PAINTSQUARE BLOG

Comment |

The Good, the Bad, and the Unique

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2016

By Bob Bailey, AIA, CCS


“In a highly commoditized world, the name of the game is creating something unique, something that stands out,” stated Catherine Connolly, the chief executive officer and owner of Merida textiles.

Well…not always the name of the game. A paradox exists. In the U.S., we essentially have a capitalist society. The government at all levels—federal, state, and local—encourages it. Entrepreneurialism is highly regarded. Or is it?

This same government places stipulations on publicly-bid government construction such that the unique product—a company’s claim to fame—cannot be specified, because “unique” equals “proprietary” in government spec parlance, and proprietary means no competition and that is deemed unfair.

The uniqueness that was the germ of the creative idea, the uniqueness that got a product on the map in terms of sales in the first place, is, in the public bid scenario, discounted. Not only does the uniqueness mean nothing but it is looked upon with disdain.

standing out in the crowd
©iStock.com / 3D_generator

How often does your firm take risks on unique products?

And so, that product which currently outshines all others—perhaps in performance, perhaps in composition, perhaps in aesthetics—must now wait until the plodding competition catches up to in order to be specified. The product must become commoditized in order to be specified on public work. So much for “the name of the game” in that scenario.

Pros and Cons

So, what is the good in this game?

The good of being unique is at least twofold: Potential market share stemming from offering something that no one else has, as well as potential high-end use (for essentially the same reason). The best delivery method for a unique product would be a proprietary, no-substitution specification. Another method would be to specify the unique product as an alternate bid to a commodity-type product and let price decide.

However, there are also several not-so-good points of being unique—the bad. 

Equivalents can’t be bid; it is what it is. Also, the more conservative practitioners might not want to be the guinea pig for an untried product. Another point is that the product may differ from the conventional/typical product used for the said purpose, but may not be able to cover as many different types of conditions and applications as the typical product can.

For the truly unique product, it could mean that it is patent protected so that that its uniqueness remains for a defined period. A design patent lifespan, for instance, is 14 years. A truly unique product could be a technology breakthrough, and usually in the construction industry that will eventually benefit everyone.  A truly unique product could be singular in appearance, such that you can always tell whether it is really that product or another, or it could be singular in performance and stand out from the crowd in that way—the unique.

How it Plays Out

In our office we have the good fortune, I feel, of having several designer architects who are not intimidated by the prospect of using a new and different product for the first time.  And with vetting and due diligence we have taken that step a few times. 

Using such a new product or material is not without concerns.

In one case, we found that the contractor’s lack of familiarity with the product became a major issue. We considered it a lesson learned: Be certain that if a certified installer is required that that mandate is honored. Emphasize it at a pre-bid meeting and again at a pre-construction conference so that all are aware; don’t wait until construction.

Also, learn if a minimum amount of material is required in case the contractor errs in his or her takeoff. Finally, define the product/material and its extent clearly on the drawings.

Clarity in your documents can help smooth the way for a good experience with a unique product.

ABOUT THE BLOGGER

Bob Bailey, AIA, CCS

A full-time specifier for more than 25 years, Bob Bailey, AIA, CCS, CSI, LEED AP, is Specifications and Constructability Specialist for IKM Inc. of Pittsburgh, PA. An award-winning specifications writer, Bob is the founder of the Pittsburgh Specifiers' Roundtable and immediate past president of CSI Pittsburgh. His professional passions: continuing education and internship development. Contact Bob.

SEE ALL CONTENT FROM THIS CONTRIUBTOR

   

Tagged categories: Architects; Good Technical Practice; IKM Inc.; LEED; Specifiers; Aesthetics; Architecture; Color; Design; Research and development; Specification; Specification writing

Comment Join the Conversation:

Sign in to our community to add your comments.

Advertisements
 
KTA-Tator, Inc. - Corporate Office

 
Fischer Technology Inc.

 
DeFelsko Corporation

 
SABRE Autonomous Solutions

 
SAFE Systems, Inc.

 
Tarps manufacturing, Inc.

 
HoldTight Solutions Inc.

 
 
 

Technology Publishing Co., 1501 Reedsdale Street, Suite 2008, Pittsburgh, PA 15233

TEL 1-412-431-8300  • FAX  1-412-431-5428  •  EMAIL webmaster@paintsquare.com


The Technology Publishing Network

PaintSquare the Journal of Protective Coatings & Linings Paint BidTracker

 
EXPLORE:      JPCL   |   PaintSquare News   |   Interact   |   Buying Guides   |   Webinars   |   Resources   |   Classifieds
REGISTER AND SUBSCRIBE:      Free PaintSquare Registration   |   Subscribe to JPCL   |   Subscribe to PaintSquare News
MORE:      About PaintSquare.com   |   Privacy Policy   |   Terms & Conditions   |   Support   |   Site Map   |   Search   |   Contact Us