An open call for reprographic standards

I recently completed my CSI Construction Document Technologist certification.  The CDT certification demonstrates that one understands the processes and documents inherent in this complicated process that is construction.

The major tome of reference for your CDT certification is the Project Resource Manual (PRM).  This book covers practically every single aspect of planning, design, construction, operations and demolition.  From contractual language, to document definition to project delivery types, it is THE resource for construction professionals.

Going through this entire book, where chapters upon chapters are dedicated to seemingly every trade needed to build a structure, I was struck by the fact that there couldn't have been more than 2 full pages dedicated to document management/reprographics.  A trade that is so integral to the success of any project gets treated so lightly in this manual for how to build a project from A to Z.

An open call to the IRgA

As I've written about before, reprographics is probably the worst treated and least organized building trade.  We are the only trade:

• that does normally not have a contractual relationship with the project
• that is not really a subcontractor, and not really a supplier, yet not a major team player
• that is the hub of project communications, yet is judged on the basest of unit pricing
• whose work can get taken down to street and copied at any time

Most every other trade on the jobsite has some sort of an agreement with the project defining their responsibilities, rights and obligations for that project.  This agreement demands a level of service to the project, but also protects the trade from the project.  Many of these agreements have been standard practice for dozens of years, are developed by national organizations and work to serve the best interests of their members.  I feel that it is time for the IRgA to develop such a contract.

I also call on the IRgA here so that it can lend its gravitas to the process and get documents like this included in resources like the PRM and accepted by other national groups like the CSI, AIA and AGC.  I don't feel that this can be a process only spearheaded by individual companies, no matter how large.  It must be professional; it must be accessible; it must be standardized.

The times they are a'changin'...

In this era of electronic revolution in reprographics, of increased competition and technology ready to outpace most firms, I think a standard reprographics contract may be more needed than ever.  A contract that places reprographics firms in the true center of information exchange, that gives them security from losing a job for no reason and helps them maintain profitability.

Now this isn't all for reprographers benefit alone.  A standardized contract would help project teams better understand the importance of accurate document management on the project as well as helping them to better define the flow of documents on the project from the start.  Lastly, I think one of the most frustrating parts of reprographics for contractors is the inability to price out our services.  I don't think contractors like asking for square foot price anymore than we like giving it.  Contractors want lump sum pricing or guaranteed maximums and with a standard contract, we could develop a methodology that both protects the reprographer yet gives the contractor more peace of mind.

The smart people in the room

Now I am the last person that should be figuring this out, but there are a lot of smart people within organizations like ReproMAX, the IRgA and ARC and I imagine that via a coordinated effort from the IRgA we could develop some simple, standard agreements that would at least be a start and help all reprographers advance and get our collective acts together.

Jared Willis

Comments

[Joel Salus]

Jared, what an excellent, thought-provoking post that was. I would encourage you to send your thoughts to the IRGA Board. Joel

[Collin]

Jared,
This is a very excellent point. I am actually studying for the CDT currently and the detail given to document/ contract requirements is exacting as it has to be. Yet, considering our own 'modernization', we have yet to escape the situation that we have, collectively, fostered our service as a commodity with what I still feel is that 'blueprint'/SQF mentality. There will be those amongst us that will sooner than later won't be able to prove their relevance and value especially in this economic environment.
I really appreciate you putting this perspective out there.
Cheers!