Where Bovis and Schal had to develop their own document management systems for these two projects, software developers have moved into the market offering systems aimed at more modest companies and projects. In the last year, engineer Ove Arup & Partners released a free software package called Columbus. Another product, called Buzzsaw Project Point, has just appeared in the UK market, joining more established systems such as Cadweb.
The idea behind electronic document management is simple. A project specific database is set up on a remote file server. Access to the database is restricted to members of the project team. Then drawings, instructions and other project specific documents can be transferred between project members quickly and securely. And because each file passes through the server, it is possible to set up an audit trail.
The immediate benefits are reduced costs of photocopying and posting because all the files are transferred electronically. The other benefits, which are harder to prove, are speed and reliability. Files move quickly, so there is no hanging about waiting for the courier or postman to deliver the latest revision of the ground floor ductwork drawing. And it is argued that reliability is improved because files are easy to date and trace. This means there should be no arguments about whether the new programme was sent or received, or even diverted to the wrong person.
So just how good are these document management systems? Can they deliver all they promise? Construction Manager decided to put these three packages to the test. We invited a surveyor, a contracts manager and a package manager to test the three systems for a day.
To make sure the test was fair, the demonstrations of the three systems were loaded onto the same PC, using the same modem. The demonstrations were gleaned from websites or free software.
The reviewers were asked to test the packages for: Security: Would the packages let the users see files not meant for their eyes? Were the packages virus-proof? Can you send files to specific, named users in the project team? Speed: How long did it take to issue files from the server to project team members? And if interrupted, would the packages tell you the file did not transfer? Versatility: What kind of files could the systems handle? How many files could the system issue at once? And could you create a reliable audit trail? Cost: How much do the systems cost to use? Ease of use: Is it easy to find files that you have forgotten the name of? The results of the tests were varied. The reviewers all saw the potential of electronic document management systems, but felt that the three systems had a way to go before widespread use of them became common.
All three said that within five years, packages like those tested would be used on just about every project, but that reliability and specifications needed improving. Geoff Tallboys, a surveyor with Oxford-based contractor Knowles & Son said: "I can see a time, not too far off, when you will need an electronic document management system just to prequalify for jobs." All three reviewers wanted better control of access. For instance, they were frightened of someone accessing a drawing and changing it without the authority or knowledge to do so. Some of the reviewers wanted to restrict access because of commercial advantage, and others were worried that rivals might access the project.
Cost was also a concern. While Columbus is available free from Arup, the reviewers found it hard to use and felt they would need help. This is available only through a £1.50 per minute hotline or through a £100 per hour tutorial, although Arup argues that help is available free through email and user groups.
The cost of using Cadweb, about 0.5% of the project cost, was deemed high. John Abbott, a contracts manager with Kier London, said that all the electricity used on a high-demand site is just 0.75% of a tender, so 0.5% for a software system is hard to justify. He was also concerned that the responsibility for printing and distributing drawings on site, when subcontractors do not have machines on site, passes to the contractor from the architect. This means extra costs.
Helen Yardley, a Bovis Lend Lease package manager, believed her company's Hummingbird system to be far ahead of all three of the reviewed systems.
