Sundras Naidoo’s VIEWPOINT:

The Architectural Specification: An Integral Part of the Design Process

In my experience, architectural specifications can sometimes be treated as documents to be compiled towards the end of the technical design process, once the drawings and details are largely developed. However, I believe there are clear benefits to developing the architectural specification in parallel with the design development, allowing it to inform and strengthen the technical solution as it evolves.

A specification should not simply describe the design; it should form part of the process of developing it. 

 Drawings are essential in communicating design intent, dimensions and how elements fit together. However, they cannot convey every requirement necessary to construct a detail or assembly correctly. The specification provides the additional information needed to define materials, interfaces, performance, workmanship and installation requirements. Together, the drawings and specification form the basis of the technical information needed to deliver the design as intended. 

In my view, the person responsible for developing a particular detail or works package should also write the corresponding specification, wherever practicable. There is value in having the same person produce both the drawn content and the written requirements. This approach not only helps ensure that the specification reflects the detail accurately, but it also allows the designer to develop their knowledge and technical expertise. Working through the specification encourages the designer to look beyond the drawing and understand how the various components, materials and fixings come together, how they are installed and what is required to achieve the intended performance. This practical understanding can help inform better design decisions and lead to more robust technical solutions. 

What materials are required? How are the components fixed together? Have the interfaces and junctions been properly resolved? Are there specific installation requirements or performance criteria that need to be communicated? These are all questions that form part of developing a robust technical solution. Writing the specification alongside the detail can help identify gaps or uncertainties before the information is issued for construction. 

There is also a clear benefit in having the person with first-hand knowledge of the design decisions describe the requirements. The detailer understands why particular materials or components have been selected, how the detail has been resolved and what is required to achieve the intended outcome or performance. When the specification is produced separately, particularly at the end of the process, there is a risk that requirements become generic, important criteria may be missed or the original design intent is lost in translation. 

Developing the specification alongside the detail helps maintain a direct relationship between what is drawn and what is specified. It also encourages a more considered approach to technical design, where constructability, material performance and workmanship are addressed as part of the design process rather than retrospectively. 

Ultimately, an architectural specification is more than a list of products, materials and standards. It is a fundamental part of communicating how the design is intended to be constructed. 

Writing the specification is part of the designing and detailing process, not simply describing it.

By giving it the same consideration as the drawings and ensuring it is developed by the person responsible for the detail, we can produce more coordinated, considered and robust technical information. It also provides a clearer basis for assessing proposed material substitutions, helping to ensure that alternatives meet the required performance criteria and have the appropriate supporting certification and warranties, rather than being accepted on the basis of apparent similarity alone.