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

Kevin R. Miller, Ph.D. D. Mark Hutchings, Ph.D.

Brigham Young University

Introduction

● 1961 initial meeting● Objective Standardize the Organization of

Construction Documents● Since the creation of MasterFormat (MF) 1964,

Updates occurred approx. every 7 – 8 years

2004 Update● Update process started in 2001; lasted 3 years.● 2004 version changed from 16 to 50 divisions.

1995 VersionDivision 1 General RequirementDivision 2 Site WorkDivision 3 ConcreteDivision 4 MasonryDivision 5 MetalsDivision 6 CarpentryDivision 7 Moisture ControlDivision 8 Doors, WindowsDivision 9 FinishesDivision 10 SpecialtiesDivision 11 EquipmentDivision 12 FurnishingsDivision 13 Special ConstructionDivision 14 Conveying SystemsDivision 15 MechanicalDivision 16 Electrical***Similar between both versions

2004 VersionDivision 00 Procurement & Contracting RequirementsDivision 02 Existing Conditions

Division 21 Fire SuppressionDivision 22 PlumbingDivision 23 Heating, Ventilating, & Air ConditioningDivision 25 Integrated AutomationDivision 26 ElectricalDivision 27 CommunicationsDivision 28 Electronic Safety and SecurityDivision 31 EarthworkDivision 32 Exterior ImprovementsDivision 33 Utilities

Divisions 34+ for Transportation & Industrial process Construction

Question● With such a radical change, will designers

adopt the change and what is the time table of their adopting MF 2004?

Methodology

● Identified ENR's Top 500 Design Firms as the basis of the survey.

● ENR has published this list 40 years.

● The information that ENR collects is self reported by the companies.

● Survey conducted during the summer of 2005

Methodology Cont

● Randomly selected 200 of the 500 in the list. Stratified the sample by Annual Revenue

(shown in Millions)

500 + 100 – 500 50 – 100 25 – 50 17 - 25

● Contacted the Spec Writers in each company.● Survey conducted by phone

Methodology Cont.

● Contacted 143 of the companies.● 29 chose not to participate in the study.● 114 firms participated.

● Of the 114, 79 companies currently use MF on over 50% of their projects.

R esp o n d en t typ e

# F irm s U sin g 95 Ad o p tin g M F 2004

N o t Ad o p t in g

D o n ’t K n o w

% Ad o p tin g % N o t Ad o p t in g

A = Arch itect 20 18 11 5 2 61.1% 27.8%AE = Arch itect-Engineer 18 16 15 1 93.8% 6.3%AEC = Arch itect-Engineer-C ontractor 1 1 1 100.0% 0.0%AP = Arch itect-P lanner 1 1 1 100.0% 0.0%C E = C ontractor -Engineer 40 20 13 6 1 65.0% 30.0%E = Engineer 4 3 1 2 33.3% 66.7%EA = Engineer-C ontractor 19 17 16 1 94.1% 5.9%EAC = Engineer-Arch itect-C ontractor 1 1 1 0.0% 0.0%EAP = Engineer-Arch itect-P lanner 1 0EC = Engineer-C ontractor 4 1 1 100.0% 0.0%EN V = Environm enta l Engineer 2 0GE = GeoT echnica l Engineer 2 0O = Other 1 1 1 100.0% 0.0%

Sum 114 79 60 15 4 75.9% 19.0%

All Firms

R esp o n d en t typ e

# F irm s U sin g 95 Ad o p tin g M F 2004

N o t Ad o p tin g

D o n ’t K n o w

% Ad o p tin g % N o t Ad o p tin g

C lassify Arch as m ain functionA = Arch itect 20 18 11 5 2 61.1% 27.8%AE = Architect-Engineer 18 16 15 1 0 93.8% 6.3%AEC = Architect-Engineer-C ontractor 1 1 1 0 100.0% 0.0%AP = Architect-P lanner 1 1 1 0 100.0% 0.0%

40 36 28 6 2 77.8% 16.7%

Primarily Architecture Firms

Firms by Annual Revenue

R esp o n d en t typ e

# F irm s U sin g 95 Ad o p t in g M F 2004

N o t Ad o p t in g

D o n ’t K n o w

% Ad o p tin g % N o t Ad o p t in g

500+ 3 1 1 0 0 100.0% 0.0%100+ 13 11 9 2 0 81.8% 18.2%50+ 24 15 12 1 2 80.0% 6.7%25+ 41 29 22 6 1 75.9% 20.7%17+ 32 23 16 6 1 69.6% 26.1%

113 79 60 15 4 75.9% 19.0%

Other Findings & Conclusion

● 60 of the 79 firms adopting MF 2004 plan on doing so before or during 2006.

● This should translate to Construction companies should start to see new projects bidding during 2006 using MF 2004