This point was made by illustrating how a trip to the supermarket can go wrong. Photos from these slides are below...
What was specified |
What the client ended up with |
To continue the analogy, maybe the client will prefer Tesco cornflakes over Kellogs cornflakes.
So... how can it be ensured that the client gets the quality that the specifier has specified?
A big part of the answer is for the industry to write better specifications.
Consider the examples below...
1. Or equivalent
In the example below, naming a brand and then saying 'or equivalent' - or, indeed using similar language that is ironically equivalent, can significantly increase the risk of not getting what had been hoped for.
'Or equivalent' specifications |
Equally, if a hotel chain specified 'Kellogs Cornflakes or equivalent' to their supplier who they were paying a fixed price to supply breakfast each morning - the risk of getting an inferior product would also be greatly increased.
This topic is looked at in depth in this excellent technical article on theNBS.com from my ex-colleague John Gelder...
- https://www.thenbs.com/knowledge/substitution-and-beyond
2. Specifying by brand
This next example is simple, if you know what you want and the procurement rules allow, then specify what you want. Be clear and be concise.
Be concise |
Example template NBS clause setting out rules to be followed around substitution |
At times, the brand used is not essential, it is the quality of the product that is important.
If this is the case, specify the minimum quality level and let the contractor choose. Where relevant, specifying a third party certification scheme to ensure that the declared quality has been tested is recommended.
Specify min quality level - let contractor decide. |
In the above example, the specifier may know of a product that meets this minimum quality level. The phrasing 'deemed to comply' may be used if considered appropriate.
Using 'Deemed to comply' |
An alternative phrasing used within NBS is 'Submit proposals'. It should be noted that this should be accompanied by the requirements for the submittals process and any further information. This includes (a) which party the submission must go to, (b) the timescales and (c) the method of assesment. For subjective requirements such as aesthetics (or for Cornflakes, something like taste!) the method of assesment should be made clear.
Requesting proposals based on quality requirements |
However, this is only part of the answer. A robust change control and verification process so that all product decisions are digitally recorded is another big part of the answer (Golden thread). Is it too much to ask that client's receive record specifications at handover in addition to construction specifications at the end of the technical design stage?
Hopefully the Kellogs Cornflake example (nicely illustrated in the slide by Rob) is food for thought.
If you think your specifications could be better on the projects you work on, check out the RIBA approved CPD from NBS on Better Specification Writing:
- ribacpd.com/articles/nbs/5340/an-introduction-to-specification-writing/200002
To find out more about NBS Chorus see:
- thenbs.com/nbs-chorus
SMALL PRINT
* No payments were received from Kellogs Cornflakes for the writing of this article. This blog does not recommend any particular cornflake provider.
No comments:
Post a Comment