 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||
 |
|
||||||
|
Automated
project management systems have come a long way from DOS to the
Internet. Now they are really beginning to live up to their promise. By Charles D. Bader |
||||||
The use of computers for project management began almost two decades ago. As a result of spirited development efforts, today’s systems are a far cry from the DOS-based systems of the mid-1980s. Many if not all of the Engineering News-Record top-400 construction firms have been using, or at least performing serious evaluations of, systems that are now on the market. However, there seems to be no clear-cut consensus as to the "best" product–or even the "best" design approach. Integrating Estimating With Project Management Consider, for example, the issue of whether or not to integrate estimating software with project management software to provide continuity and efficiency after winning a job. On the surface, this decision would seem to be a no-brainer, as Brad Barth, senior vice president of the Hard Dollar Corporation of Tempe, AZ, would certainly agree. After all, Hard Dollar’s two flagship products are for estimating (Hard Dollar EOS) and project management (Hard Dollar PXS). "These two systems work together with a seamless integration," Barth claims. "Thus, users have a total system that works from start to finish to automate the entire process from bidding the job to building the job to closing the job out. They can be used separately also. EOS is good enough that over 5,000 estimators use it every month, and only half of them have added the more recently released PXS yet. EOS tracks advertisements, assists in quantity takeoff, estimates costs, manages subcontractor and supplier quotes, and generates proposals, budgets, schedules, purchase orders, and contract documents. And it handles unique needs, such as crew-based and production-based approaches and last-minute quote analysis. "That’s just half the job, though," continues Barth. "When EOS is integrated with PSX, a contractor is able to build on the estimate data to handle planning, budgeting, procurement, scheduling, dispatching, documentation, cost control, change-order management, work progress tracking, billing, cash-flow forecasting, and multijob coordination with the click of a mouse." That describes quite a comprehensive project management system, so a couple of contractor users were consulted to see how much, if any, hyperbole there was in Barth’s claims. As it turned out, both of these contractors use the integrated EOS/PXS configurations and back Barth’s claims. Jack Hamilton of road builder Chester Brothers Construction Company of Hannibal, MO, describes how the system works on his jobs. "We do a lot of work for the State of Missouri," he explains, "and we’re able to download the bid items from the state. Then EOS breaks down each of the items into labor, materials, and equipment requirements, and we enter the best quotes from suppliers and subs. "If we win the job, we can automatically transfer the bid data to PXS. There’s no double entry needed, and we can use the integrated system to generate subcontracts and purchase orders directly based on the bids we received. With the integrated system, we can afford to get a great deal of detailed data that not only lets us refine our bids but later provides us with a complete picture of our progress versus forecast, as well as a cost to complete linked with schedule. It keeps us from getting any nasty surprises." Jerry Thompson, estimator and project manager for Waters Brothers Contractors Inc. of Decatur, AL, says, "I love the combination of EOS and PXS. EOS is one of the best bid systems I’ve ever seen. We can get really detailed cost information so we know exactly what our costs will be when we commit to a bid. Then the transfer of all these data to PXS is a real time-saver. Even on million-dollar jobs, it only takes me an hour and a half to set up the project, even printing out my sheets for the cost codes they’ll use in the field to fill out time sheets. Integrating estimating with project management is the only way to go." Brad Matthews, vice president of sales and marketing for Dexter + Chaney of Seattle, WA, disagrees and explains it this way: "Our Forefront Construction Management system does not include estimating software, but it does have provisions to link other estimating software to our Accounting and Project Management software. This is not a trivial process. The data structures of estimating and project management are fundamentally different. Good estimates are done at a far greater level of detail than a contractor could track in the field. So you need to roll up an estimate to get it in a form that lets the project manager do his job. "We have worked out an interface structure with a number of different estimating systems. We’ve defined the kinds of data a contractor will want and the data structure that is needed. Then the estimating data will be in a form that enables a project manager to identify which items go to which phases. Using these and other data, the project manager has to set up the contract, set up the subcontracts, set up the job cost system, and