construction image series... hopefully I can find a part three. I hope you get a good chuckle out these.

And then there are dimensions…

In the last article, "Absolute nonsense", I wrote about the great number of words available to express fine distinctions of meaning, and how, properly used, they can be quite precise. In daily use, however, words often are used incorrectly, and most would agree that many disagreements are based on different interpretations of what we say.

Over the last year I have been talking to you alot about stainless steel fabric flashings. The main question is why you should be using stainless steel fabric flashing on your projects, below I have listed the there main reasons.

We've had what I would call a pretty good year for CSINext. I wanted to wrap up the year with a little "toilet" humor. Most of these images have been going around in email and the internet for years. But I thought it would be funny to have an one stop shop for the pictures. This may become a series of what not to do in construction... only time will tell. I hope you get a good chuckle out these.

Isn't it interesting, that amidst all the hoopla about "sustainable" design, there has been little reduction in the stream of new, improved, state-of-the-art, can't-live-without-them products that increase energy demand? Most of these supposedly life-changing inventions offer needless conveniences, and most of them require electricity to operate. They appear to have been created for no better reason that someone could do it.

In this month’s Architect, Edward Keegan does an excellent job of delineating the turmoil which the job description of “spec writer” currently seems to be under. There is no denying that the traditional picture of a dutiful technical writer, toiling away creating tomes that equal a phone book in scale, is under attack by new and disruptive technologies, online spec engines and systems and new design methodologies such as BIM. While all of this is true, the simple fact remains that you cannot complete any modern construction project with simple drawings alone, no matter how you generate those designs. You’ve got to have a full understanding of your design elements and how they relate to each other, and that relationship is always handled through the “specs”.