©2020, Ontario Association of Architects (OAA). Lessons Learned may be reproduced and distributed, with appropriate credit included, for non-commercial use only. Commercial use requires prior written permission from the OAA. The OAA reserves all other rights. 

---

 

Context

Many architectural and interior design offices develop and use standard details for conditions that are likely to occur on multiple projects. Often this can save time and allow more effort to go into the unique aspects of each project. When reviewing details for a project while working in a large office, I noticed that the pickets on the guard at the exit stairs were eight inches on center on all the standard stair details. The applicable building code had been in effect for four years, and required the pickets to be no more than 100 mm apart. Similar problems existed with a number of other standard details.

 The Lesson

The problem was that once a standard detail was created and reviewed, everyone used the standard detail, but no one was responsible for maintaining it or reviewing it when the code changed. The standard details became permanent and unquestioned. Staff quickly chose a detail from the catalogue and put it on a drawing. This situation was made worse by the absence of any notation on the details themselves.

What was Learned
As a result of this experience, I started noting in the master CADD file of each standard detail, the building code version which it was created to comply with. In AutoCAD, the notation “Verified against OBC 20XX” is placed in large text on the “Defpoints” layer in model space so it is readily visible to anyone working with the detail, but won’t show up on a print. The notation is also placed (in small text) on a printable layer in paper space in the title block of the standard detail so that it can be seen in any printed copy of the master detail.
It is still possible for someone to grab a detail without checking it, and people can still use a standard detail without ensuring that it truly is suitable for the project at hand, but they are without excuse if they use a detail that hasn’t been verified against the current code or the applicable code.

---

The lessons do not represent OAA policy or guidance but rather are actual experiences from construction contract administration that taught the author a valuable lesson from which others may benefit.

---