Contributed by Eric D. Lussier

Hi. 

It's Eric.

Yeah, it's been a while. I know.

I'm sorry. 

Please accept my apology? 

Thank you.

I could use your help.

As many in the AEC (Architecture/Engineering/Construction) industry face a return to some sort of office-life, normalcy or jobsites after COVID-19, I wanted to take this time to use your knowledge, experience and assistance in matters that are near and dear to my professional life, concrete and flooring finishes. 

Concrete moisture, surface planarity, adhesives, new products, lack of training and the skilled labor shortages are quite possibly just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what many of us deal with on a daily basis. 

I would VERY MUCH appreciate it if you could take just three minutes to answer three different questions as it pertains to concrete and flooring. The best part is you can remain completely anonymous if you wish. Don't feel like answering this Google Form? Then please email me at letsfixconstruction@gmail.com or send a video or text to me at 802-922-8407. 

I cannot thank you enough.  I'm excited to read your replies.

Contributed by Eric Hardenbrook

After reading last week's post, 'Where Did the Good Drawings Go?', I wanted to comment. I tried to formulate a way to squeeze all the things I wanted to say into that little comment box while remaining coherent. It just didn't work, there was simply too much to say. Rather than piling on or picking specific pieces to react to, I need to go in an additional direction that dovetails with what that article had to say.

Architecture schools need to adapt or die. An alternate path to obtaining a license for technical architecture should be created and contain mandatory time at a construction site as a graduation requirement. If you have a problem with your foot, you don't go see a cardiologist. The medical profession figured it out, architecture should too. Why do I have to see a designer if my needs are technical when it comes to my building? There should be room for both.

The question of the drawings is what I found particularly vexing. I was delighted that we at least are not blaming the software at this point. A carpenter shouldn't blame the hammer if the cabinets are crooked. What are you looking at when you say 'drawings' these days? Are you holding one sheet of paper? A roll of drawings? An iPad or a smart device or a laptop? Did you get the whole set of drawings or just the parts that were deemed to pertain to what you're working on, without regard to where those references come from? Better, do you have a screen in the job trailer with a junior member of the team 'driving' you around a three-dimensional view of the project? Where did that model come from? Who made the decisions on all the parts that model was created from? In short ~ when you say 'drawings', what are your expectations?

That brings us to the expertise part. When you – or anyone really – are signing a deal, what are you agreeing to? Yes, there's all that so-called standard language at the front end of the spec, but is the AIA E203 or G201 included in the contract documents? Have you discussed any of what is in those with your team? And not just your own office, but any consultants you might be working with? When those items are part of the mix, you are saddling the team with very specific technology requirements along with 'just making drawings'.

Contributed by Jeffrey Potter

The AEC industry is finally recognizing their treasure chest of data. It’s like the explosion of analytics with baseball (aka sabermetrics), it took over 100 years for baseball to realize what data chest they had and how to implement it. The same event is happening within the AEC industry and you better hop on the train now because it’s moving fast. Everything from the design of the building to the construction of the building is using data now in some capacity, but what about the specs, how can data assist or improve the role of specifications? The answer is probably not what you think…

When I realized the treasure chest of spec data I was sitting on, I work with a software where everything is stored on a server, my mind literally had one of those light bulb moments. Initially, from our project history in the server, I was able to figure the most commonly used sections and do two things. First, I cut down our 100-page specifications checklist to 40-pages, and finally to what is now 10-pages, of all the common sections for selections. Second, I created a historical archive where we keep those sections that have only been used once or twice in the past 4 years to be stored. My mind was blown, the possibilities where endless. I got amazing reviews for the two items above, and had so many other ideas on how to extract specification data and analyze it, but was going in the wrong direction until…

A few months later, I had another light bulb moment. There is such a thing as good data and bad/useless data. I was moving into the bad/useless data realm. For one example I wanted to figure or set up a template project with the top X amount of sections. Because every good size project has the same basic sections, it would be easy to set up and save time, but this conflicted with the Revit Model and how we bring specifications into our software. Which essentially does the same thing as a template project, although much quicker and smarter. Then, what would I do on small projects or much larger projects? This wasn’t the solution I was looking for on my data set.

