Project Delivery

The use of online Document Control (DC) applications to tackle the massive amount of information associated with the CA phase of a project has been a common practice for many years.  This, however, has taken place in a variety of forms, each with its pros and cons.  This post intends to survey the most popular of these formats and query the members of the community on their preferences and the reasons for them.

In principle, any one or more of the three parties (Owner, A/E, Builder) associated with a construction contract may own the DC app.    

Owner owns the DC app: Many large institutions with large construction programs prefer this option in order to keep all their projects in a single, permanent location.

• Pros: Owner pays for the use of the app.
• Cons: A/E does not have control of the data, however, Owner is likely to enforce "fair use" rules from all parties, contributing to a somewhat equitable record.  Owner can cut the A/E off in case of a dispute, however, this is rare (Note: some DC apps vow to now allow this).  The A/E cannot conduct enterprise-wide performance analysis (data mining) because the data is scattered across projects and clients.

Builder owns the DC app:  This is the most common situation.  The builder requires that everybody (owner, A/E, subcontractors, etc.) operate and fill-in information on their app.

• Pros: Builder pays for the use of the app.  Cost is passed on to the Owner, either in the price of the contract, or as part of the General Conditions.
• Cons: A/E does not have control of the data, which can lead to disputes about the integrity of same (e.g.: dates of closure of RFI's).  The A/E cannot conduct enterprise-wide performance analysis (data mining) because the data is scattered across projects and clients.

A/E owns the DC app: This is quite uncommon across the profession, but more popular with larger firms

• Pros: A/E owns the data, and can make sure that it is accurate. A/E can conduct enterprise-wide performance analysis (data mining) to asses areas of concern and anticipate problems.  A/E can use the power of the app to standardize documents produced by the firm, providing consistency in content and appearance.  The DC apps tend to have capabilities beyond CA (e.g.: BIM and drawing management) that can be helpful to the project team since the very beginning of the project. 
• Cons: Cost is substantial, but it can be passed on to the Owner as a reimbursable, just as the Builder does.  

When the Owner owns the system, both builders and A/E's acquiesce to its use.  The builder would typically NOT relinquish the use of its own DC app, since the rest of the projects in the firm are in that system, so they end up double-logging the information (first in the Owner's system and then in their own system).  If the A/E has its own DC app in house, the A/E ends up double logging as well, with the consequential cost (these costs should be considered when preparing the A/E fee, and passed on to the Owner, just like the Builder does).

How do we resolve the conflicting agendas here?  Do you find yourself arguing with the builder about the data in the system, to which you do not have control?  If you end up in a dispute, and you don't have quick access to your own data, how would you argue in your own behalf?  Has the builder or Owner cut you off from accessing the data?  Would you want to know, at an enterprise level, who in your firm or your subs have submittals and RFI's that are due today?  Do you create your CA documents (CPR's, Bulletins, ASI's, CCD's, Meeting Minutes, Field Visit Reports, Punch Lists, etc.) in a separate document creation software (Word?) and post them to the app, or do you use the app to create these documents?  If you use Word, do you find that the appearance of the documents is not consistent across your firm?  If you use your own DC app, have you been successful in passing its cost to the Owner, just as the Builder does?  If  you have an in-house enterprise-wide DC app, do you use it to monitor performance and drive improvement?

Please post your answers, we are all interested in seeing how this important aspect of the CA phase of our projects are being handled.

The use of online Document Control (DC) applications to tackle the massive amount of information associated with the CA phase of a project has been a common practice for many years.  This, however, has taken place in a variety of forms, each with its pros and cons.  This post intends to survey the most popular of these formats and query the members of the community on their preferences and the reasons for them.

In principle, any one or more of the three parties (Owner, A/E, Builder) associated with a construction contract may own the DC app.    

Owner owns the DC app: Many large institutions with large construction programs prefer this option in order to keep all their projects in a single, permanent location.

