MasterFormat 2004 Experiences

• By: admin
• On: 01/11/2010 15:47:00
• In: Specifying Practice Group
• Comments: 0

Last year --  five years after introducing MasterFormat 2004 and its expanded six-digit, 50-division system -- CSI discontinued licensing and support for MasterFormat 95. CSI is now working with the industry’s software providers and other MasterFormat stake-holders to end use of 95 altogether.

The CSI Specifying Practice Group's next meeting is 3-4pm, Thursday, Feb. 4. Join the group! It’s free! The Specifying Practice Group meets by webinar on the first Thursday of the month to discuss specifying. Participants need only have an interest in specifying to participate – novices are welcome. Discussion is encouraged, and group members are asked to submit ideas for topics and to volunteer to lead discussions on the topics that interest them.

CSI plans to release an update of MasterFormat 2004 this spring. Right now, the MasterFormat Maintenance Task Team is taking comments on a proposed Division 46 and proposed changes to Division 44.

In a quick poll, meeting participants reported that:

• 37% use mostly 2004
• 34% use only 2004
• 15% use mostly 95
• 11% equally use 95 and 2004
• 5% use only 95
  

"The poll is showing a decided victory for 2004, which is a good thing,” Stutzman said. He said a SPECTEXT poll of subscribers he’d seen had very different results – very few users were using only 95 or only 2004. Most claimed to use both systems to meet client demand.

CSI Professional & Technical Services Director Roger Grant, CSI, said contacts at BSD -- one of MasterFormat’s sponsors -- told him that about 50 percent of SpecLink projects are now in 2004.

Stutzman said that in his own experience, converting to MasterFormat 2004 was not that difficult. He had his own masters to convert, as well as specs produced using SPECTEXT.

"What we discovered going through SPECTEXT and our own masters was that it was not quite the herculean task everyone had made it out to be,” he said.

His approach was this:

Step 1) Start with existing list.

 

Step 2) Map new numbers and titles to existing (“We took the tack of mapping sections 1 to 1,” Stutzman said.)


 

Step 3) Apply new, existing, or both to specs.
 



Hear Stutzman’s presentation, or see it by clicking click the "play" arrow below.



CSI has offered many arguments for converting, ranging from standardizing data to make it easier to use, to becoming a leader in the industry. Stutzman asked the group why they converted.

"My experience with these points was that they weren’t the overwhelming reason to make a firm switch,” Stutzman said. “Are any of these really the reasons you adopted MasterFormat 2004?"

In a poll, participants selected their top reasons for converting:

• 74% were “keeping current with the industry”
• 31 % were “reacting to owner demand”
• 27% were “leading the industry”
• 26% were “accessing or maintaining industry data”
• 11% were “developing life cycle data”
  

Stutzman was not surprised to see “keeping current” top the list. “I'm beginning to believe from our own practice that this is the driving reason,” he said.

Stutzman recalled the resistance to conversion he experienced in mid-2005, a few months after MasterFormat 2004 was introduced. There’s not as much now, because 2004 is overtaking 95 as the industry standard, he said.

What resistance remains is not about the format itself – it’s more about converting all those forms! Participants reported government owners at the state and federal level who are reluctant to switch because of the paperwork they’ll need to change.

Stutzman cited HUD as an example -- the agency’s reporting forms for contractors are in 95, and updating them is going to be a pain. He also described an agency in Philadelphia that is trapped with 95 because they have customized their use of the numbers over time, making it even more difficult to map to MasterFormat 2004.

“There's a lot of work to be done with the federal agencies to get them on board,” Stutzman said.

“We work with state education agencies, and it's a mixed bag,” said one participant. “Some are switching, but many are holding on to 95. It seems to be a bureaucratic problem … They can’t go back through all their records and make their references work."

A specifier reported that one of his clients is still using MasterFormat 88 while another made him switch back to 95 after he had implemented MasterFormat 2004.

Grant encouraged anyone who knows of a state or federal agency that is reluctant to convert to contact him at rgrant@csinet.org.

“We try to reach out to these organizations when we can,” Grant said. "I can contact them and at least encourage them from CSI and see if there is anything we can do to help."

A Portland specifier from the port authority reported no problems in making the conversion, even though her organization was an early adopter. “We didn't want to be caught trying to play catch up,” she said. “As soon as we learned what MasterFormat 2004 was, we started changing our database.

“It was a really smooth transition. It's interesting to hear that people are refusing to use it -- we haven't seen that.” See Port of Portland's Construction Master Specifications and Design Guidelines.

Stutzman said, “It seems like the Pacific Northwest lead the adoption of led the adoption of MasterFormat 2004, and I think that's a tribute to the CSI activity up there.”

"I guess I'm surprised at the amount of resistance that people are finding,” another participant said. Two of the universities he works with require MasterFormat 2004. “Our in-house engineers didn't drive the change, but once they looked at it and saw what it could do for them, they liked it."

Several participants reported that consultants and engineers are resisting ’95, or at least they do until someone explains it to them and shows them how to convert.

“Our consultant agreement states they must,” a participant said. “Our consultants do not like it, but they sign the agreement and must do it.”

“You have the checkbook, you should be able to require whatever you like,” Stutzman said.

“Locally CSI chapters are driving the switch,” a participant said. “CSI members throughout the country are driving the switch. Our chapter launched a series of lunch-and-learns targeted at the owners and the engineering groups, including the local ASHRAE, and we sold it to them and they mandated it."  Some spec writers are actually charging extra fees to write specs in 95, he added.

"I work for a consulting firm that was averse to change,” another participant reported. “An architect finally convinced us to have someone join CSI. We are converting now."

Stutzman suggested the impediments to converting include:

• Historic data integration
• Perceived conversion cost and time
• Limited owner demand
  

However, as MasterFormat 2004 becomes more integrated with UniFormat (new version to be published in 2010)  and OmniClass, and as it continues to spread through the industry, failing to use it puts your organization at a disadvantage.

“There didn't seem to be a compelling reason to do it (in 2004), but I think now that with the industry having had the format around for a while, staying current with the industry is the reason,” Stutzman said. “If you're not using 04, it's more noticeable."

He also described BIM as “the big gorilla” every firm is facing – and BIM relies on harmonized standards including MasterFormat 2004, OmniClass and UniFormat.

“If we're going to update keynoting and all that for BIM, we want to do it with the current numbering scheme,” Stutzman said. “BIM relies heavily on UniFormat and MasterFormat.”

CSI’s Specifying Practice Group’s next meeting is scheduled for 3-4pm, Thursday, Feb. 4. Join the group! It’s free!

The Specifying Practice Group meets by webinar on the first Thursday of the month to discuss specifying. Participants need only have an interest in specifying to participate – novices are welcome. Discussion is encouraged, and group members are asked to submit ideas for topics and to volunteer to lead discussions on the topics that interest them.

More than 200 people have joined the group, and Stutzman plans to survey them in the next few weeks about other topics they’d like to discuss, as well as to ask a few questions that came up during this meeting, including:

• Who drove the decision to switch to 04 in your work?
• How do you convince a consultant to switch?
  

Stutzman has also blogged about this meeting – read his thoughts at SpecWords.