set up all the phases when the time comes to prepare for a new job." Chris Colacurcio of Colacurcio Brothers of Blaine, WA, agrees. He explains that his firm uses two different estimating systems for "takeoff": Quest for his building construction jobs and HCCS for his "dirt" jobs. "Both systems will feed data into Forefront through the Forefront Estilink module," he points out, " but the site setup takes time because both Quest and HCCS configure data with different levels of coding. Therefore, when we win a bid, the data have to be translated into different phase codes and cost types and with a different way of breaking the job down. "It’s not such a big deal, and besides, we like to have a lot of flexibility in how we set up a job. Estimators and project managers tend not to look at a job the same way, so when the job is won, the project manager will set up the job the way he prefers. And Forefront is a very good project management system. It is designed to limit redundant data entry, it really helps our project managers and superintendents with the project manager functions, and it gives management a status-screen overview of just how each job is doing. It’s particularly good with changes. Right after a change request is approved and before the change order is issued, we know the committed cost of that change." Even the giant Dallas, TX—based Beck Group doesn’t have its estimating system integrated with its project management system. Project Collaboration Specialist James LaMarr, who evaluated all the major system vendors, says his firm manually enters new job data into its project management system. He feels a much higher priority involves linking Beck’s project management system with its accounting system. As a result, he notes with interest the announcement of the integration of Meridian’s Prolog 6 project management system and Timberline’s Gold Extended accounting system. Beck doesn’t currently use either of these systems, but LaMarr regards the announcement as a "step forward for the industry." This is not to imply that The Beck Group is overly conservative. Recently it took the bold step of switching to a Meridian ProjectTalk Internet-based subscription project management system rather than continuing to maintain its Prolog project management system in-house. This move illustrates what appears to be an industrywide (although by no means unanimous) shift to Web-based systems. While every supplier seems to concede that Web-based systems are the wave of the future, not everyone offers a complete Internet-based system. Several suppliers are scrambling to develop such complete systems but, in the interim, simply incorporate the use of the Internet in their current products. Hard Dollar, for example, has useful applications accessible via the Internet. Included are:
Moreover, Hard Dollar is currently in the process of converting its flagship EOS and PXS software into Web-based software modules to be named (what else?) BID and BUILD. Penta Technologies Inc. of Brookfield, WI, is another supplier that has not yet taken the full step, but Vice President of Sales Jim Herkert says, "Penta already offers a vendor self-service page that enables our customers to put a Penta page on-line so its vendors can see the status of their invoices. That sounds inconsequential, but one of our customers told us that its Accounts Payable department spends 30% of its time answering telephone inquiries as to ‘What’s the status of my invoice?’ or ‘When am I going to get paid?’ "Moreover, Penta is well positioned for e-commerce and other aspects of Internet project management because of our unique architecture. Penta is the only system dedicated to the engineering and construction industry that is designed and built from the ground up to give users the full benefit of leading technical standards, including the ORACLE SQL relational database management system and the Microsoft Windows Graphical User Interface. This foundation enables users to take advantage of the most powerful and flexible technology trends both today and in the future, including real, multitiered client/server processing." Clearly Penta is not concerned about making the transition to Internet operations, nor is Dexter + Chaney. Matthews says his firm has developed Web-ready software and is ready to run its system over the Internet now. "It is just a matter of determining where the server will be," he says. "The majority of users are located at their companies’ headquarters and just interchange data to remote users at job sites or subcontractor locations. They’re pretty comfortable putting their own server at headquarters and using the Internet as a convenient way to communicate with the remote users. However, more and more contractors are more decentralized, so they are considering having a third party host a server and the software for them. They just log in to that server via the Internet from wherever they, and their jobs are located. We’re not sure which way the market will go, but we’ll be ready either way." Internet-Based Subscriber Systems What Matthews is referring to, of course, are Internet-based subscriber systems, often called application service providers, or ASPs. But