Thinking out LOUD! - Omit Reference ID's

Attention: open in a new window. PDFPrintE-mail

Article Index
Thinking out LOUD!
Introduction
Primary Intent
Long History
'Element' Misunderstood
Use in Heavy and Civil?
Not a WBS!
Think Modular Use
Abstraction
Usage of the term 'level'
Omit Reference ID's
Think 'Planning'
All Pages
A Specific Choice made to Exclude Element Reference Numbers

There is a clear distinction between the content of the mandatory part of an ASTM standard (the main body of the standard), and appendixes that are non-mandatory.

In understanding that UNIFORMAT II classifications are a part, and only a part, of an overall project, upon consideration it seems illogical to dictate reference or identification numbers to each major group element, group group, or element within each classification.

A full work breakdown structure is typically prepared specifically for each project, embedded within which are one or many UNIFORMAT II elemental cost breakdown structures. Consequently any reference or identification applied in a mandatory manner will likely create a mixed and confusing numbering structure. Full work breakdown structures are typically authored for specific projects and frequently maintain a custom reference numbering or identification system that is unique to that project, in its identification of structures, and their location etc. Business organisations will often maintain their own databases and work breakdown structures that are proprietary and unique to themselves.

In an E06.81 subcommittee meeting some two years ago, and after much discussion, a decision was made was to omit reference identification numbers from the mandatory part of any UNIFORMAT II standard classification, and include them solely within any appendixes. Appendixes are typically noted as being examples only.

An additional and prime reason why this decision was made is that the various proposed discrete UNIFORMAT II classifications will use and re-use many common elements. As each classification differs in its end product, it can be expected that these elements will be collected into a variety group elements, and subsequently into a variety of major group elements. These groups and major groups will not likely be common to every classification, consequently attempting to use a mandatory reference or identification number for each common element (group and major group too) can only lead to publishing a confusing and ultimately illogical schema.

This decision is not without some opposition, but with thought these detractors may see that the inherent logic will prevail.