The Editor's Viewpoint
Just a couple of years ago CSRF conducted a survey of SPECTEXT® subscribers, in an attempt to find out if many A/E firms and owners were using any kind of automation, such as CAD, computer estimating or high level word processing. The responses varied all over the map, regardless of the size of the firm or type of project the firms designed. Some small firms were totally integrated, using computers for CAD, estimating, specifications and projectt management. Many large firms were still manually drawing and typing specifications. Andt there were many firms beginning to investigate the various levels of automation, for a variety of reasons: owner, peer and employee pressure and a desire to improve efficiency.t Quite a number of those firms that responded said they had begun to find they couldn't hire the new architectural graduate unless theyt were going to have access to a CAD system and automation like they learned to use in school.
What this told CSRF and their Board was that there were currently many levels of manual and automated development of the Project Manual, and that the size of the firm was not the controlling factor. Recent studies and research indicate that this may still be so, although owners have been taking the lead for some time in insisting that A/Es automate and provide integrated construction project documents in machine-readable form.
One negative result of this move to automation in some firms was "corporate automation indigestion", and a resultant adverse reaction. CSRF has sometimes found this to be true with regard to specification and other automation. As one of the leaders in introducing specification automation to the industry with CONCOM® and COMSPEC®, the programs based on CSI's Stanford Report (CSI Document STD-1, 1967), CSRF was the early advocate for automating the whole project manual development process. With the advent of the PC and powerful software in the late '80s, it became possible to promote, implement and make these concepts available to everyone with a PC.
However, the pendulum seems to be swinging back from the benefits of total automation for at least some firms, to a more balanced evaluation of the benefits of such applications for everyone. A recent article (ENR - 4/26/99) about John G. Voeller, Chief Knowledge Officer of Black & Veatch Corp., and recipient of the ENR Award of Excellence this year, quotes Voeller in his comments about what he calls the "Geek Compulsion". He describes this as the need to have "the latest and greatest" technology.
"Some replace technology in order to keep up with others", which is what he calls responding to someone else's geek compulsion, also known as "remote geeking". He says "Neither is responding to a real need".
Equally important in his opinion, is the unwillingness on the part of some managers to acknowledge the learning curve.
Voeller says "The constant intrusion of updates and changes in the tools we use prevents us from ever rising up the learning curve, and keeps us perpetually in a novice mode".
While CSRF was founded to implement the research recommendations of the Stanford Report, and continues to be dedicated to the goal of implementing CONCOM® - Construction Communications , the points that Voeller makes are being taken to heart by those enhancing and expanding SPECTEXT® and other CSRF programs. Those involved with SPECTEXT® are trying to avoid making each user a "novice" by refraining from introduction of tools that require a lengthy learning curve without equal benefits.
CRCJR
The CSRF newsletter is published for SPECTEXT® subscribers and others involved in design and construction. To obtain your copy of Creating a Common Language®, please contact the CSRF Support Center by telephone at 1-877- SPECTXT or 410-838-7561 or you may e-mail us at supportcenter@csrf.org
Home | About | Board | Research | WebFormat™ | Contact Us | Newsletters
Publications | News Releases | Related Sites | Search