Avoiding Common Specification Mistakes

Most specification problems don't come from bad decisions. They come from decisions made too late, information assumed rather than confirmed, or compromises that seemed minor at the time.

Here's what we see repeatedly, and how to avoid the same patterns.

The "equivalent product" trap

This is the most common and most expensive mistake.

An architect specifies hardware that meets the project requirements. The specification goes to procurement. Someone finds a product described as "equivalent" at a lower price point. The substitution gets approved because the spec sheets look similar.

The problems emerge later. The finish doesn't quite match the design intent. The weight feels cheaper than expected. The fixings aren't rated for the door construction. The mechanism fails under heavy use.

"Equivalent" on paper rarely means equivalent in practice. Spec sheets don't capture material quality, manufacturing tolerances, or how hardware performs over years of daily use.

If you've specified something for good reasons, document those reasons. Make clear what matters beyond basic dimensions and finish descriptions. Give procurement the information they need to evaluate alternatives properly, or to understand why alternatives shouldn't be considered.

Leaving finish selection too late

Finishes need to be locked down during design phase, not construction.

Waiting creates problems. Matching existing metalwork becomes difficult if you haven't provided samples early. Custom finishes need development time. Even standard finishes vary between manufacturers, so late changes can mean visible inconsistency.

The pressure to delay finish decisions is understandable. Interior schemes evolve. Clients change their minds. Keeping options open feels like flexibility.

But late finish decisions limit options rather than expanding them. Rush timelines mean accepting whatever's available. Matching becomes guesswork rather than careful development. Quality suffers when manufacturing is compressed into inadequate timeframes.

Decide finishes early. If changes are needed later, at least you're changing from a confirmed baseline rather than trying to specify against a moving target.

Assuming door construction

Handle specifications must account for what they're attaching to. This sounds obvious, but it's frequently overlooked.

Different door constructions require different fixing approaches. Solid timber doors, hollow metal doors, glass doors, composite panels - each presents different challenges for secure fixing.

Specifying handles without confirming door construction leads to site problems. Fixings that don't work. Back-plates needed that weren't planned for. Delays while alternative solutions are developed.

Get door construction details into the hardware specification conversation early. If door details aren't finalised, flag the dependency clearly so hardware specification can be completed once that information exists.

The timeline optimism problem

Every project has a programme. Most programmes assume everything goes smoothly.

Hardware often sits at the end of the critical path. Doors get delayed, which delays hardware installation, which compresses the timeline for hardware delivery. Suddenly there's pressure to deliver in two weeks what should have had six.

This pressure creates quality compromises. Rush manufacturing increases error rates. Compressed timelines eliminate the possibility of prototyping or adjustment. Problems that would have been caught with proper timing become problems discovered at installation.

Build realistic float into hardware timelines. If the programme shows four weeks for hardware delivery, ask what happens if it becomes two weeks. Have that conversation before it becomes urgent.

Volume projects: the consistency conversation

Multi-site projects have specific requirements that single installations don't.

Every location needs identical hardware. That means material consistency across the production run, process consistency across manufacturing phases, and quality verification that confirms consistency rather than assuming it.

Have this conversation explicitly with your manufacturer. How do they ensure handles manufactured in January match handles manufactured in June? What documentation exists? What verification happens between batches?

Manufacturers experienced with volume work will have clear answers and established processes. If the answers are vague, the consistency may be too.

The information gap

Specifications work best when manufacturers understand the full context, not just the immediate requirement.

What's the building used for? What's the traffic level? What are the maintenance capabilities? What's the design intent beyond functional requirements? Are there existing fixtures that new hardware needs to complement?

This information shapes recommendations. It identifies potential problems before they become actual problems. It enables manufacturers to suggest alternatives that might serve the project better than the original specification.

Treating hardware specification as a transaction rather than a conversation produces transactional results. Better information produces better outcomes.

Fixing it before it needs fixing

Most of these mistakes are preventable with earlier conversations and clearer documentation.

Specify with enough detail that "equivalent" substitutions can be evaluated properly. Lock down finishes during design. Confirm door construction before finalising hardware. Build realistic timelines. Have explicit consistency conversations for volume work. Share context that helps manufacturers understand what you're actually trying to achieve.

The time invested in proper specification is always less than the time spent fixing problems that proper specification would have prevented.