Autodesk announces new version of Buzzsaw

Just found a boring news release on PRnewswire announcing new Autodesk Buzzsaw functionality. It's not going to change the UK construction collaboration technology market – just about everything highlighted in the release is already offered by competing solutions from other vendors.

The new Buzzsaw functionality focuses on automating business processes, and includes:

  • increased breadth of available standard construction management forms and business processes, including submittals, ASIs (Architect's Supplemental Instructions), bulletins, transmittals, addenda and print orders
  • a collaborative paperless bid management command centre to streamline the bidding process – from electronically distributing bid invitations and bid packages, to notifying sub-contractors and awarding contracts
  • functionality to customise and configure forms (expected to be available mid-December) – customers will be able to customise existing Buzzsaw forms, or create their own, to suit their unique business needs. Additionally, customers will be able to use pre-defined workflows and then assign them to their new forms or business processes

Why's this make me yawn? Well, certainly so far as BIW is concerned, workflow/business process and support for standard forms has been available to BIW customers and end-users for more than two-and-a-half years (see 17 March 2003 release) while e-tendering/bid management was available in July 2003. Moreover, this functionality has been developed further since 2003 (only this summer, BIW announced its 'Integration' edition – a release featuring business process support embedded in BIW's drawing viewer application).

Permanent link to this article: http://extranetevolution.com/2005/11/autodesk_announ/

Craddy Pitchers and VOSA – BE Collaborative Contract case study

At today’s BE members forum, I was privileged to see a case study, presented by Simon Pitchers of consulting structural engineer Craddy Pitchers and Joanna Davis of client VOSA, relating to their use of the BE Collaborative Contract to manage a series of projects to upgrade VOSA testing stations across the UK. It was an excellent presentation energised by the enthusiastic Pitchers with Davis providing a more conservative – but nonetheless positive – client’s perspective.

Ignore the technology for now (provided, in this instance, by 4projects – MD Richard Vertigan, an occasional reader of this blog, was in the audience and we chatted over coffee later); this was all about getting the right people and processes – including contracts and associated protocols, risk registers, etc – in place to support collaborative working. I really hope this presentation becomes more widely available – better still, if you get the chance to see/hear Simon talk about this work, make sure you attend.

Permanent link to this article: http://extranetevolution.com/2005/11/craddy_pitchers/

Hochtief to standardise on BuildOnline

In IT Showcase magazine last week, I saw a news item about BuildOnline and German contractor Hochtief. Maybe it’s just an oversight, but the news isn’t on the English www.buildonline.com website (though it can be found on the French and German versions); I located the text on the Lewis PR site.

I note the release appears to be mainly focused on Hochtief’s German operation – will we see all of Hochtief’s units worldwide standardising on BO, including Turner in the USA (users of Meridian) and Leighton Contractors in Australia? And what about Hochtief in the UK?

Reading the release, I was also slightly puzzled by Mark Suster’s claim that BO "pioneered" the on-demand business model. When BO rebranded its former ProjectsOnline system and other products just over a year ago (c November 2004), it certainly wasn’t the first to use the phrase ‘on-demand’. I Googled it and found numerous examples:

  • IBM used the phrase extensively for some of its Workplace tools (see here for example) and some instances of its use appear to be regarded as trademarks
  • Star Technologies licences IBM technology to offer ‘On Demand mail collaboration’
  • LANSA uses the phrase ‘e-Collaboration on Demand’
  • US-based TeamDynamix offers On Demand Project Collaboration
  • You can get Oracle on demand
  • Closer to the construction collaboration technology community, Citadon also claims to be a leader in "on-demand document management, business process management and collaboration solutions"

If any business can really claim to have pioneered the On-demand business model, I would point to Salesforce.com which has been successfully promoting itself as a provider of on-demand CRM since 2003, having been around since the turn of the century. I will do a bit more research on the early use of the term "on-demand" as applied to software delivery – if you have any good examples, please let me know.

Permanent link to this article: http://extranetevolution.com/2005/11/hochtief_to_sta-2/

RICS e-tendering guidance note: a review

Just over two weeks ago (11 November), I spoke to the East Midlands branch of the RICS about e-tendering. This is currently something of a hot topic, following the publication of an RICS guidance note in late October and a small flurry of articles about the guidance in magazines such as QS News (I particularly welcomed the story warning about the dangers of using email for e-tendering).

I think the guidance note has some good advice, and I applaud its encouragement to use web-based e-tendering systems (several of the leading UK construction collaboration technology vendors, BIW included, already offer e-tendering services). But it is also a bit negative and/or misleading in places (showing some lack of understanding about the progress made in collaboration technologies over the past 2-3 years).

First, the comment that the systems “will invariably involve some training for all participants in the tender process” is perhaps an exaggeration.

