Well its day 1 of the NFRC meetings in
-- First off I have to get a compliment out… the set up of the meeting and meeting room itself is the best I have ever been in- every chair in the room is the “nice office” chair variety and not the stiff, miserable banquet chair… A major plus.
Anyway on to the meeting and my thoughts…
-- Its funny the word “simple” gets thrown around a lot in the meetings, but really nothing here is or will be…
-- Once again it’s amazing that this group is creating a certification for the commercial industry with very little to no commercial folks and even less understanding. These folks understand residential, they just can’t/won’t grasp commercial.
-- Remember NFRC was launched to protect people on the residential side.
-- Marcie Falke, Chair of NFRC had a small speech before lunch where she noted that the plan to have the manufacturer to have all 100% of their calcs reviewed would stand for the time being. This despite the fact it makes no real logical sense except to protect the money making side of the NFRC.
Why I can say that? Because a compromise that allowed manufacturers to earn trust to be able to do this without un-necessary oversight was presented and has the support of membership, yet the Board denies its need because:
They just don’t have enough info yet, so as Marcia stated:
“I’d take independence and integrity over efficiency.”
And that also means that all the IA’s etc take the profits too…
--Independence is the big new term for them because that’s what separates them from AAMA… they are going to bang the word “Independence” so many times, you’re gonna think its 1776 all over again… See because without “Independence” you can not be trusted… its amazing to me that people really fall for this stuff… in a professional industry?
--And by the way, I assume that Labs/IA/ACE’s etc are perfect all the time- you mean they can be trusted implicitly but manufacturers can’t? There’s never been a dirty one huh? But it doesn’t matter because the key is
--See that’s my issue- NFRC is acting like its protecting the homeowner here… they are not- these are professionals dealing with professionals every step of the way. Assuming that manufacturers are incapable of running legitimate numbers is wrong. Not understanding how projects get specified (and seriously most do not, including many of the software people) not understanding the role of the curtainwall consultant or the fact that AAMA 507 has been accepted and used without issue for years….
Ah but AAMA is not independent… so it can’t be trusted!!! Damn thieves!
Marcia did state she wants this program to be “easy and user friendly” but she never talked about that little thing called…. “cost” More on that below…
--Then Jim Benney was supposed to show the CMA software to the group… he noted that it’s a “tool” and great for “bidding”- funny that’s how we felt this program could be all along, without the expensive stuff like the labels, certifications, validations, un-needed testing and inspection… funny he left those last items out.
Anyway, as we waited, Jim announced he was not going to show the CMA software, even though everyone expected it… I asked him afterwards why and he said it was because he did not feel the majority of the audience would be into it… my god the majority of the audience wouldn’t know a piece of SN 68 if it hit them in the head- you’re caring now that the commercial issue is not in their interest grasp?
So Jim announced its available for 30 days test periods… for which I did ask for… and so did GANA….
She said that the board would meet tonight, but not “officially” to discuss the CMA program… for which I think I will now refer to as the “SS Titanic” because this ship is going down… Anyway, when Greg “LT” Carney asked if the meeting was open to the public, Marcia replied that unfortunately in this day and age everything you say is out there and will be on the internet tomorrow….
--So when Jim finished, Marcia had one more note.
Marcia, Marcia, Marcia…. C’mon I am better than that, it’s on the internet today!!
Anyway, its funny the NFRC now blaming technology on its pathetic lack of transparency. That’s a new one… and the answer was an obvious No… but you had to ask… but they could say that 2 years ago they'd never even announce a secret board meeting, so small steps...
--Finally for today, Greg Carney, who without Marg Webb of IGMA here (could not attend- but is dearly missed) had to carry the industry burden by making an impassioned plea to Marcia, the board and everyone in the audience.
Greg explained that if the Benefit of the SS Titanic (that’s me, he called it the CMA) did not outweigh the costs, it would not work. He pressed that simplification should rule over complexity, because complexity and layers (staples of NFRC) add costs.
Greg noted that the words “cost effective” were not uttered and that to him is a big key. So plain and simple… the Benefit must be greater than the Cost to equal success.
So what reply did Greg get after that plea….
Wait for it…
Here it comes…
Um… really nothing… a shaken head and a thank you… no reply.. no rebuttal, no push back… basically it was like they had their Ipods on and when they saw Greg’s lips stop, they figured he was done… his plea fell on basically deaf ears…
--So it goes… I was kicking myself when I did not go to the mic… but after watching Greg lay it out and get no response whatsoever, it would not have mattered.
Here’s the bottom line of day 1…
*The Board and a majority of this group still does not get the commercial industry.
* The software did not make its debut in front of an audience for whatever reason.
* The Internet causes major transparency issues.. that and an insane blogger that stalks NFRC
* The SS Titanic is moving full speed ahead and the iceberg is looming.
The new logo... like it? And something tells me end of day, this Titanic will end up costing the same as the movie did....