Fully wired

In a nutshell, what is a collaboration system supposed to do?

Hartman: It shares information with a wide supply base ensuring everyone has the current information available, and removes duplication of information.

So why did Somerfield need to go online with it?

Hartman: We looked at how much time we spent asking questions like, Where is the latest revision? Is this it? Where can I find the snagging list? And we were coming up with questions instead of actually getting on and doing the project. Internal teams were asking each other as much as we were asking contractors. This system [Buzzsaw, from CAD supplier AutoDesk] allows you to make all that information available to everyone involved, yet still protects that information from those not involved without making huge impacts on your corporate IT.

What kind of documents can Buzzsaw handle?

Hartman: You can view any AutoDesk file. Collaboration is about sharing information and we’d already been sharing information by email, and so an online collaboration system should not impose any new restrictions on the types of documents you have been using in the past and Buzzsaw did not.

Does it work? And how much time and money has it saved you?

Hartman: Yes, it works It certainly saves the project manager’s time in answering questions. Before, he or she had to send a plan to as many as 20 people, and do it all again when there was a revision. Through Buzzsaw, the team can update themselves with a few clicks. There could be 20 revisions and the project manager doesn’t have to take action every time. Money-wise, if you could cost the project manager’s time saved, well, then you’d have the answer.

What was the biggest obstacle in rolling it out?

Hartman: It would be hard to say what the biggest was, but the hurdles we faced were documenting exactly what we wanted, listing both the essentials and the luxuries but also noting every last detail from security settings on documents to types of files that will need to be loaded and viewed. We then used this document in the tendering process, which allowed us to compare features that were important to us in each possible solution.

How did your contractors respond to the roll out?

Hartman: Like us, they had varying experience in using collaboration systems, from very basic to very advanced, so they were already identifying areas where we could use it more, which seemed a very positive response.

Did you drop any contractors because they didn’t want to play ball?

Hartman: By phasing how we want to use it, the contractors have taken the lead in its use.

How would you rate the IT-readiness of your construction supply chain prior to roll out?

Hartman: Very ready. The system is online and so all you need is a PC and a phone line and as we were previously collaborating on projects via email, this wasn’t a problem. Someone with basic IT skills can be up and working within an hour and someone confident in IT will be working in half an hour. An easy system removes the need for substantial training sessions and creating a support team.

An online collaboration system should not impose any restrictions on the types of documents you have used in the past. And Buzzsaw didn’t

Corry Hartman

How much has Buzzsaw reduced the number of disputes?

Hartman: Too soon to say!

Has this new toy enabled you to reduce the number of admin staff?

Hartman: No, but it has cut right down on the amount of administration that project managers have to do. So now they can concentrate on more important matters.

How far down the supply chain does access go?

Hartman: Currently it goes to contractor level.

How much does it cost you? Do you pass the cost down the supply chain?

Hartman: Buzzsaw is competitively priced against other systems we reviewed.

What’s the biggest headache in maintaining the system?

Hartman: Touch wood, I’m yet to get one.

Do you have any concerns about data protection, security or confidentiality?

Hartman: They’ll tell you your data is encrypted and stored on servers that are protected against bombs and earthquakes, and you can’t get near them without retina scans and fingerprint passes, and it all sounds like something out of James Bond. But really we just looked at the thousands of Buzzsaw users worldwide. If Autodesk was losing clients’ information or it wasn’t safe, everyone would close their accounts with Buzzsaw, you’d read about it press and the product would die.

It all sounds like it might be a bit on the expensive side. be honest. How much extra computer stuff did you have to buy to make it work?

Hartman: We told them what we had, and said it had to work with that. When we organised demonstrations with potential suppliers we made them do the demos on our standard PCs. We provided the laptop, plugged it into the phone line and tested what it could do.

Does the positive experience of firms like Somerfield mean project collaboration tools have really arrived? Veteran market observer Anna McCrea provides a state-of-the-market report, with an update on standard functionality, current major players, and rate of consolidation.

Construction companies collaborating online may now expect
to use two or three different systems, sometimes on the same project

Anna McCrea

Project extranets became a ‘must’ on construction projects around 2000. From the outset they were surrounded by controversy and resistance from potential users. Now, five years on, project collaboration tools are growing from strength to strength, attract more users, enjoy wider acceptance from the construction project industry and have become a market force in their own right. However, for this to happen, much change was needed. Even providers and developers themselves had to mature as a community in order to stay key players in the construction project market.

