Study of Top 500 Design Firms’ Plans to Adopt MasterFormat™ 2004

Introduction

Beginning in 1961, a group of construction professionals met to discuss the need for a structured plan to identify work phases of commercial projects that would allow architects and engineers to organize project design specifications in a uniform manner (Miller & Newitt, 2005). During this and subsequent meetings several proposed formats were discussed. Eventually an organizational structure was agreed upon that included 16 divisions for product and work specifications relating to construction projects. This list evolved into MasterFormat™, and was gradually accepted by the design industry. Eventually MasterFormat™ became the de facto standard for the commercial construction market. Like other standardized construction documents, this MasterFormat™ has been revised and updated on a regular basis, approximately every seven years. Prior to MasterFormat™ 2004, the most recent revision occurred in 1995. However, designers realized that the changing industry created a need to address other phases of commercial construction in addition to those already identified the MasterFormat™. Because of changing construction methods, it became necessary to include new and changing specialty process specifications in addition to more heavy civil and industrial work descriptions (Washington & Borgstrom, 2004). In 2001, the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI), located in Alexandria, Virginia, announced plans to update the 1995 version of MasterFormat™.

Originally, MasterFormat™ was created to serve the needs of the commercial construction industry by identifying work phases typical of that market segment. In order to include more heavy highway, heavy civil and industrial projects, and to better address the needs of commercial projects, CSI expanded the existing 16-division structure to include 50 divisions. In addition, the numbering system was changed from a 5-digit to a 6-digit system. Due to the addition of the sixth digit, it is impossible to implement MasterFormat™ 2004 on projects already designed using previous versions of MasterFormat™ (Bushnell, 2004).  The cost of renumbering the specifications, job cost codes and other project tracking systems on existing projects would make renumbering prohibitive.

Problem Statement

In 2004, MasterFormat™ was changed from a 16-division structure to a 50-division structure. It was anticipated by the researchers that most, if not all, design firms currently using previous versions of MasterFormat™ would adopt the newly revised 50-division format. This study intends to determine how many of the top 500 design firms as identified by ENR plan to adopt MasterFormat™2004 and when.

Methodology

In an effort to determine how quickly the industry plans to embrace CSI’s MasterFormat™  2004, 200 of Engineering News Record’s (ENR) Top 500 Design Firms as identified in the April 18, 2005 publication were randomly selected to participate in this study. A written survey was created, and each of the firms in the sample was contacted and asked to participate in the study.

Population of Interest

In this study the population of interest consisted of ENR’s Top 500 Design Firms. Beginning in the December 16, 1965 issue, ENR has carefully tracked the performance of large design firms in the United States. Once each year ENR identifies the Top 500 design firms by ranking them according to total annual revenues. Because the information gathered and published by ENR is self-reported, there is no guarantee that the population of interest exactly represents the top 500 firm; however, because ENR has been publishing this information for 40 years, it is the most accurate list available.

Research Design and Development of Questionnaire

In order to collect data describing the level of adoption of MasterFormat™ 2004, a questionnaire was developed (see Appendix A). Because previous studies administered to participants in the building industry have shown that written questionnaires are often disregarded, resulting in low response rates, it was determined that direct contact by phone would result in a higher response rate (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). It was also determined by the researchers that in order to collect the most reliable data, the actual design specification writers from each firm would be contacted by telephone.

At the time of this study, the 2004 MasterFormat™ had been adopted by CSI for less than one year. The questionnaire was designed to determine whether or not each company currently used some version of CSI’s MasterFormat™ or some other method of structuring project design specifications. If respondents indicated that their companies were currently using some version of MasterFormat™ other than MasterFormat™ 2004 or if they were using some other method of structuring project design specifications, they were then asked whether or not their company planned to adopt MasterFormat™ 2004; and if so, when. Respondents were also asked if they had attended a seminar or presentation regarding MasterFormat™ 2004. Finally, each respondent was asked to identify whether or not the company intended to use design specifications from MasterFormat™ 2004 on any one or more of the 12 different project types as classified by ENR. These included, but were not limited to building projects, water projects, sewer projects, and transportation projects (See Appendix A).

