A conversation with insulation industry veteran Rob English, C&I Tech Services Team Leader at Owens Corning, about why outdated insulation specifications continue to plague modern projects and what you can do about it. With 38 years of industry experience, English brings together the contractor, fabricator, distributor, and manufacturer perspectives.

Reduce, reuse, recycle. It’s a mantra most of us know by heart. In many areas of life, these three habits are celebrated, but in the world of insulation specifications, they can be a serious problem. Old specs get pulled from the shelf, dusted off, and applied to new projects without anyone stopping to ask whether they still make sense. The result? Costly mistakes, underperforming systems, and facility owners left wondering what went wrong. But simply updating one part of an age-old specification and putting a job out to bid isn’t enough. In some cases, it may even make things worse, as when it introduces conflicting requirements, for example.

That is why the insulation industry needs a different R-word: readdress. In situations when specifications need to change—when costs get cut, when materials are substituted—someone needs to stop, readdress, and ask a few questions. Does this modified spec still perform as intended? Has the right expertise been consulted? Is the owner’s best interest still being served? The answer to those questions is too often “no.”

The Cost-Cutting Trap

One of the most common ways specifications go wrong isn’t from neglect, it’s from value engineering. When costs need to come down, specifications are often among the first things modified. Architects and engineers may substitute materials or change installation requirements in ways that look like savings on paper but create problems in the field.

The deeper issue, English notes, is accountability. Once a change is made, there is rarely a mechanism to track whether the new solution worked as intended. The facility owner may never know that the insulation performing below expectations today is the direct result of a cost-cutting decision made years ago during design. “The savings don’t necessarily go back to the owner,” English says, “and often, nobody is following up on the long-term impact.”

English has seen this play out firsthand. On one sports arena project, to reduce costs, materials were substituted without full consideration of whether the replacement would perform the same way. It didn’t. The resulting problems led to a lawsuit and a payout that came to roughly 100 times the cost of the originally specified material. The “savings,” in the end, cost everyone far more.

Changes without Consultation

Even when a specification starts out well written, problems can emerge when changes are made midstream without proper consultation with a subject matter expert or the manufacturer. A material substitution that seems equivalent on the surface may behave very differently in the field, particularly when installation conditions, temperature ranges, or moisture exposure weren’t fully considered.

English points to resources such as the North American Commercial and Industrial Insulation Standards and NIA’s Insulation Materials Specification Chart (www.insulation.org/about-insulation/system-design/techs-specs) as valuable tools. He also emphasizes improving communication and setting clear expectations among owners, engineers, contractors, and manufacturers. But the key, he stresses, is getting those conversations to happen before problems arise, rather than after.

His recommendation is straightforward: Any change to an original specification should require due diligence to confirm the modified spec will perform as intended. Better yet, he suggests that specifications include explicit language requiring approval from subject matter experts and engineers before any substitution is accepted. “If the spec changes, someone needs to be accountable for making sure it still works,” English says.

The Knowledge Gap

Underlying many of these issues is a knowledge gap. Engineers who write or approve insulation specifications may not have deep expertise in insulation performance, and manufacturers are often brought in too late, or not at all, to flag potential problems. Substitutions get made without fully understanding the downstream consequences.

English’s experience in the industry has taught him that the solution is less about blame and more about education and communication. “Ask questions when you see red flags,” he advises engineers and specifiers. “The goal is the owner’s satisfaction. That has to be the lens everything is viewed through.”

Involving subject matter experts earlier in the process can make a significant difference. Manufacturers, when consulted during the specification phase rather than after the fact, can help identify potential conflicts, suggest appropriate materials, and ensure that what gets written can actually be built and will perform as designed.

A Call for Better Practice

The bad spec problem is not inevitable. It persists largely because of habits—from the habit of reusing old documents to the habits of cutting costs without tracking consequences, and excluding the people with the most relevant knowledge from the conversation.

The fix requires intention: updating specifications to reflect current materials and standards, building accountability into the process, and creating space for manufacturers and subject matter experts to weigh in before a specification is finalized rather than after something goes wrong.

As English notes, “the insulation business is learned through experience and communication.” The industry has plenty of both. The challenge is making sure that knowledge gets into the room when the specifications are being written.