Buzzsaw Project Point
Cost: Based on amount of server space used. Up to 100MB free, 100MB-1GB costs $200 per month, 1-5GB costs $500 per month Ease of use: 3 out of 10 Speed: 5mins 20 secs to issue a 3MB drawing System overview: Buzzsaw is a system currently based in the USA. It provides a project file server that is managed by a project system administrator. This could be a project manager, architect or contract manager, for instance. What the reviewers said: The reviewers liked the notion of the system having an administrator who controlled file access. "It prevents anarchy," said Knowles & Son surveyor Geoff Tallboys, "even though you have to call the admin- istrator to request changes to the system." One drawback is that Buzzsaw is run from the USA. Not only does this have an impact on the speed and cost of connection to the system, it may also result in email and phone support being difficult to access. Reviewers were also concerned that Buzzsaw has a tie-in with Autocad, meaning Microstation files might not be supported. Security was a concern for the reviewers. Buzzsaw allowed the Angela virus to be loaded through the system. Also, when the modem link was interrupted during file transfer, Buzzsaw reported that the file had been loaded successfully. This would not give them confidence in the audit trail created in the system. Searching for files is hard task on Buzzsaw. Files can only be found if the correct filename is known, which defeats the object of having a search facility and would flummox the forgetful. The reviewers liked the facility for all recipients to be specified when issuing the file Buzzsaw chose not to reply to the reviewCadweb
Cost: £125 per user per month or 0.5% of contract sum Ease of use: 7 out of 10 Speed: 5 mins to issue a 3 MB drawing System overview: Project members can send each other files through a secure file server provided by Cadweb. The file server stores the files and records when they were sent, to whom they were sent and when they were opened. What the reviewers said: The panel decided that Cadweb was by far the easiest to use of the three systems tested. A sequence of clear icons leads the user through the program. Illegal acts are automatically prevented and warnings are posted providing corrective information. Both John Abbott, a Kier London contracts manager, and Knowles & Son surveyor Geoff Tallboys were impressed with the system's ability to provide a verifiable audit trail. For each file, the user can identify the recipients of the file and when (if ever) it was opened. But Cadweb's transparency was also a hurdle for Tallboys. He is interested in using document management systems for tendering and was concerned that once you are a user on the system, it is possible to see exactly who has received specific documents. "I wouldn't want tenderers to see which other firms I had included on the tender," he says. All three panelists commended the Cadweb system because it sent a notification email with every file issued. Another plus point for Cadweb included security, where it was the only one of the three systems to prevent a virus from being downloaded through the system. Also, the system is encrypted, making it difficult for hackers to get in. In a test to see what happens when the modem is interrupted during file transfer, Cadweb flagged the interruption, saying that the file had failed to be transferred. Bovis Lend Lease package manager Helen Yardley believed that Cadweb was the best of the three packages assessed. Cadweb replies: Cadweb is pleased with the review and notes with interest Geoff Tallboys' comments about the ability to use Cadweb for tendering. We are developing a way of allowing confidential tendering to take place.Columbus
Cost: Free Ease of use: 2 out of 10 Speed: 7 mins to issue a 3 MB drawing System overview: Columbus provides a project web address called a file transfer protocol (FTP) site. Files can be posted here for members of the project team to access. What the reviewers said: All the reviewers found Columbus difficult to navigate and use. There are no clear instructions and prompts. The helpline costs £1.50 per minute and user training costs £100 per hour. All three reviewers said that only a trained IT professional could set up and manage the site. Kier London contracts manager John Abbott was concerned about the security of information on the project FTP site. "Most people leave their passwords to default, so if someone used your laptop they could easily access the FTP site," he said. There is no encryption. Abbott was also concerned that the Columbus site would require regular maintenance. "Someone could upload an entire hard drive by mistake, and it might never be deleted," he warned. Issuing files was not straightforward. It took the reviewers several attempts to successfully issue a file and then it took a third longer to transmit than the other two systems. The files cannot be issued to specific project members. Rather they are issued to subdirectories of the FTP site where anyone can look at them – whether they are supposed to or not. While users are not notified when the files are issued, a text file of the same name appears next to the file in the directory identifying the intended recipients of the file. While it is possible to search for specific files on Columbus using tools similar to those you might use on Windows Explorer, there are no predefined searches as there are on Cadweb. For instance on Cadweb, it is possible to search for "all the files I have seen". The reviewers liked the Autodesk Volo View package for handling drawing-based files, finding it easy to use. Because of the Autodesk tie-in, the reviewers were concerned that Microstation drawings might be difficult to access and review. Ove Arup replies: The review does not compare like with like, it compares Columbus with systems designed for the management of an FTP site only. As well as doing this, Columbus is an internal document management system that can issue to any FTP site and mould to its requirements. It would be more applicable to compare the other applications with Columbus used in conjunction with a hosted FTP service configured to the requirements of the project.Reviewers
In fairness to the reviewers, they were given one day to test three applications; a normal training course in the use of Columbus would last a full day. However, this training would be applicable for all features within Columbus and would not require retraining each time a new project commenced, as would be the case when using different systems.Downloads
Buzzsaw project point
Other, Size 0 kbCadweb
Other, Size 0 kbColumbus
Other, Size 0 kb
Source
Construction Manager