My next train of thought took me down some exciting new avenues on how we can leverage data with specifications: product use and production. Product use is extremely important and I simply define it as “a product specified on a project that was installed”, pretty simple. Why is this important? Because if I am specifying Product A on 85% of my projects, yet on 75% of those projects, the Contractor is substituting for Product B… Why am I specifying this product? Why is the Contractor substituting? Is it because Product A cost more, harder on labor? Is it a regional item where Contractors in a specific region want Product B? Is my firm specifying old technology? Is one office favoring Product A over Product B? As you can see many questions arise, but the big ones are …

Contributed by Michael Chambers

As an architectural marketer, educator, and trainer, I have tried to identify and present the most effective ways of reaching architects, establishing relationships, getting products listed in specifications, developing great educational programs, improving presentation skills, minimizing substitutions, networking, and a host of other strategies and tactics to effectively market architectural design professionals.  

Marketing not Sales
I have long pounded home the notion that you don’t sell design professionals; you market them.  The critical strategy is how to overcome the “peddler” image of the product rep and become a key resource and industry expert.  Time and time again, I have made the point that architects don’t buy products; they specify them.  I have offered the notion that marketing is really education; so, don’t sell, educate.

While marketing is a key aspect of the effective construction product representative, it still is not the whole package.  Issues on specifying and specifications are integral to success.  Developing and presenting outstanding continuing education programs are incredibly effective in opening doors into design professional offices are crucial.  Learning to be marketer-educator instead of a salesperson is the hallmark of a successful construction product representative.

What is Missing?
What then is the missing element in highly effective construction product representative?  I have found myself coming full circle in the process and am convinced that in the end, the bottom line is selling.  Not selling products, no, never that, but selling solutions.  Design professionals operate on the basis of identifying problems and developing solutions for those problems.

Products Rarely Solve Problems
Products are merely elements in a solution, and it is critical to being effective with design professionals to make this key differentiation.

Contributed by ​Truwin Windows, Doors, & Siding

Insulation is a vital aspect of any home. It maintains the indoor heat during winter, while allowing less cool air to escape during the summer. Heat energy leaving your house or finding its way through raises utility costs and causes discomfort all year round.

Ranging from cellulose, fiberglass to plastic spray foam, insulation ensures that your furnace or air conditioner sustains the right indoor temperature.

As with any other energy efficiency topic, insulation is likewise clouded with myths and misconceptions. Listed below are the most common myths.

Attic and Internal Wall Condensation Result from the Absence of Ventilation
This is not entirely accurate. The right ventilation in a building may allow condensed water to escape the walls or the attics, but the lack of it is not entirely to blame for condensation. The major cause is air leakage during periods of the year where the air outside the building happens to be colder than the indoor air.

The capacity of air to hold moisture together is proportional to the temperature. It means that when the air is too warm, a higher amount of moisture is held. Should warm indoor air find its way into the cavities of the wall or the attic spaces, it cools slowly and penetrates deeper into the building.

Because the air is warm and moist, it leaks into the cavity of the wall and may encounter a sharp temperature gradient. With time, the air ends up losing its ability to hold the moisture leading to condensation and leaking. Condensation at this point occurs in the form of tiny droplets.

The state where temperatures experience a drop leading to condensation is known as the dew point.  Any amount of water in the wall cavities can lead to the development of mold. Ventilation in a building is vital, not only to deal with moisture, but also to prevent air leakage and condensation.

R Values Reflect Real World Energy Performance Accurately
R-value remains the most crucial metric in the evaluation of the thermal protection given by insulation. It is the only acceptable standard for measuring the effectiveness of insulation to retard heat transfer in Canada and the US. In fully metric countries, the other similar system used is RSI.

Building inspectors, professional builders, and homeowners all depend on R values, given that there is no other number that can be used to measure the performance of insulation. The problem is this metric often changes depending on what is being measured.

As determined in the labs, there is often a major difference between R values and the real-world energy performance delivered by different insulations. The lab analysis of R values presents significant issues considering that air movement is eliminated from the results.
​
Any professional builder knows that air movement lowers the performance of insulation, and air currents and drafts occur within the attics and wall cavities. Any insulation product that hinders the flow of air within it gives higher insulation values than those that do allow.