• Pros: Owner pays for the use of the app.
• Cons: A/E does not have control of the data, however, Owner is likely to enforce "fair use" rules from all parties, contributing to a somewhat equitable record.  Owner can cut the A/E off in case of a dispute, however, this is rare (Note: some DC apps vow to now allow this).  The A/E cannot conduct enterprise-wide performance analysis (data mining) because the data is scattered across projects and clients.

Builder owns the DC app:  This is the most common situation.  The builder requires that everybody (owner, A/E, subcontractors, etc.) operate and fill-in information on their app.

• Pros: Builder pays for the use of the app.  Cost is passed on to the Owner, either in the price of the contract, or as part of the General Conditions.
• Cons: A/E does not have control of the data, which can lead to disputes about the integrity of same (e.g.: dates of closure of RFI's).  The A/E cannot conduct enterprise-wide performance analysis (data mining) because the data is scattered across projects and clients.

A/E owns the DC app: This is quite uncommon across the profession, but more popular with larger firms

• Pros: A/E owns the data, and can make sure that it is accurate. A/E can conduct enterprise-wide performance analysis (data mining) to asses areas of concern and anticipate problems.  A/E can use the power of the app to standardize documents produced by the firm, providing consistency in content and appearance.  The DC apps tend to have capabilities beyond CA (e.g.: BIM and drawing management) that can be helpful to the project team since the very beginning of the project. 
• Cons: Cost is substantial, but it can be passed on to the Owner as a reimbursable, just as the Builder does.  

When the Owner owns the system, both builders and A/E's acquiesce to its use.  The builder would typically NOT relinquish the use of its own DC app, since the rest of the projects in the firm are in that system, so they end up double-logging the information (first in the Owner's system and then in their own system).  If the A/E has its own DC app in house, the A/E ends up double logging as well, with the consequential cost (these costs should be considered when preparing the A/E fee, and passed on to the Owner, just like the Builder does).

How do we resolve the conflicting agendas here?  Do you find yourself arguing with the builder about the data in the system, to which you do not have control?  If you end up in a dispute, and you don't have quick access to your own data, how would you argue in your own behalf?  Has the builder or Owner cut you off from accessing the data?  Would you want to know, at an enterprise level, who in your firm or your subs have submittals and RFI's that are due today?  Do you create your CA documents (CPR's, Bulletins, ASI's, CCD's, Meeting Minutes, Field Visit Reports, Punch Lists, etc.) in a separate document creation software (Word?) and post them to the app, or do you use the app to create these documents?  If you use Word, do you find that the appearance of the documents is not consistent across your firm?  If you use your own DC app, have you been successful in passing its cost to the Owner, just as the Builder does?  If  you have an in-house enterprise-wide DC app, do you use it to monitor performance and drive improvement?

Please post your answers, we are all interested in seeing how this important aspect of the CA phase of our projects are being handled.

The use of online Document Control (DC) applications to tackle the massive amount of information associated with the CA phase of a project has been a common practice for many years.  This, however, has taken place in a variety of forms, each with its pros and cons.  This post intends to survey the most popular of these formats and query the members of the community on their preferences and the reasons for them.

In principle, any one or more of the three parties (Owner, A/E, Builder) associated with a construction contract may own the DC app.    

Owner owns the DC app: Many large institutions with large construction programs prefer this option in order to keep all their projects in a single, permanent location.

• Pros: Owner pays for the use of the app.
• Cons: A/E does not have control of the data, however, Owner is likely to enforce "fair use" rules from all parties, contributing to a somewhat equitable record.  Owner can cut the A/E off in case of a dispute, however, this is rare (Note: some DC apps vow to now allow this).  The A/E cannot conduct enterprise-wide performance analysis (data mining) because the data is scattered across projects and clients.

Builder owns the DC app:  This is the most common situation.  The builder requires that everybody (owner, A/E, subcontractors, etc.) operate and fill-in information on their app.

