At a recent conference in Atlanta I was lucky enough to attend the decorative glass seminar, where a distinguished colleague spoke with reference to the interface between those parties in the chain of design to placement (or concept to creation), specifically where an open dialogue between specifier and provider is critical. It should be noted that between the audience and the presenter there was plenty of commentary illustrating the pitfalls of any deficit in establishing and maintaining this communication (or, just how much can, and does go wrong). 

Once again, Mr. Stew has had an opportunity to learn firsthand how many things can, and in fact will, go wrong in any situation where interpreting what “the specifier intended,” is the basis for providing a decorative glass solution, especially if you’re not supplying what was asked for. Now, if you check the record, I once spoke about the benefits of “not trying to copy” someone else’s work (CLICK HERE to read more), or imitate a style to get a sale or “be the solution,” but rather to do what you do best and stop there. OK, so this is certainly a situation where I should have looked in the mirror and said “Hey, you … do what I say, and not as you are about to do!”

To synopsize, I was asked to provide (with a shorter lead time and at presumably a better price) a product that was made using a slightly different process than we use in our shop, which of course, predictably, yields a product with a different finish than that typically identified with our manufacture. Additionally, this product was to be provided in a color and applied by a process that we had just started using (along with the new coloring agent).

In order, here’s the chain of events (Please remember I opened by saying “there has to be an open communication between [in this case] she who specified it, and he who’s making it [me, hereinafter referred to as "supplier"]). It unfolds as follows:

Architect specifies product A.

General contractor orders (decorative glass) product A from glazing contractor, late enough in the construction schedule to be problematic for timely delivery from specified source.

Glazing contractor, seeking an alternative, seeks out decorative glass supplier (me) and asks for a more timely, cost-efficient alternative for submittal to approve as suitable alternative (Not once has supplier [me] talked to architect about the desired outcome, flavor, feel, intent or seen anything to help determine suitability of the “soon to be proposed” alternative).

Supplier submits sample; rejected. Supplier submits second sample; accepted for color only. Supplier submits third sample; accepted for texture.

Supplier moves to full-scale production, and while the glass for the job that is produced is “close” to the submitted samples, it is not exact. Since time is of the essence (product is due on site) and supplier, not having the benefit of dialogue with the architect, applies his (my) own subjective judgment and delivers the product as “suitably close” to the spec.

After all, this is “art,” hand-rendered, and one of a kind, so it has to be OK. Not OK.

I’m writing this on the plane that I’m taking to get home after meeting with the architect, who said, in effect, that even the sample that had been approved was not what was desired and had been shown in hand-rendered art to the owner. Since the glass supplied was not 100 percent true to the “representative sample” (what exactly constitutes representative, anyway?) the architect has exercised his (her) right to say “unacceptable” and I’m now in a position to have to remake the project with the understanding that “we need to come closer to the original spec.”

The glazing contractor feels that if we replicate the glass that was approved as submitted, that we have fulfilled our contractual obligation, but I’m coming away knowing that since anything I make is a substitute for what the architects wanted–and over whose choice an agonizing debate had probably taken place. It would appear to be a lose-lose situation for more than one party.

The moral of the story (we don’t know the outcome yet) is this: You can best serve your buying public by ensuring that open communication exists all the way up and down the order chain. The architect needs to communicate the choice of product emphatically, but must be aware of limitations in production time or specifications. The general contractor needs to know that a glazing contractor has limited choices for procurement, and in the case of an esoteric art glass, produced by one company, there is going to be a specific lead time and costs that are dictated by the manufacturer and not changeable simply by request of anyone else in the order chain. The glazing contractor needs to make sure that a bid was made allowing for manufacturer’s lead-time, specifications and any potential supply problems or schedule conflicts. Last but not least, the decorative glass supplier or manufacturer needs to supply what was asked for at the beginning of the process, and gather any necessary information to make alternatives suitable, well placed, and in the interest of the owner and especially those who started the creative process to begin with. This is how customers are best served.

Thanks Bernard.

Epilogue:
I supplied a new sample, working with the focus placed on “creating glass that met the intended desire of the architect and owner,” but knowing that it was not going to be the same glass as had been originally specified (from another company) but a very suitable alternative. Risky business, since I’ve made a decision not to remake what they approved (but I know they didn’t like) and I’m presuming my approach to “be a mind reader and produce accordingly” will be the better one. I went ahead and made it, sent it, and it was installed in situ, and tentatively approved (reluctantly or not I don’t know, since once again I’m not there, or directly a part of the conversation). I have subsequently remanufactured the balance of the offending lites, which the glazing contractor traveled a great distance to procure from me (can you say already losing money) and drive to the jobsite to install timely. Word has it (glazing contractor loves it, and says the general contractor likes it) that this time we hit the mark, but I’m waiting on written documentation.

Post-Script:
Received word in writing today as follows: Installed glass is accepted and approved by architect and owner. Whew! (Another valuable lesson learned the hard way!)