Thirty or so years ago, when I graduated from architecture school, we had a couple of types of finish schedules. They were fairly simple tables, but, in conjunction with the specifications, they did a pretty good job of showing what finish materials were used where, and what colors of finish materials were required. Little did we realize that this format could one day replace specifications as we knew them!A common schedule started with a column on the left that listed every room. To the right, additional columns would show what materials were used in each room for the floor, base, wall, and ceiling, usually with a check or dot in the cell. Some were a little more complicated, showing specific colors for each material. The value of these tables to the designer was obvious; one could quickly get a good idea of what was used where, and have some idea of what the colors were. However, the specifications contained most of the information. For example, the specifications would state the required fire-resistant properties, the type of paint and what primer to use, what the carpet backing should be, the wood veneer species, matching requirements, performance characteristics, and so on.
There were a couple of problems, perhaps the worst being that a typical table was based on the assumption that a room had four sides, and that a single material or color would be used on a given wall or floor. Still, the basic form was widely used for a very long time, and usually worked.
About eighteen years ago, when I moved to my current firm, I discovered that the finish schedule we used contained more information than just the types and colors of materials. As the years went by, the finish schedule continued to expand, a little here and a little there. Believing in the official what-goes-where rules, my first reaction was to resist this growth, but before taking a stand, I decided to find out what other firms were doing. I asked several specifiers to send examples of their finish schedules, and I was surprised to find that all contained information that had once been in the specifications.
Since the time of my survey, my firm's finish schedule has continued to grow. I understand its value as a design tool, which helps the interior designers keep track of the many finishes used in a typical project, but I continue to believe that a specification section should contain as much information as possible about a given material. Why should the contractor continually have to keep jumping from one section to another? I experimented with a format that could easily be split into smaller, product-specific schedules just before issuing bidding documents. That would allow the interior designers to continue to use it as a tool, but then make it easier for the bidders, and later the contractor, to find all the information about each product. I wasn't able to put it into practice, though, and I eventually learned to embrace the expanding schedule. And why not? The more information that goes into the finish schedule, the less I need to put in the specs!
The logical conclusion, of course, is that the finish schedule, or something akin to it, will one day supplant specifications altogether. One schedule, albeit a lengthy one, will contain all information about every product. Paint won't be just a color anymore, but the entire work result, including primer, VOC content, and more. For a while I thought we might still need a project manual for Divisions 00 and 01, and that spec sections still would show at least submittal requirements, but why? We may as well put those in the finish schedule, too.
As I wrote that last paragraph, all suddenly became clear, and I finally realized the truth.
"We are the Borg. Your technical information will be added to the finish schedule. Resistance is futile."
Do you believe the rationale for moving information from the specifications to the finish schedule is mostly due to delayed design decision? If the finish products are decided near the end of construction documents phase rather than during design development phase, adding the data to the specifications may be logistically impossible if the looming issue deadline must be met.
ReplyDeleteI don't think so, Dave. In most cases, our interiors staff seems to be further along than the rest of the team. Late changes cause other problems, though, because they may be entered in the finish schedule, but not communicated to the specifier or other team members.
ReplyDeleteI think the problem is a lack of faith. Everyone on the team wants to make sure the contractor has the necessary information, but few understand the value of saying things once in the right place, and few know for certain what information is being provided by other team members. The result? A lot of needless duplication.
Also, the interiors staff wants to know they'll get the right trim for the tile, the right backing on the carpet, and so on. Being accustomed to having other information in one convenient place, they simply add that information to the finish schedule. Much easier than looking in the specifications!
Interesting to hear your experience. Ours is the opposite. Interior design generally lags behind for our projects. So capturing all the design decisions in the finish schedule puts the control with the designers who are making the last minute decisions.
DeleteMeanwhile, we simply ask for the basic product selection so the specification can address the correct class of product rather than the final product selection.
We have been combining the Finish Schedule components with elemental style specifications using UniFormat. This means that the designer continues to write in the narrative style they are familiar with, in an iterative process that continues to add information as information becomes apparent.
ReplyDeleteWe have reduced specification production time by about 30% by changing from traditional 3-Part SectionFormat specifications, to a documentation style more akin to the PPD presentation style.
This means that requirements for substitutions, submission of samples, product data and shop drawings can still be addressed in a defined location, and provides structure for the designer to present the performance requirements to describe the selected materials.
This eliminates duplication and creates a Finish Schedule as separate volume that is easily applied to the relevant parts of the drawings.
It is an idea we have been developing over the last couple of years for low complexity risk, commercial types of projects, presents information in a "less busy" visual format, and provides the assurance required for most bidders to establish accurate pricing.
Most excellent! We need more heretics.
DeleteMinor Trek re-phrasing of the last thought. "Your technical information will be assimilated into the collective drawing schedule." And yes about the futility thing.
ReplyDeleteYep, that's the way we're headed, David!
DeleteInterior designers are not the only ones that compile finish schedules. Lots of them are complied by project architects.
ReplyDeleteOne reason for the behavior by interior designers is that many interior design projects have no specification - just a schedule of fixtures, furnishings, and finishes.
Interior designers seem to play by a different set of rules.
ReplyDeleteWish I would have thought of this topic first. It drives me nuts. There is a local firm, not Sheldon's, that is notorious for conflict between finish schedule and specifications. You also forgot about elevations. Some firms are showing material finishes on elevations too. The fun part is when the specification calls for one finish, the elevation shows another, and the Interior Finish schedule calls for a third. What takes precedence? Oh the dilemma...
ReplyDelete