• Pros: Builder pays for the use of the app.  Cost is passed on to the Owner, either in the price of the contract, or as part of the General Conditions.
• Cons: A/E does not have control of the data, which can lead to disputes about the integrity of same (e.g.: dates of closure of RFI's).  The A/E cannot conduct enterprise-wide performance analysis (data mining) because the data is scattered across projects and clients.

A/E owns the DC app: This is quite uncommon across the profession, but more popular with larger firms

• Pros: A/E owns the data, and can make sure that it is accurate. A/E can conduct enterprise-wide performance analysis (data mining) to asses areas of concern and anticipate problems.  A/E can use the power of the app to standardize documents produced by the firm, providing consistency in content and appearance.  The DC apps tend to have capabilities beyond CA (e.g.: BIM and drawing management) that can be helpful to the project team since the very beginning of the project. 
• Cons: Cost is substantial, but it can be passed on to the Owner as a reimbursable, just as the Builder does.  

When the Owner owns the system, both builders and A/E's acquiesce to its use.  The builder would typically NOT relinquish the use of its own DC app, since the rest of the projects in the firm are in that system, so they end up double-logging the information (first in the Owner's system and then in their own system).  If the A/E has its own DC app in house, the A/E ends up double logging as well, with the consequential cost (these costs should be considered when preparing the A/E fee, and passed on to the Owner, just like the Builder does).

How do we resolve the conflicting agendas here?  Do you find yourself arguing with the builder about the data in the system, to which you do not have control?  If you end up in a dispute, and you don't have quick access to your own data, how would you argue in your own behalf?  Has the builder or Owner cut you off from accessing the data?  Would you want to know, at an enterprise level, who in your firm or your subs have submittals and RFI's that are due today?  Do you create your CA documents (CPR's, Bulletins, ASI's, CCD's, Meeting Minutes, Field Visit Reports, Punch Lists, etc.) in a separate document creation software (Word?) and post them to the app, or do you use the app to create these documents?  If you use Word, do you find that the appearance of the documents is not consistent across your firm?  If you use your own DC app, have you been successful in passing its cost to the Owner, just as the Builder does?  If  you have an in-house enterprise-wide DC app, do you use it to monitor performance and drive improvement?

Please post your answers, we are all interested in seeing how this important aspect of the CA phase of our projects are being handled.

The use of online Document Control (DC) applications to tackle the massive amount of information associated with the CA phase of a project has been a common practice for many years.  This, however, has taken place in a variety of forms, each with its pros and cons.  This post intends to survey the most popular of these formats and query the members of the community on their preferences and the reasons for them.

In principle, any one or more of the three parties (Owner, A/E, Builder) associated with a construction contract may own the DC app.    

Owner owns the DC app: Many large institutions with large construction programs prefer this option in order to keep all their projects in a single, permanent location.

• Pros: Owner pays for the use of the app.
• Cons: A/E does not have control of the data, however, Owner is likely to enforce "fair use" rules from all parties, contributing to a somewhat equitable record.  Owner can cut the A/E off in case of a dispute, however, this is rare (Note: some DC apps vow to now allow this).  The A/E cannot conduct enterprise-wide performance analysis (data mining) because the data is scattered across projects and clients.

Builder owns the DC app:  This is the most common situation.  The builder requires that everybody (owner, A/E, subcontractors, etc.) operate and fill-in information on their app.

• Pros: Builder pays for the use of the app.  Cost is passed on to the Owner, either in the price of the contract, or as part of the General Conditions.
• Cons: A/E does not have control of the data, which can lead to disputes about the integrity of same (e.g.: dates of closure of RFI's).  The A/E cannot conduct enterprise-wide performance analysis (data mining) because the data is scattered across projects and clients.

