The Problem with the "Have it Your Way" Approach

So what's more difficult, getting people to recognize that technology can be a huge ally in mitigating risk, reducing project costs, improving efficiency (and on and on...). Is it getting people to adopt technology once implemented? Or is it getting everyone to agree on a process that a technology solution will enhance. I guess it depends in whom you ask, but (I think) you get the message that with most enterprise software implementations there are many challenges to be had. These can be exacerbated by some of the systems that promise to do everything but provide you with a blank slate, so that with the promise of flexibility and configurability comes the added cost and brain damage with getting the system just right.

As you can imagine, I am a proponent of a flexible system - however, as much as people would like to believe that their challenges are unique, as a firm we keep running into extremely similar business challenges that we can address without having to reinvent the wheel.




Therein lie some of the drawbacks of a custom-built technology platform, or those solutions that require heavy customization to get the system to be all things to all people. On a recent trip to a construction technology conference, I heard a presentation where a large, multinational CM organization discussed a case study on their implementation of an in-house project management and collaboration system, and the challenges they encountered through a 5-year implementation. I must have missed something because I was under the impression that these monster implementations only applied to legacy systems.


Sarcasm aside, it was the speaker's overall impression that were an opportunity to rewind available, they would definitely have opted for an 'off-the-shelf' solution, where a lot of the issues they encountered or tried to solve had been already addressed by existing vendors. They did not discuss costs, but it was apparent that the cost and time committments had placed unexpected strains on both personnel and system costs.


This may represent an isolated case, but it's not the first time I've heard of a company going down a long path and abandoning ship after considerable time and money invested. I'd be happy to share other insights that would probably cause this post to go on for pages - but long story short, if you or anyone you know are considering building your own solution, be weary of the additional commitments you could save yourself by leveraging our years of industry experience.

One-size Fits All vs. Have It Your Way

When we got started in 1995, project management software was big with contractors, especially as they became early adopters (at least the larger organizations). This group was a big client base for e-Builder, but as the years have passed it's safe to say that owners have taken a proactive approach in how they manage their project information, and perhaps even taking the lead in adopting these systems. Which brings me to the point of this topic: is a one-size fits all mentality appropriate for project management software?

Early project management systems, including e-Builder, were geared more towards information management from the contractor's point of view - primarily because they were the ones buying the software. We gravitated away from this focus several years ago, in part because of what we saw as a shift towards the owner.

Given this paradigm shift, these systems need to be differentiated in terms of providing the best solution based on an oranization's role (owner, GC, program manager, owner representative, etc.) Facility owner/operators should take note that there are distinct differences between an owner-centric system vs. those geared towards the contractor. For instance, is the owner really concerned with tracking 1000 tasks on a schedule and having visibility into what subs are getting paid? Also, those owners managing a large portfolio of projects will need a system that can simplify cross-project reporting and data mining, especially if this data is to be used strategically (i.e., for planning future projects).

As you can tell by now my personal view is that owners looking for project management systems should familiarize themselves with the differences to avoid investing in a system that, although full of 'robust' features, is destined to fail because it becomes too cumbersome to manage (too many unnecessary features) and too difficult to use. I could write a book on the differences, but would rather hear first-hand experiences from those of you on both the owner and GC side.

In my next post I will talk about the other extreme in project management software, the "Have it Your Way" platform.

Claims Mitigation Still a Hot Topic

We recently sponsored a webinar on construction claims mitigation and winning strategies. I guess given the litigious nature of our industry, I shouldn't have been surprised at how popular this event turned out to be. I was also please to see that the level of sophistication, in terms of our audience's understanding of the issues, was very advanced. Hopefully this was not as a result of first-hand experienced, even though 70% of participants said they had been involved in a construction claim.

While we haven't promoted e-Builder as a claims mitigation tool for some time - it seems that owners have so many other challenges to deal with first (inefficient budget management, poor scheduling practices, lax documentation) that this topic doesnt' come up in conversations.

However, I was reminded by a couple of attendees that online project management systems continue to prove their worth as a claims mitigation tool, especially when coupled with sound project documentation strategies.

If you'd care to view the recorded webinar, please register here.