Advertise on podcast: Deliberate Words

What happens when severe winds breach a building's exterior? The damage can extend far beyond a failed door. In this episode of What a Week, Dave Stutzman, Steve Gantner, and Elias Saltz examine a new Steel Door Institute standard, ANSI/SDI A250.13, addressing severe windstorm-resistant swinging door assemblies. The standard fills a gap between conventional steel doors and specialized storm shelter assemblies, providing a framework for evaluating resistance to wind pressure and windborne debris. The discussion explores how door construction, latching hardware, frame anchorage, and swing direction affect building envelope performance during hurricanes and other severe wind events. The team also distinguishes windstorm resistance from tornado shelter requirements and examines why maintaining the integrity of an opening is critical to preventing cascading building damage. The takeaway: Windstorm resilience depends on the performance of the entire door assembly, not just the door itself. Understanding the applicable standards and specifying coordinated components can help protect building integrity, reduce risk, and support more resilient design.

What gets lost between an owner’s requirements, an architect’s vision, and the building that actually gets built? Will Payne, a principal at smbw in Richmond, Virginia, joins Dave Stutzman and Steve Gantner to explore the design intent gap—and why documenting the reasons behind decisions matters. Will shares how his firm is using Systems and Performance Descriptions (SPDs) to connect design ideas, building assemblies, and project documentation earlier in the process. The conversation explores how clearer information can help teams evaluate options, guide emerging professionals, and preserve design intent through construction—with less rework and frustration along the way. Does this sound familiar? Join the conversation at designintentgap.com.

Are we overcomplicating architectural woodwork specifications and detailing when established quality standards could do the heavy lifting? In this episode of What a Week, Dave Stutzman, Steve Gantner, and Elias Saltz explore how Architectural Woodwork Institute (AWI) standards and the Quality Certification Program (QCP) can simplify specifications while providing greater assurance of manufacturing and installation quality. Inspired by a tour of a historic St. Louis millwork facility, the discussion examines AWI quality grades, structural duty levels, performance testing, and certification costs. The conversation challenges the need for excessive detailing when established standards can communicate expectations more effectively, while recognizing when specialized applications require additional requirements. The episode also explores the often-blurred terminology of cabinetry, casework, millwork, and architectural woodwork, reinforcing the importance of clear, consistent language in construction documents. The takeaway: Better specifications aren't necessarily more detailed. By leveraging recognized standards, defining performance expectations, and specifying appropriate quality verification, design teams can reduce unnecessary complexity while protecting the owner's investment.

Design Assist, Delegated Design, and Design-Build: Are We All Talking About the Same Thing? What happens when project teams use the same terminology but have different expectations about responsibilities, processes, and outcomes? In this episode of What a Week, Dave, Steve, and Elias explore the distinctions between design assist, delegated design, and component-level design-build, following a CSI panel discussion focused on ornamental stair construction. The conversation examines how different interpretations of these approaches can affect competitive bidding, subcontractor involvement, design responsibility, and the potential for costly redesign. Through real-world examples involving ornamental stairs, curtain walls, and structural glass, the discussion highlights the importance of defining expectations early, particularly when balancing aesthetics, performance requirements, fabrication expertise, and procurement strategies. The central takeaway: These terms alone don't establish a shared understanding. Project teams must clearly define the intended process, responsibilities, and deliverables to protect design intent and avoid unnecessary risk, confusion, and rework.

What happens when three consultants write three different specification sections for the same material, and no one discovers the overlap until publication day? In this episode of What a Week, Dave Stutzman, Steve Gantner, and Elias Saltz tackle a common construction documentation challenge: coordination across disciplines. Using cast-in-place concrete as an example, they explore how structural, civil, and landscape consultants can develop overlapping specifications, creating duplicate sections, conflicting requirements, and uncertainty about responsibility. The discussion examines the risks of last-minute renumbering, combining sections, and relying on drawing references that may change. More importantly, it highlights why specification coordination must begin early and continue throughout design, starting with shared tables of contents, clearly defined scopes, and ongoing communication among consultants. The takeaway is simple: Coordination isn't something you fix at the deadline. It's a process that needs to be built into the project from the beginning. Better planning and information sharing can prevent document conflicts, reduce last-minute revisions, and produce a more cohesive set of construction documents.