A/E owns the DC app: This is quite uncommon across the profession, but more popular with larger firms

• Pros: A/E owns the data, and can make sure that it is accurate. A/E can conduct enterprise-wide performance analysis (data mining) to asses areas of concern and anticipate problems.  A/E can use the power of the app to standardize documents produced by the firm, providing consistency in content and appearance.  The DC apps tend to have capabilities beyond CA (e.g.: BIM and drawing management) that can be helpful to the project team since the very beginning of the project. 
• Cons: Cost is substantial, but it can be passed on to the Owner as a reimbursable, just as the Builder does.  

When the Owner owns the system, both builders and A/E's acquiesce to its use.  The builder would typically NOT relinquish the use of its own DC app, since the rest of the projects in the firm are in that system, so they end up double-logging the information (first in the Owner's system and then in their own system).  If the A/E has its own DC app in house, the A/E ends up double logging as well, with the consequential cost (these costs should be considered when preparing the A/E fee, and passed on to the Owner, just like the Builder does).

How do we resolve the conflicting agendas here?  Do you find yourself arguing with the builder about the data in the system, to which you do not have control?  If you end up in a dispute, and you don't have quick access to your own data, how would you argue in your own behalf?  Has the builder or Owner cut you off from accessing the data?  Would you want to know, at an enterprise level, who in your firm or your subs have submittals and RFI's that are due today?  Do you create your CA documents (CPR's, Bulletins, ASI's, CCD's, Meeting Minutes, Field Visit Reports, Punch Lists, etc.) in a separate document creation software (Word?) and post them to the app, or do you use the app to create these documents?  If you use Word, do you find that the appearance of the documents is not consistent across your firm?  If you use your own DC app, have you been successful in passing its cost to the Owner, just as the Builder does?  If  you have an in-house enterprise-wide DC app, do you use it to monitor performance and drive improvement?

Please post your answers, we are all interested in seeing how this important aspect of the CA phase of our projects are being handled.

The use of online Document Control (DC) applications to tackle the massive amount of information associated with the CA phase of a project has been a common practice for many years.  This, however, has taken place in a variety of forms, each with its pros and cons.  This post intends to survey the most popular of these formats and query the members of the community on their preferences and the reasons for them.

In principle, any one or more of the three parties (Owner, A/E, Builder) associated with a construction contract may own the DC app.    

Owner owns the DC app: Many large institutions with large construction programs prefer this option in order to keep all their projects in a single, permanent location.

• Pros: Owner pays for the use of the app.
• Cons: A/E does not have control of the data, however, Owner is likely to enforce "fair use" rules from all parties, contributing to a somewhat equitable record.  Owner can cut the A/E off in case of a dispute, however, this is rare (Note: some DC apps vow to now allow this).  The A/E cannot conduct enterprise-wide performance analysis (data mining) because the data is scattered across projects and clients.

Builder owns the DC app:  This is the most common situation.  The builder requires that everybody (owner, A/E, subcontractors, etc.) operate and fill-in information on their app.

• Pros: Builder pays for the use of the app.  Cost is passed on to the Owner, either in the price of the contract, or as part of the General Conditions.
• Cons: A/E does not have control of the data, which can lead to disputes about the integrity of same (e.g.: dates of closure of RFI's).  The A/E cannot conduct enterprise-wide performance analysis (data mining) because the data is scattered across projects and clients.

A/E owns the DC app: This is quite uncommon across the profession, but more popular with larger firms

• Pros: A/E owns the data, and can make sure that it is accurate. A/E can conduct enterprise-wide performance analysis (data mining) to asses areas of concern and anticipate problems.  A/E can use the power of the app to standardize documents produced by the firm, providing consistency in content and appearance.  The DC apps tend to have capabilities beyond CA (e.g.: BIM and drawing management) that can be helpful to the project team since the very beginning of the project. 
• Cons: Cost is substantial, but it can be passed on to the Owner as a reimbursable, just as the Builder does.  

When the Owner owns the system, both builders and A/E's acquiesce to its use.  The builder would typically NOT relinquish the use of its own DC app, since the rest of the projects in the firm are in that system, so they end up double-logging the information (first in the Owner's system and then in their own system).  If the A/E has its own DC app in house, the A/E ends up double logging as well, with the consequential cost (these costs should be considered when preparing the A/E fee, and passed on to the Owner, just like the Builder does).