Sampling Methodology and Data Collection

A stratified random sampling approach was used in this research project. Company names, addresses, and phone numbers for ENR’s Top 500 Design Firms were provided by ENR’s editorial staff. The 500 firms were first sorted into five groups according to total annual revenues. Next, forty percent (200/500 = 40 percent) of those firms represented in each group were randomly selected to participate in the study. This was done by assigning each firm a specific number and then using the Random-Number function in Microsoft Excel (see Table 1 below).

Response Rates

During the summer of 2005, telephone calls were made to each of the 200 randomly selected firms in the sample. The person in charge of writing specifications was requested. Once a contact name had been provided, that individual was personally contacted and asked to participate in the survey. If the contact was not made immediately, additional attempts were made to contact each potential respondent. Of the 200 individuals identified, 143 were actually contacted. Of those, 29 chose not to participate in the study (see Table 2 below). Based on the 114 responses, this represented a response rate of 57 percent.

Data Analysis and Results

Profile of Companies Responding to Survey

Companies in the sample supplied information to ENR that was used to describe the design services they provided. ENR then categorized each firm using the abbreviations shown below. Firms that provided more than one type of design service were classified using more than one category. For example, if a firm indicated it provided only architectural services, it was categorized as an architectural firm (A). If a firm provided both architectural and engineering services, it was categorized as either an architectural/engineering firm (AE) or as an engineering/architectural firm (EA). In the case where multiple categories were used to describe one firm, it is presumed that the primary service offered by that firm is indicated by the first letter in the category. For example, a firm described as AE would provide architectural services as its primary focus but would also provide some engineering services, while an EA firm’s primary focus would be engineering with some architectural services also provided. The following categories were used in the analysis of the data to better understand the firms adopting MasterFormat™ 2004: A = Architect; E = Engineer; C = Contractor; ENV = Environmental; GE = Geotechincal Engineer; P = Planner; O = Other

Thirty-nine of the 114 respondents indicated that they had attended a seminar or presentation on MasterFormat™ 2004. Of the 39 that attended a seminar or presentation, 35 indicated that their firms planned to adopt MasterFormat™ 2004. Seventy-nine firms indicated that they regularly used MasterFormat™ on more than 50 percent of their design projects. In fact, 63 of the 79 respondents (80 percent) stated that they used MasterFormat™ exclusively.

It was previously noted that each respondent was also asked whether or not their firm planned to adopt MasterFormat™ 2004 on any of the 12 predetermined project types as classified by ENR. Twenty-five of the 60 respondents (42 percent) indicated that their firms planned to adopt MasterFormat™ 2004 for at least one project type by January 1, 2006; 21 respondents (35 percent) stated that they planned to adopt MasterFormat™ 2004 for at least one project type during 2006; and only 13 (22 percent) stated that they planned to adopt MasterFormat™ 2004 for at least one project type after January 1, 2007. The other respondent was unable to provide a date for adopting MasterFormat™ 2004.

Firms Planning to Adopt MasterFormat™ 2004

Table 3 shows the overall findings of this survey. Firms using any version of MasterFormat™ on 50 percent or more of their projects are shown in the third column in each of the following tables under the column heading Using MF. Note that there is a fair amount of variation among design firms with regards to their intent of adopting MasterFormat™ 2004. Even though there is some variation, approximately 76 percent of all firms that responded to this survey indicated that they planned to adopt MasterFormat™ 2004.

Architectural Firms Planning to Adopt MasterFormat™ 2004

As previously mentioned, MasterFormat™ has historically been used in the commercial building segment of the construction industry. In this commercial segment, architects traditionally assume the lead role in creating the working drawings and organizing project specifications. According to the ENR categories described above, firms either labeled themselves as architects first or as engineers first. Table 4 shows the firms that described themselves first as architects and the percentage of those firms that intend to adopt MasterFormat™ 2004. Note once again that there was some variation among these types of firms; architectural and engineering firms almost universally planned to adopt (93.8 percent) MasterFormat™ 2004, while fewer than two thirds (61.1 percent) of architectural-only firms planned to adopt. It is interesting to note that the average predicted rate of adoption among all self-described architectural firms was approximately 78 percent.