  1. Some tenderers and tender managers may already have experience of using a web-based collaboration system and so use of an online tendering system will present few challenges to them.
  2. Most web-based systems have been designed to be simple and user-friendly. Once given a password and login, any tenderer with basic internet experience should be capable of accessing the relevant tender information.
  3. If assistance is required, vendors usually provide context-sensitive online help and/or a telephone help-desk.
  4. Arguably, the greatest training requirement will be the tender manager’s. Even then, the training will usually amount to less than a day, the cost will usually form part of the whole extranet package, and the time expended will be more than offset by the time and other savings arising from using the web-enabled system.

Second, it quotes research undertaken by the RICS Construction Faculty (Breetzke & Hawkins 2003) which is now a bit out-of-date.

  1. They collected data in 2002 (ie: more than three years ago) – and nearly all vendors’ systems have advanced significantly since then, as have their customers’ and their supply chains’ use of them.
  2. Moreover, their report was based on information from just 12 organisations (ten consultants – mainly surveyors – and two contractors) who, between them, had experience of using 16 different systems, and the findings were, as the authors admitted, at best anecdotal.
  3. Vendors will certainly now contest the inference that extranets were felt to be mainly appropriate for larger projects (over £10m). Indeed, BIW has considerable experience of delivering projects valued at under £1m – where framework agreements or similar arrangements provide a steady stream of new projects, supply chains may be using extranets on schemes of varying sizes, including some worth under £100,000.

Third, While the advantages seem clear, each of the supposed disadvantages can be challenged:

  1. “Mobilisation costs may be significant for some participants” – the basic requirements for accessing a web-based system are a computer connected to the internet and a standard internet browser – most businesses, even SMEs, will already have this technology. Some tenderers may feel that they incur additional printing costs (though this will be no different from tendering from CD-based information).
  2. “Potential overhead due to monthly subscription cost” – this overhead will usually only be paid by the tender manager (who will, in turn, no doubt reclaim the cost from the client). However, this overhead will usually be small compared to the cost of traditional tendering mechanisms with their heavy reliance on paper-based communications and/or CDs.
  3. “Requirement for increased technology capability eg internet connection bandwidths, upgrade of browser software etc” – A growing number of businesses are already using broadband connections (and ADSL is now almost universally available at very modest fees). Browser software can typically be purchased or upgraded online at little or no cost. In any event, no or poor technology is a poor excuse for a business to make in an increasingly ‘wired-up’ business world – if more tenders are managed online, tenderers will either have to invest in better technology or not tender at all. Any upgrade work will also have benefits beyond the tendering work.
  4. “Proprietary systems” – While many of the systems are indeed proprietary, they are generally designed to reflect familiar tendering practices and terminologies, and – from the user’s point of view – will function in very similar ways.

Fourth, in the guidance note’s technology section, the ‘impact of bandwidth’ table may alarm some users – it ignores the fact that, in the case of CAD drawings, users will not always need to download an entire drawing in its original format; they may, for example, only need to view an image of that drawing online – something that can be done in a fraction of the times stated.

Fifth, the guidance note talks about file security, pointing out – quite rightly – that, even in PDF format, documents can be subject to unauthorised modification. However, such modifications would not be possible in most sophisticated construction collaboration applications. Documents cannot be amended or overwritten, and every instance of who did what and when is recorded in the audit trail.

These niggles apart, the RICS e-tendering guidance note is a welcome contribution, not least for its implicit assertion that paper-based methods are inherently slower and more expensive. I know from contacts in the Nottingham office of Gleeds that e-tendering can also be a very effective introduction to the wider use of electronic construction collaboration technologies. Moreover, e-tendering can also help develop a firm’s reputation for innovation; indeed, Gleeds has already been able to differentiate itself with some customers and win work as a result of its advocacy of e-tendering tools.

I understand that this RICS note won’t be the last word on the subject either, as the team who worked on the guide is now working on a new report assessing the different web tendering systems. This should be published in 2006.

Permanent link to this article: http://extranetevolution.com/2005/11/rics_etendering/

Be Valuable: The Saxon report

Yesterday, I went to the London launch of the report “Be Valuable”, written by Richard Saxon, and published by Constructing Excellence.

It was a fascinating event, not least because it highlighted the all-too-often blinkered or short-termist view of construction commonly applied by construction professionals. Instead, Richard urged us, why not look at how the built environment adds value to its owners, occupants and other stakeholders over the facility’s 20 or 30-year life.

There was much talk of the 1:5:200 model, a ratio first promulgated by Evans, Harryott, Haste and Jones in 1998 in a Royal Academy of Engineering paper (I mentioned this in chapter 10 of my book) – where the 1 relates to construction costs, the 5 covers rent, maintenance and building operating costs, and the 200 represents staff salaries and business operating costs. Yesterday, and in the new report, it was accepted that this could be modified to, for example 1:3:30 for offices, or 1:4.5:42 for NHS estates.