How do we resolve the conflicting agendas here?  Do you find yourself arguing with the builder about the data in the system, to which you do not have control?  If you end up in a dispute, and you don't have quick access to your own data, how would you argue in your own behalf?  Has the builder or Owner cut you off from accessing the data?  Would you want to know, at an enterprise level, who in your firm or your subs have submittals and RFI's that are due today?  Do you create your CA documents (CPR's, Bulletins, ASI's, CCD's, Meeting Minutes, Field Visit Reports, Punch Lists, etc.) in a separate document creation software (Word?) and post them to the app, or do you use the app to create these documents?  If you use Word, do you find that the appearance of the documents is not consistent across your firm?  If you use your own DC app, have you been successful in passing its cost to the Owner, just as the Builder does?  If  you have an in-house enterprise-wide DC app, do you use it to monitor performance and drive improvement?

Please post your answers, we are all interested in seeing how this important aspect of the CA phase of our projects are being handled.

The use of online Document Control (DC) applications to tackle the massive amount of information associated with the CA phase of a project has been a common practice for many years.  This, however, has taken place in a variety of forms, each with its pros and cons.  This post intends to survey the most popular of these formats and query the members of the community on their preferences and the reasons for them.

In principle, any one or more of the three parties (Owner, A/E, Builder) associated with a construction contract may own the DC app.    

Owner owns the DC app: Many large institutions with large construction programs prefer this option in order to keep all their projects in a single, permanent location.

• Pros: Owner pays for the use of the app.
• Cons: A/E does not have control of the data, however, Owner is likely to enforce "fair use" rules from all parties, contributing to a somewhat equitable record.  Owner can cut the A/E off in case of a dispute, however, this is rare (Note: some DC apps vow to now allow this).  The A/E cannot conduct enterprise-wide performance analysis (data mining) because the data is scattered across projects and clients.

Builder owns the DC app:  This is the most common situation.  The builder requires that everybody (owner, A/E, subcontractors, etc.) operate and fill-in information on their app.

• Pros: Builder pays for the use of the app.  Cost is passed on to the Owner, either in the price of the contract, or as part of the General Conditions.
• Cons: A/E does not have control of the data, which can lead to disputes about the integrity of same (e.g.: dates of closure of RFI's).  The A/E cannot conduct enterprise-wide performance analysis (data mining) because the data is scattered across projects and clients.

A/E owns the DC app: This is quite uncommon across the profession, but more popular with larger firms

• Pros: A/E owns the data, and can make sure that it is accurate. A/E can conduct enterprise-wide performance analysis (data mining) to asses areas of concern and anticipate problems.  A/E can use the power of the app to standardize documents produced by the firm, providing consistency in content and appearance.  The DC apps tend to have capabilities beyond CA (e.g.: BIM and drawing management) that can be helpful to the project team since the very beginning of the project. 
• Cons: Cost is substantial, but it can be passed on to the Owner as a reimbursable, just as the Builder does.  

When the Owner owns the system, both builders and A/E's acquiesce to its use.  The builder would typically NOT relinquish the use of its own DC app, since the rest of the projects in the firm are in that system, so they end up double-logging the information (first in the Owner's system and then in their own system).  If the A/E has its own DC app in house, the A/E ends up double logging as well, with the consequential cost (these costs should be considered when preparing the A/E fee, and passed on to the Owner, just like the Builder does).

