Practice Management Member Conversations

In the CCA Knowledge Community Town Hall meeting, a question was raised concerning recommendations regarding the architect's participation with Construction Management Software (CMS) and/or the need to have one's own software platform to manage administration of the contract for construction internal to the design team.

This blog post is a follow up to that question and intended to generate dialogue and perspectives on this topic. The dialogue and perspectives that are gathered by the post will contribute to the understanding of content that should be comprehensively addressed in a white paper on this topic, currently under development.

It is important to recognize, if the CM's/GC's CMS is the only software or process that is tracking the design teams obligations, then they are not only using the software for Construction Management, but they are creating and are in control of the "Record for Administration of the Contract for Construction" which can provide basis for claims.

When engaging with these platforms or deciding on investing in the use of a platform for the design team, there are 4 critical aspects associated with one's risk management in "administering the contract for construction" that are worth consideration.

1. Is participation in a CM's/GC's CMS a condition of your contract and does participation create risk by extending your obligations beyond your contract obligations?
2. Does participation in a CM's/GC's CMS have a negative impact on the design team's labor costs and efficiency?
3. Is participation in a CM's/Gc's CMS producing an accurate record of the "administration of the contract for construction"?
4. Does time spent in a CM's/GC's CMS benefit the design team's enterprise execution of "administering" contracts for construction?

In the CCA Knowledge Community Town Hall meeting, a question was raised concerning recommendations regarding the architect's participation with Construction Management Software (CMS) and/or the need to have one's own software platform to manage administration of the contract for construction internal to the design team.

This blog post is a follow up to that question and intended to generate dialogue and perspectives on this topic. The dialogue and perspectives that are gathered by the post will contribute to the understanding of content that should be comprehensively addressed in a white paper on this topic, currently under development.

It is important to recognize, if the CM's/GC's CMS is the only software or process that is tracking the design teams obligations, then they are not only using the software for Construction Management, but they are creating and are in control of the "Record for Administration of the Contract for Construction" which can provide basis for claims.

When engaging with these platforms or deciding on investing in the use of a platform for the design team, there are 4 critical aspects associated with one's risk management in "administering the contract for construction" that are worth consideration.

1. Is participation in a CM's/GC's CMS a condition of your contract and does participation create risk by extending your obligations beyond your contract obligations?
2. Does participation in a CM's/GC's CMS have a negative impact on the design team's labor costs and efficiency?
3. Is participation in a CM's/Gc's CMS producing an accurate record of the "administration of the contract for construction"?
4. Does time spent in a CM's/GC's CMS benefit the design team's enterprise execution of "administering" contracts for construction?

Glad to see others that are struggling with this issue.  We are a small firm and find that GC's are constantly bombarding us with their management software's requests.  We have had to take the hardline position of saying 'no', and simply requesting PDF's of whatever the request is (be it an RFI, Submittal, etc.). Apologetically, we acknowledge to the GC/Client that these management software tools are great for the contractor, and we encourage their freedom to choose and utilize any/all tools available to them.  But forcing us to subscribe and then conform to their parameters is not what our role is in the projects (Contractually or Professionally).  It is already difficult enough reeling in the "text-RFI" from the smartphone from the truck, documenting it correctly, and then providing responses in a professional structure.  All those programs can generate a PDF which can be emailed and distributed accordingly; we have our standard correspondence set up to reply accordingly.  That should work for them.  Easier for them doesn't make it easier for us necessarily.

In the CCA Knowledge Community Town Hall meeting, a question was raised concerning recommendations regarding the architect's participation with Construction Management Software (CMS) and/or the need to have one's own software platform to manage administration of the contract for construction internal to the design team.

This blog post is a follow up to that question and intended to generate dialogue and perspectives on this topic. The dialogue and perspectives that are gathered by the post will contribute to the understanding of content that should be comprehensively addressed in a white paper on this topic, currently under development.

It is important to recognize, if the CM's/GC's CMS is the only software or process that is tracking the design teams obligations, then they are not only using the software for Construction Management, but they are creating and are in control of the "Record for Administration of the Contract for Construction" which can provide basis for claims.