Firms Categorized by Annual Revenues Planning to Adopt MasterFormat™ 2004

Table 5 below shows the percentage of firms that intend to adopt MasterFormat™ 2004, based on the firms’ total annual revenues. It is interesting to note that for firms that were already using MasterFormat™, the larger the design firm, the more likely it was to adopt MasterFormat™ 2004. It is interesting to note that of three firms with more than $500 million of annual revenues, two of them did not use MasterFormat™ in their design specifications.

Conclusions

At the time the data were collected, almost one year after official adoption of MasterFormat™ 2004, only one of the companies surveyed was using MasterFormat™ 2004. However, of the 79 firms that were using MasterFormat™, 60 of them (approximately 76 percent) indicated that they planned to adopt MasterFormat™ 2004. It is possible that the remaining 19 firms are taking a “wait-and-see” position.

Regardless of how one looks at the data, whether by type of design firm or by size (annual revenues), it is evident that approximately 76 percent of those firms currently using MasterFormat™ plan to adopt MasterFormat™ 2004. Of the firms planning to adopt MasterFormat™ 2004, most of them (77 percent) indicated that they would adopt MasterFormat™ 2004 either before or during 2006. Based on the data gathered in this study, it is likely that contractors will work on new projects using the MasterFormat™ 2004 during 2006.

References

2005 Top Design Firms. (2005, April 18). Engineering News Record, April 18, 2005.

Bushnell, C. (2004, August). MasterFormat 2004 is here … so now what? The Construction Specifier, 57, 10-12.

Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) Website. Powerpoint presentation. URL http://www.csinet.org/s_csi/sec.asp?CID=1378&DID=11340. “(visited 2006, January 3)”.

Leedy, P.D., & Ormrod, J.E. (2005). Practical research, planning and design (8^th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Miller, K. R. & Newitt, J. S. (2005, April). MasterFormat 2004 impact on construction organizations. ASC Proceedings of the 41st Annual Conference, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.

Washington, E. S. & Borgstrom, K. F. Why MasterFormat 2004, The Construction Specifier, 57, 80-82.

Appendix A

Company Name: ________________________________                       Rank Number: __________

                Contact’s Name ________________________________________

                Contact’s Phone Number ___________________________________

Your company’s design staff currently uses CSI’s MasterFormat 16 divisions on what percentage of jobs? ______   

If less than 100%, what other system or systems does your firm use to organize specifications for projects?

                Answer ________________________________________

Has your design firm historically adopted updates to CSI’s MasterFormat?                            Yes ____     No _____

Has anyone in your firm attended a seminar or presentation on MasterFormat 2004?            Yes ____     No _____

 If so, do you know who sponsored the seminar?          Sponsor’s Name: __________________________

Does your design firm plan to adopt MasterFormat 2004?           Yes _____    No _____

For which of the following industry segments will your organization be adopting MasterFormat 2004; and when do you anticipate issuing documents using MasterFormat 2004?

building projects:                     Yes     No       I don’t know     by Jan 1, 2006       during 2006       After Jan 1, 2007.

industrial projects:                   Yes     No       I don’t know     by Jan 1, 2006       during 2006       After Jan 1, 2007.

 manufacturing projects:         Yes     No       I don’t know     by Jan 1, 2006       during 2006       After Jan 1, 2007.

 water projects:                         Yes     No       I don’t know     by Jan 1, 2006       during 2006       After Jan 1, 2007.

 sewer projects:                        Yes     No       I don’t know     by Jan 1, 2006       during 2006       After Jan 1, 2007.

 transportation projects:         Yes     No       I don’t know     by Jan 1, 2006       during 2006       After Jan 1, 2007.

 hazardous waste projects:     Yes     No       I don’t know     by Jan 1, 2006       during 2006       After Jan 1, 2007.

 power projects:                        Yes     No       I don’t know     by Jan 1, 2006       during 2006       After Jan 1, 2007.

 petroleum projects:                 Yes     No       I don’t know     by Jan 1, 2006       during 2006       After Jan 1, 2007.

 telecom projects:                     Yes     No       I don’t know     by Jan 1, 2006       during 2006       After Jan 1, 2007.

 other types projects:              Yes     No       I don’t know     by Jan 1, 2006       during 2006       After Jan 1, 2007.

 international projects:            Yes     No       I don’t know     by Jan 1, 2006       during 2006       After Jan 1, 2007.