How useful are an owner’s design standards if the project team can’t easily understand, maintain, or apply them? In this episode of What a Week, Tina Montone joins Dave Stutzman, Steve Gantner, and Elias Saltz to recap a new hands-on workshop developed for the Construction Owners Association of America (COAA). Piloted with the Michigan Chapter, the workshop helps owners take a critical look at their design standards, guide specifications, and technical specifications, whether they have a well-developed program, outdated documents, or are starting from scratch.  Rather than simply presenting best practices, the workshop gets into each owner’s actual documentation. Steve and Elias share some of the “light bulb moments” that emerged as they worked directly with attendees, from putting requirements in the right place and eliminating unnecessary repetition to understanding the different roles of design standards, guide specifications, and project specifications.   The discussion also explores System and Performance Descriptions (SPDs) as another way owners can capture design intent in clear, system-based language and potentially carry that information throughout the building lifecycle. Ultimately, the goal is not simply better documents. It is creating owner requirements that are easier to maintain, easier for project teams to use, and more effective at carrying the owner’s intent into the finished facility.   Learning Points Industry Insight Owner standards vary widely. Some organizations have sophisticated, regularly maintained guide specifications, while others are working with outdated documents or have little formal documentation at all. The right approach needs to start with understanding where the owner is today.  Practice Takeaway Design standards, guide specifications, and technical specifications serve different purposes. Clearly defining what belongs in each helps owners communicate requirements without creating unnecessary conflicts or duplication in the contract documents.  Process Lesson Put information where users will actually look for it. Requirements buried in the wrong section can easily be missed, while repeated information creates additional maintenance and coordination problems. Say it once, and say it in the right place.  Owner Opportunity SPDs organized around building systems can provide owners with a clearer way to capture design intent without prescribing every design solution. They can also become lifecycle documents that provide value to facilities and operations teams after construction.  Collaboration Lesson Developing owner standards should not happen in a vacuum. Bringing facilities and maintenance teams into the conversation can help ensure requirements reflect not only how a facility should be designed, but how it will actually be operated and maintained.   Big Takeaway: Better owner standards aren't necessarily more standards. They are clearer, better organized, maintainable requirements that project teams can actually use.

The buildings we design today carry lessons learned from the failures of yesterday. But how well are we putting those lessons into practice? Marking the 25th anniversary of September 11, David Stutzman and Steve Gantner welcome Sal Verrastro of Spillman Farmer Architects to discuss the World Trade Center collapse and the changes in building codes, fire protection, and emergency egress that followed. The conversation reaches beyond September 11 to explore lessons from other construction failures, the importance of shop drawing review, and the challenges of coordinating specifications and digital models. Drawing on decades of architectural practice, service on AIA’s national Documents Committee, and work as an expert witness, Sal shares how investigating what went wrong continually informs his approach to making buildings safer and the industry better. Throughout the episode, one question connects the discussion: How do we put what we’ve learned into everyday practice?

The first Design Intent Gap Summit brought nearly 50 industry professionals together around one central question: How can we better capture and carry design intent from early design through construction? In this episode of What a Week, Dave, Steve, and Elias recap the first-ever Design Intent Gap Summit in New York City, where architects, specifiers, contractors, estimators, owners, manufacturers, educators, and technology providers explored how Systems and Performance Descriptions (SPDs) could create a stronger thread of information throughout the project. The conversation looks at using SPDs alongside BIM to document system-level decisions earlier, give estimators a better basis for preliminary pricing, reduce missing scope, and preserve information as a project moves between design phases and tools. Rather than waiting for every product and material to be selected, teams can define what they already know about a building system and continue refining that information as the design develops. Perhaps the biggest question coming out of the Summit was also the simplest: If this approach could improve collaboration and continuity of design intent, why aren’t we already doing it?

What does it really take to understand specifications, not just pass a certification exam? In this episode of What a Week, Elias Saltz and Steve Gantner welcome Conspectus senior specifier Marty Thornton for a look inside Conspectus’  specification education class. While the course can help participants prepare for CSI certification, its larger goal is teaching how specifications are developed, coordinated, maintained, and used throughout a project. Marty shares some of the real-world discussions already emerging in class, including Basis of Design, acceptable manufacturers, finish schedules, phased projects, maintaining office masters, and preserving design intent. The conversation demonstrates what makes the class different: it connects specification principles to the decisions and problems practitioners actually encounter on projects. At its core, the class is about building better specifiers through education, experience, conversation, and mentorship, while passing that knowledge to the next generation. Learn more about the class: https://www.conspectusinc.com/study

What do Labor Day, fantasy football, and fewer RFIs have in common?  This week, the Steve Gantner, Elias Saltz and David Stutzman mix up some fun with a practical look at why better coordination leads to better projects, plus how a little friendly competition keeps a remote team connected. Listen in for a few laughs and a reminder that sometimes the simplest ideas make the biggest difference.

