{"id":14521,"date":"2025-02-01T14:17:16","date_gmt":"2025-02-01T14:17:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/?post_type=articles&p=14521"},"modified":"2025-04-09T15:47:30","modified_gmt":"2025-04-09T15:47:30","slug":"bad-specs","status":"publish","type":"articles","link":"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/articles\/bad-specs\/","title":{"rendered":"Bad Specs"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/div><\/div><\/div>
\n
\n\t\t\"\"\n\t<\/div>\n\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>
\n
\n\t

We welcome readers to submit their own stories of baffling project insulation requirements and weird specifications. Send your stories or requests to be interviewed to editor@insulation.org<\/em>.<\/h3>\n

Greetings, fellow insulation enthusiasts! As we all know, the world of construction specifications can be a perplexing and often humorous place. From the sublime to the ridiculous, we've all encountered those specifications that leave us scratching our heads, wondering if the specifier truly understands what they\u2019re asking for.<\/p>\n

To share these experiences\u2014and hopefully prevent future bouts of head-scratching\u2014I\u2019m thrilled to introduce a new column in our magazine: \u201cBad Specs.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cBad Specs\u201d will explore the fascinating world of\u2014yes, you guessed it\u2014poorly written specifications. Each month, an Insulation Outlook reader will share their experiences, diving into the depths of confusion and uncovering the most perplexing, puzzling, and downright hilarious requests that have graced our desks (or, more accurately, our inboxes) over the years. Think of it as a cautionary tale, a chance to learn from the missteps of others, and a reminder of the importance of clear and concise communication in our industry.<\/p>\n

For this inaugural column, Insulation Outlook\u2019s Julie McLaughlin, invited me, Scott Sinclair (also from Johns Manville), and Doug Fast of Owens Corning to discuss the most common types of baffling requests we receive, so she could determine how to shape this column. We all had some good ones.<\/p>\n

Doug Fast offered a great analogy for a common problem in specs: a lack of detail. He said, \u201cIt would be like going into a restaurant and ordering your meal as \u2018beef\u2019\u2026 You may get a hamburger or a steak, and both technically<\/span> fit your request. With specifications, you need to define the details of the product you actually want.\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

We see the opposite problem, too. Some people order a steak but then insist that it be cooked on a specific grill, using a specific type of charcoal, cooked precisely to 165\u00b0F, and served bloody. Only some of those requests work together.<\/p>\n

During our discussion, we found that specification errors tend to fall into certain categories. Here\u2019s a handy list to help future authors frame their experiences in a way that can help others:<\/p>\n