A 2003 survey by e-business consultancy Compagnia suggested that the eight leading UK providers alone had a total user community of over 87,000, though it did indicate figures might need to be adjusted to account for individuals using more than one system. This figure is a result of the most recent independent assessment attempt, but is based on data submitted by vendors.

At the outset of construction’s “extranet era” vendors were bringing new extranet tools to the market almost on a monthly basis. However, very quickly, those companies whose revenue models or venture capital support were not sustainable were forced to leave the stage. In parallel, users were demanding improved functionality and usability from the tools that remained on the market, triggering off further development. Slowly, the industry’s most stable and established players were strengthening their positions. According to the Compagnia survey, any organisation using project collaboration online today has either worked with, or is likely to work with, BIW (27% market penetration), Business Collaborator (17% market share), 4Projects (15% market share) and Build Online (11% market share).

But these are not the only players in the market. Smaller companies with a more focused customer base such as Sarcophagus, Causeway, Cadweb or Buzzsaw, are continuing to do well and stay firmly in business.

What kind of firms are buying the technology? Well, looking at the cross section of the decision makers, approximately 80% of users who selected project collaboration tools were clients and contractors, with approximately equal split.

All the players support one or more of the most commonly used commercial models. ASP (Application Service Provision) is one of them, which is the management of a software application as a service, delivering solutions to end-user organisations from remote data centres via the internet or private networks on a rental basis. Another model supports a flexible pricing approach when clients can choose the commercial model which best suits their needs, from outright licence purchase to long-term monthly payments.

Individual providers vary in their willingness to release statistics about their user base. However, from 3400 users from 570 companies at the end of 2000, usage of BIW and 4Projects systems alone grew to 80,000 by the end of 2004. It is probably fair to say that by the end of 2004 over 150,000 industry professionals had experience of using one or more of the leading eight UK products. Adding the users of other vendors’ products and of in-house developed systems, the total user community for web-based collaboration systems in early 2005, was probably somewhere around 175,000. This means that around 45% of construction projects over £5m are now run using online collaboration tools.*

With the increasing use and popularity of the tools among clients and contractors, a construction company collaborating online may expect to use two or three different systems, sometimes on the same project. The exchange and sharing of data on different systems becomes a real issue. Evidence that the community of extranet providers has matured can be seen in the establishment of the NCCTP (Network for Construction Collaboration Technology Providers). The network aims to increase interoperability between systems to enable easy transfer of data through definition and adoption of standards. The Network also provides a single independent body with which clients can communicate regarding the future development of collaboration technology.

Member companies of the NCCTP have agreed an XML (Extensible Markup Language) system that describes the fundamental elements and properties that are common to collaborative extranets. Each company can then export their project data as XML and transform it into the agreed data structure using an export application. Another company can then take that data, translate it as necessary and import it into their system using an import application. This means that there is a full interoperability among all members of the NCCTP, which includes seven companies: BIW Technologies, 4Projects, Business Collaborator, Build Online, Cadweb, Causeway Technologies Ltd and Sarcophagus, the most popular extranets providers on the UK market.

So, functionality of the tools has been standardised. Now, providers are looking for competitive advantage through simplicity of use, suitability to the project size and type, training and support options and pricing strategy. The standard functionality covers automatic email alerts, project document management, viewing all file formats, commenting and redlining of documents and drawings, as well as an audit trail of revisions.

The range of users’ concerns has also changed, with security and business continuity high on the list. However, providers have managed to avoid major hiccups in delivery or performance, or at least those which could make headlines or jeopardise the trust of users and their faith in technology. Minor problems usually relate to user-friendliness, setting up initial protocols and availability of training.

So are collaboration tools here to stay? Absolutely, yes. More and more clients specify them on projects, contractors recommend them even if there is no specific guidance from clients, and government clients endorse them as a tool for improving efficiency. The only remaining question is which one to buy but, with the development of standards supporting interoperability of the online collaboration tools, even this is slowly becoming less of a dilemma.

Dr Anna McCrea is Senior Consultant at Davis Langdon Management Consulting

*The latest source of data comes from the book Construction Collaboration Technologies: The Extranet Evolution by Paul Wilkinson of BIW, which will be published by Taylor and Francis in September 2005.