From Columbus to New York City, from the moon to Mars and back again, this episode covers some ground. Our guests are Paul Fatkins and Nick Karakaian, principals of Arcfluence, an architecture firm based in Columbus, Ohio, and hosts of the Arcfluence podcast. You may have heard Dave and Steve on their show on July 26. This time, we swapped guest spots and get to take a deep dive into their world. This is the Deliberate Words podcast with David Stutzman and Steve Gantner, leaders at Conspectus, the specifications company, where we believe words have power. The right words can create trust and transparency, transform the design and construction process, and significantly impact the success of a project and its team. Paul and Nick have been friends since studying architecture at Kent State University. After graduation, their careers took them in different directions, from Chicago and New York City to construction, high-rise design and real estate investing, before eventually bringing them back together to launch Arcfluence in Columbus. We talk about why they chose Columbus, how design can influence communities, the value of thinking like both an architect and an investor, and why better decisions often start with better conversations. We also get into the realities behind HGTV renovation shows, Nick's appearance on Beach Flip, their shared love of Star Trek, and one very important question: When architecture reaches the final frontier, which one of them is actually willing to leave Earth?

This week’s What a Week takes a closer look at the Architectural Billings Index (ABI) and asks a provocative question: Is it still a reliable indicator of where the design and construction industry is headed? Historically, the ABI has been viewed as a leading indicator for construction activity, with scores above 50 signaling growth and scores below 50 signaling decline. But architectural billings have remained below 50 for an extended period, while inquiries have generally remained stronger. That picture doesn’t necessarily match what the team is seeing firsthand. Conspectus is experiencing record proposal activity, a relatively steady win rate, more active projects, and work across multiple regions and market sectors. That raises questions about what the ABI is actually capturing and whether certain firms, project types, or rapidly growing sectors may be underrepresented in the data. Dave Stutzman, Steve Ganter and Elias Saltz also explore the unusual dynamics behind today’s market. Data centers are booming, competition for projects appears intense, and contractors continue searching for skilled employees. Meanwhile, architecture firms are actively looking for specifiers, a role that has historically been difficult to fill and may become even more important as workloads increase. That leads to a second issue hiding underneath the economic conversation: where will the next generation of specifiers come from? The team discusses the need to develop talent through specification education, including Conspectus’ own spec-writing course and efforts to introduce specification coursework into university architecture programs. Ultimately, the episode doesn’t declare the ABI obsolete. Instead, it asks whether an industry that has changed considerably needs a more nuanced way to measure its health. If billings are declining according to the index while firms, contractors, and specialized sectors remain busy, perhaps the more useful question isn’t simply “What does the ABI say?” It’s “What might the ABI be missing?”

A specification can name the right product and still miss the performance the project actually needs. In this episode of What a Week, Elias and architect/specifier Chad Hanley dig into how construction administration experience sharpens technical specification decisions. Using real project examples, they examine a hospital fountain where treatment chemicals degraded the specified waterproofing and a Las Vegas casino where a proposed floodproofing substitution lacked testing and warranty coverage for the conditions it was intended to resist. The discussion gets to the heart of performance specifying: understand the exposure, verify the testing, scrutinize warranty limitations, and confirm that the product can perform under actual project conditions. It’s a technical look at why specifications require more than selecting a familiar product, and how lessons from the field lead to better questions, better research, and better specifications on the next project.

This week on What a Week, Dave Stutzman, Steve Gantner, and Elias Saltz explore how specification teams can create efficiencies when working on multiple projects for the same architect or owner. When projects share standards, assemblies, and delivery methods, there is an opportunity to build from common information rather than starting from scratch each time. But efficiency comes with a warning: reused information can easily be mistaken for finished information. When a specification already looks complete, project-specific differences may receive less scrutiny, allowing outdated or incorrect requirements to slip through and potentially lead to conflicts or RFIs. The conversation looks beyond simply copying projects and considers a more intentional approach: developing common requirements once, then using tools such as tagging to manage the differences between individual projects. Done well, that shared source can support multiple projects and potentially evolve into an owner guide specification. But it still requires ongoing review and maintenance as codes, materials, products, and project needs change. The takeaway: efficiency comes from building on what you know, not assuming what worked before will work again.

What happens when the drawings and specifications don't agree? In this episode of What a Week, the team tackles a seemingly simple contract provision with potentially significant consequences: giving drawings precedence over written specifications. Using real project examples involving roofing assemblies and window requirements, Dave Stutzman, Steve Gantner, and Elias Saltz explore how an order-of-precedence clause can resolve a conflict in a way the design team or owner never intended. Instead of prompting an RFI, the contract may effectively answer the question for the contractor, potentially leaving specified performance requirements or materials behind. The discussion explains the importance of treating drawings and specifications as complementary documents, questioning precedence clauses when they appear, and protecting the design intent through better-coordinated contract documents.