Understanding the Specifier
Specifiers are researchers, quality assurance managers, and mind-readers. CSI's Specifier Practice Group recently discussed what is expected of specifiers, both in-house and consulting, as part of their everyday practice. The discussion is summarized on CSI's blog in a post titled "What is Expected of a Specifier?"
If you've ever wondered why we at Chusid Associates advocate selling to specifiers, this blog post is for you. It's a great insight into how specifiers see their work; as such, it's also a good way to discern how product representatives can become essential partners to specifiers. Product reps can provide information to specifiers that's clear, concise, correct, and ready to pass on to designers. When a product rep makes a specifier's job easier, everybody wins.
Posts
3 comments:
"Essential Partners". That's a great way of putting it. As a product representative, I would like to offer that the door swings both ways in a partnership. I say this with a negative experience in mind that I had with a specifier recently, but not to supersede all of the positive experiences that I've had working with great specifiers and hopefully vice versa. Although there were a few other tripping hazards in dealing with the specific specifier I'm referring to, the biggest upset came from the start.
I offered one of my products as a substitute to the basis of design in time, and honoring the general requirements, specifications, and drawings where my product would play a role. I submitted (by email) my products information in many forms including a generic CSI 3 part formatted specification that could be manipulated to meet the design intent as needed. After a few days, I had not heard back, and upon making the phone call to check on the status of my request, the specifier claimed to have not received it. Having never worked with this specifier and after a brief conversation about myself and the potential role that my product could play as a substitute, I offered to resend my product information. The specifier said that wouldn’t be necessary as he was familiar with my product; this threw up a red flag in my mind, but I let it go thinking maybe his experience and knowledge played a bigger role here. It was an experience that gives the word “assume” a bad connotation.
The project bid, my product bid, and my product price was the chosen by the awarded contractor having seen my product’s information in the addendum that followed my conversation with the specifier. I’m sure you can imagine where the story goes from here without too much detail. Simply put, my submittals were marked up severely and asked for changes that I couldn’t offer, and now the architect, owner, and GC are scrambling to negotiate the pricing considerations where my product fits into the whole building envelope as I am most likely no longer involved with the project. Per the request of the GC (who I have a great relationship with), I am also in the process of resubmitting one of my other product offerings as a potential substitute to help everyone – which is what all of our roles are about; essential partnerships that respect that the door swings both ways and that when a specifier makes a product representative’s job easier (as well as the other way around), everybody wins.
Vivian,
Thank you for recognizing the CSI Specifying Practice Group discussion and my posting about the group. I would like to invite all your readers to join the group to contribute to the discussion. It is not just for specifiers. And it is free. Follow this link to join http://bit.ly/8ZdfJK
I am searching for other contributors to help lead the discussions, offering alternate points of view and rasing issues from another perspective. I have one volunteer so far from the Door and Hardware Institute.
Stirling, thank you for the post on your blog! I enjoy the conversations we've been having about our practices.
Stirling keeps a blog on the web site of the Albuquerque chapter of CSI, here: http://blog.csiabq.org/2010/02/11/essential-partners.aspx?ref=rss
Post a Comment