When it came to actions, I couldn’t help but nod enthusiastically when Richard said the industry needed to invest in interoperable systems. The report says:

Customers and suppliers pay heavily for inefficiencies caused by information not being fully transferable between them due to IT incompatibility. Customers gain most over the building life in accessing data. The need to motivate and reward suppliers, who will themselves also benefit, to adopt interoperable systems for their information technology.

Permanent link to this article: http://extranetevolution.com/2005/11/be_valuable_the/

IT perils for SMEs (2)

Poor old SMEs! Almost every day they get accusing of lagging behind or being ignorant of some IT issue or other. Yesterday it was back-up and broadband; today, according to Silicon.com, it’s VOIP and convergence.

Permanent link to this article: http://extranetevolution.com/2005/11/it_perils_for_s_1/

IT perils for SMEs

The UK construction industry is hugely fragmented, with the vast majority of active UK firms classified as small or medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Even if we ignore the large number of self-employed sole traders, there are still tens of thousands of construction businesses employing just a few people, and according to two news items I’ve read today, these must be worrying times for them IT-wise.

First, in the 21 November issue of MicroScope, SMEs are warned that they need to be more rigorous about their IT back-up practices. While tapes and CDs are adequate, businesses were urged to consider remote back-up services – particularly as 82% of businesses in a BT/Institute of Directors survey said they could not function if their data was destroyed or traditional storage formats were damaged in a disaster.

Then, in Silicon.com today, Sir Digby Jones warns that small businesses are in grave danger of wasting the opportunities given to them by the rapid growth in broadband availability in the UK, allowing them to compete on the global stage, and to transform their own working practices.

Permanent link to this article: http://extranetevolution.com/2005/11/it_perils_for_s/

Office email: a waste of time

If you’ve read my book, you may recall that I was a little critical of over-reliance on email as a means to communicate within project teams (p.24). On Silicon.com today I read that "email is a productivity killer in the enterprise".

Research by Mirapoint showed that nearly a quarter of all emails in corporate inboxes are personal, mixed in with large volumes of spam and irrelevant work emails. Personal use of corporate email is high – nearly three-quarters of respondents forwarded jokes, video clips and photos to others within the company – and security considerations were not always applied – a quarter of respondents said they forwarded business emails to their personal email accounts, and 62% said they have sent business emails from their personal accounts.

Earlier Mirapoint research found that 33 per cent of email in corporate inboxes is spam – leaving just 44 per cent of email as legitimate business mail.

As an extranet enthusiast, this confirms to me the wisdom of organisations which seek to bypass the productivity-killing bottleneck of email by using dedicated, project-specific platforms to manage their teams’ communications. The more sophisticated collaboration systems offer email-type channels, but with all information exchanges tracked and audited, employees know they must focus on the project and not use these for personal reasons. In such circumstances, staff can be confident that all communications they receive are project-specific and relevant to their roles and responsibilities.

Permanent link to this article: http://extranetevolution.com/2005/11/office_email_a_/

Business Link guide to extranets (2)

I accompanied my 1 November post with an email to Business Link pointing out the paucity of UK-relevant information provided. Today I got a bland reply:

"Thank you for your feedback regarding the Businesslink.gov.uk website.   

"We are conscious of the fact that there are limited UK web resources with regard to extranets, however we are constantly on the look out for better solutions and welcome any suggestions our customers may have.

"In the meantime, we hope you will be able to derive benefit from our site in other ways,   

Kind regards,   
The Businesslink Feedback Team"

Well, I had made some suggestions, but the Business Link web-pages remain as they were – sadly, no links to Extranet Evolution or to the NCCTP site.

Permanent link to this article: http://extranetevolution.com/2005/11/business_link_g_1/

The qualities of successful collaborative teams

A post in Innovation Weblog links to new research into what makes collaboration teams successful (the research is described at How to Save the World, and you can click-through to the research results from there).

The research stresses the personal qualities that are required in successful collaborators. "Enthusiasm for the subject of the collaboration" and "open-mindedness and curiosity" were regarded by respondents as the most important (more than half said indispensable) criteria. Interestingly, however, experience-related criteria (proven trustworthiness, collaboration experience, previous familiarity with other team members, reputation in the field of the collaboration, and business experience), rated at or near the bottom.

What did I take from this research to influence our thinking on construction collaboration technologies? Remember: our technologies don’t collaborate, people do – we merely provide a platform to support some of that collaboration.

Well, other important personal qualities included "candour", "timeliness of follow-through" and "strong listening, feedback and self-management skills". Clearly, then, in an ideal world, the collaborative platform should be set up to be as open and transparent as possible, with strong tools to record, manage and expedite feedback (think beyond commenting and red-lining, look for support for conventional project team processes like RFIs, perhaps even threaded discussion forums where project team members can raise questions and debate responses). I think this also pushes us to consideration of real-time collaboration: web conferencing, whiteboarding, etc.

Permanent link to this article: http://extranetevolution.com/2005/11/the_qualities_o/

Load more