How do we resolve the conflicting agendas here?  Do you find yourself arguing with the builder about the data in the system, to which you do not have control?  If you end up in a dispute, and you don't have quick access to your own data, how would you argue in your own behalf?  Has the builder or Owner cut you off from accessing the data?  Would you want to know, at an enterprise level, who in your firm or your subs have submittals and RFI's that are due today?  Do you create your CA documents (CPR's, Bulletins, ASI's, CCD's, Meeting Minutes, Field Visit Reports, Punch Lists, etc.) in a separate document creation software (Word?) and post them to the app, or do you use the app to create these documents?  If you use Word, do you find that the appearance of the documents is not consistent across your firm?  If you use your own DC app, have you been successful in passing its cost to the Owner, just as the Builder does?  If  you have an in-house enterprise-wide DC app, do you use it to monitor performance and drive improvement?

Please post your answers, we are all interested in seeing how this important aspect of the CA phase of our projects are being handled.

The use of online Document Control (DC) applications to tackle the massive amount of information associated with the CA phase of a project has been a common practice for many years.  This, however, has taken place in a variety of forms, each with its pros and cons.  This post intends to survey the most popular of these formats and query the members of the community on their preferences and the reasons for them.

In principle, any one or more of the three parties (Owner, A/E, Builder) associated with a construction contract may own the DC app.    

Owner owns the DC app: Many large institutions with large construction programs prefer this option in order to keep all their projects in a single, permanent location.

• Pros: Owner pays for the use of the app.
• Cons: A/E does not have control of the data, however, Owner is likely to enforce "fair use" rules from all parties, contributing to a somewhat equitable record.  Owner can cut the A/E off in case of a dispute, however, this is rare (Note: some DC apps vow to now allow this).  The A/E cannot conduct enterprise-wide performance analysis (data mining) because the data is scattered across projects and clients.

Builder owns the DC app:  This is the most common situation.  The builder requires that everybody (owner, A/E, subcontractors, etc.) operate and fill-in information on their app.

• Pros: Builder pays for the use of the app.  Cost is passed on to the Owner, either in the price of the contract, or as part of the General Conditions.
• Cons: A/E does not have control of the data, which can lead to disputes about the integrity of same (e.g.: dates of closure of RFI's).  The A/E cannot conduct enterprise-wide performance analysis (data mining) because the data is scattered across projects and clients.

A/E owns the DC app: This is quite uncommon across the profession, but more popular with larger firms

• Pros: A/E owns the data, and can make sure that it is accurate. A/E can conduct enterprise-wide performance analysis (data mining) to asses areas of concern and anticipate problems.  A/E can use the power of the app to standardize documents produced by the firm, providing consistency in content and appearance.  The DC apps tend to have capabilities beyond CA (e.g.: BIM and drawing management) that can be helpful to the project team since the very beginning of the project. 
• Cons: Cost is substantial, but it can be passed on to the Owner as a reimbursable, just as the Builder does.  

When the Owner owns the system, both builders and A/E's acquiesce to its use.  The builder would typically NOT relinquish the use of its own DC app, since the rest of the projects in the firm are in that system, so they end up double-logging the information (first in the Owner's system and then in their own system).  If the A/E has its own DC app in house, the A/E ends up double logging as well, with the consequential cost (these costs should be considered when preparing the A/E fee, and passed on to the Owner, just like the Builder does).

How do we resolve the conflicting agendas here?  Do you find yourself arguing with the builder about the data in the system, to which you do not have control?  If you end up in a dispute, and you don't have quick access to your own data, how would you argue in your own behalf?  Has the builder or Owner cut you off from accessing the data?  Would you want to know, at an enterprise level, who in your firm or your subs have submittals and RFI's that are due today?  Do you create your CA documents (CPR's, Bulletins, ASI's, CCD's, Meeting Minutes, Field Visit Reports, Punch Lists, etc.) in a separate document creation software (Word?) and post them to the app, or do you use the app to create these documents?  If you use Word, do you find that the appearance of the documents is not consistent across your firm?  If you use your own DC app, have you been successful in passing its cost to the Owner, just as the Builder does?  If  you have an in-house enterprise-wide DC app, do you use it to monitor performance and drive improvement?

Please post your answers, we are all interested in seeing how this important aspect of the CA phase of our projects are being handled.