When engaging with these platforms or deciding on investing in the use of a platform for the design team, there are 4 critical aspects associated with one's risk management in "administering the contract for construction" that are worth consideration.

1. Is participation in a CM's/GC's CMS a condition of your contract and does participation create risk by extending your obligations beyond your contract obligations?
2. Does participation in a CM's/GC's CMS have a negative impact on the design team's labor costs and efficiency?
3. Is participation in a CM's/Gc's CMS producing an accurate record of the "administration of the contract for construction"?
4. Does time spent in a CM's/GC's CMS benefit the design team's enterprise execution of "administering" contracts for construction?

Glad to see others that are struggling with this issue.  We are a small firm and find that GC's are constantly bombarding us with their management software's requests.  We have had to take the hardline position of saying 'no', and simply requesting PDF's of whatever the request is (be it an RFI, Submittal, etc.). Apologetically, we acknowledge to the GC/Client that these management software tools are great for the contractor, and we encourage their freedom to choose and utilize any/all tools available to them.  But forcing us to subscribe and then conform to their parameters is not what our role is in the projects (Contractually or Professionally).  It is already difficult enough reeling in the "text-RFI" from the smartphone from the truck, documenting it correctly, and then providing responses in a professional structure.  All those programs can generate a PDF which can be emailed and distributed accordingly; we have our standard correspondence set up to reply accordingly.  That should work for them.  Easier for them doesn't make it easier for us necessarily.

In the CCA Knowledge Community Town Hall meeting, a question was raised concerning recommendations regarding the architect's participation with Construction Management Software (CMS) and/or the need to have one's own software platform to manage administration of the contract for construction internal to the design team.

This blog post is a follow up to that question and intended to generate dialogue and perspectives on this topic. The dialogue and perspectives that are gathered by the post will contribute to the understanding of content that should be comprehensively addressed in a white paper on this topic, currently under development.

It is important to recognize, if the CM's/GC's CMS is the only software or process that is tracking the design teams obligations, then they are not only using the software for Construction Management, but they are creating and are in control of the "Record for Administration of the Contract for Construction" which can provide basis for claims.

When engaging with these platforms or deciding on investing in the use of a platform for the design team, there are 4 critical aspects associated with one's risk management in "administering the contract for construction" that are worth consideration.

1. Is participation in a CM's/GC's CMS a condition of your contract and does participation create risk by extending your obligations beyond your contract obligations?
2. Does participation in a CM's/GC's CMS have a negative impact on the design team's labor costs and efficiency?
3. Is participation in a CM's/Gc's CMS producing an accurate record of the "administration of the contract for construction"?
4. Does time spent in a CM's/GC's CMS benefit the design team's enterprise execution of "administering" contracts for construction?

In the CCA Knowledge Community Town Hall meeting, a question was raised concerning recommendations regarding the architect's participation with Construction Management Software (CMS) and/or the need to have one's own software platform to manage administration of the contract for construction internal to the design team.

This blog post is a follow up to that question and intended to generate dialogue and perspectives on this topic. The dialogue and perspectives that are gathered by the post will contribute to the understanding of content that should be comprehensively addressed in a white paper on this topic, currently under development.

It is important to recognize, if the CM's/GC's CMS is the only software or process that is tracking the design teams obligations, then they are not only using the software for Construction Management, but they are creating and are in control of the "Record for Administration of the Contract for Construction" which can provide basis for claims.

When engaging with these platforms or deciding on investing in the use of a platform for the design team, there are 4 critical aspects associated with one's risk management in "administering the contract for construction" that are worth consideration.

1. Is participation in a CM's/GC's CMS a condition of your contract and does participation create risk by extending your obligations beyond your contract obligations?
2. Does participation in a CM's/GC's CMS have a negative impact on the design team's labor costs and efficiency?
3. Is participation in a CM's/Gc's CMS producing an accurate record of the "administration of the contract for construction"?
4. Does time spent in a CM's/GC's CMS benefit the design team's enterprise execution of "administering" contracts for construction?