This post examines the impact of every company using its own proprietary data sets and STWs (standards templates and workflows). In the BIM and database world, the core “alphabet” of building data consists of families, details, and notes that define the database and express the project’s design intent. This is similar to each company writing the story of a building using different alphabets, languages, and words. As a result, every project requires a translation process—each company must first translate construction documentation into the specific language used by its team or system.
Data Structure: Families, Details, and Notes
Historically and today, every company uses its own proprietary data sets and its own set of STWs (standard terms and workflows). In the BIM and database world, the core alphabet of building data consists of families, details, and notes—elements that define the database and communicate a project’s design intent.
Simply put, everyone involved in creating construction documentation—whether initial drawings, addendums, or information developed during construction through final handover—uses a unique combination of alphabets, terminology, graphics, and organizational structures to describe a building project.
While industry standards such as MasterFormat numbering and MasterSpecs have been widely adopted, they don’t eliminate the fact that most project information is still communicated in what are, figuratively speaking, different languages, alphabets, or at the very least, dialects.
One of the formative experiences that led me toward developing BuildUSA came in the early 1990s:
The Syntec Standardization Experience
At that time, I began the first formal effort to standardize construction details within the Syntec library. My focus was on metal stud interior partitions and the doors within those partitions. I reviewed standard details from four or five different companies and quickly realized that, although similar, no two were the same.
The poche conventions, line weights, and notes all varied, even within a single firm.
My takeaway was twofold:
- Standardization is both good and necessary.
- For commonly used details—such as metal or wood stud walls, basic door or window installations, and typical cabinet or floor conditions—there should be a shared, industry-wide set of details organized with consistent data structures and naming conventions.
This shared database could grow year after year, representing not only industry standardization but also collective review and agreement among all project stakeholders on what constitutes best practice.
If such a system evolved organically as part of broader industry standards and expanded to include typical families, details, and notes, it would deliver enormous benefits:
- Clarity and consistency – Establish a clear template for organizing and formatting information, benefiting both current professionals and future practitioners.
- Efficiency and reliability – Reduce confusion caused by multiple “alphabets” and formats, creating more consistent construction documentation in both digital and paper form.
- Reduced liability – Over time, standardization would foster broad acceptance among architects, engineers, contractors, manufacturers and suppliers (of wall modules, studs, insulation, fasteners, etc.), lowering errors and disputes.
Certain standard details appear in virtually every building project. Yet, each company still invests in a translation process, converting construction documentation into the specific “language” used by its people or systems.
Is this valuable or a waste of time?
Some might argue that this variation is part of the design process and leads to higher-quality outcomes. I disagree. There is plenty of room for creativity during conceptual design, when a project team develops the initial story for owner review and approval. Different individuals and organizations bring unique perspectives, and design exploration is essential at this stage.
However, once a project moves into construction documentation, the focus should shift toward standardization, particularly for typical families, details, and notes. Not every element of a project is standard, and some customization will always be required, but the goal is to standardize wherever possible to build faster, better, and more affordably.
This principle underpins BuildUSA’s Building Orders framework. Within it:
- Boutique and Iconic construction emphasize creative customization.
- Optimized Building focuses on the mission
High quality and performance buildings delivered to the market, more quickly, on time and at a lower cost
Or simply put, building better, faster and cheaper.
A key part of achieving that mission is developing an industry-accepted library of standardized families, details, and notes, structured to enable seamless data sharing and analysis within the BCE (Building Construction Environment).
Photo by Clint Adair on Unsplash