as Matthews says, not every contractor is yet persuaded to convert to them as The Beck Group did. Large construction software suppliers, such as Primavera and Meridian, straddle the issue. While offering ASP systems, they also continue to market project management software to construction industry users who continue to run this software on their own computers. This arrangement works very well for many users. For example, Architecture Resources Consultants, Inc. (ARC) is an owner-representative firm that performs time and money management on behalf of developers and other owners. According to ARC’s Devon Cheshire, Meridian’s Prolog Manager software, running at ARC’s Avon, CO, headquarters, meets their needs quite well. "We use the system in an unusual way," Cheshire concedes. "Since we are representing the project owner, we use the system to look downstream from a cost and contract management standpoint. We simply don’t use the system’s many upstream functions, such as change-order requests. And since Prolog is so flexible, we are free to customize the system to our standard operating procedure. For example, we have a school district client for whom we are overseeing 150 different projects ranging from small renovations to complete new facilities. We were able to modify our Prolog system to incorporate a very unique numbering system to track all those different projects." Cheshire, however, sees the advantage of Web-based subscriber systems in the construction industry. Indeed, ARC is assisting some owner-clients to go in that direction. "For example," he explains, "if a client operates nationwide with many different offices, there’s a good argument that it would be well advised to use a solution like Meridian’s ProjectTalk. Indeed, any geographically separated entity that uses Prolog could benefit from ProjectTalk instead. It’s the same software somewhat more conveniently packaged for their needs." Large contractors such as The Beck Group, Dick Pacific, and Pepper Construction have switched from in-house data centers to Internet-enabled subscription systems (although not all have chosen ProjectTalk). And they converted for some very practical reasons: Elimination of the need to own, maintain, and support software; availability of access any time of day from any time zone; access from home or job sites; standardization across all units of the company; linkage to all architect/engineer/contractor team members; enhanced knowledge management; better project coordination; and greater accountability. LaMarr expands on this: "When we were using Prolog, each of our projects had its own server and network. Thus, these networks were project-centered and not relied upon for companywide overview and analysis. Now as we phase in ProjectTalk for all new projects, we are getting much more management visibility. By next year, we will have a complete management overview of all our projects, and we believe that will be invaluable." Choosing Among the Internet-Based Systems While there is widespread unanimity among contractors and owners about the potential of these subscriber systems, there is certainly no unanimity as to which of these new Web-based systems is "best." For example, The Best Group, Dick Pacific, and Intel–all large, sophisticated users–independently beta tested and/or rigorously analyzed the leading systems in the field and came up with three different selections. In addition, the Associated General Contractors of America (AGCA) conducted four live competitions to determine the comparative strengths and weaknesses of competing online construction project management systems. At the end of the fourth of these "shootouts," the cumulative scores of two of the three suppliers who completed all three shootouts (Constructware and Meridian) showed a virtually dead even tie for first place. And then the AGCA proceeded to endorse the third-place finisher, Primavera. There might be good reason for all this diversity of opinion. LaMarr, who performed the demonstration of Meridian’s "cowinner" ProjectTalk, at three of the shootouts, concedes that the shootouts "didn’t give the systems a chance to demonstrate the depth and functionality that constitute the real difference among systems." Scott Unger, CEO of the other cowinner, Atlanta-based Constructware, agrees. He believes the true difference in potential of these systems can be found in the different architectures. "Some suppliers have used a Citrix-based approach to Web-enable their LAN-based systems," he says. "For the end user, there seems to be little difference in performance [with these systems]. Users seem to perceive an advantage in that customization of individual reports and features can be accomplished at the individual user level. And because the Citrix approach only sends keystrokes across the Internet, it appears to be faster and requires less bandwidth. IT departments, conversely, know that this approach requires another level of hardware–multiple terminal servers–in order to support 70 to 100 users at a time. But to the user, these factors, while expensive, do not seem significant until their company attempts to scale them to the enterprise level. "At the enterprise level, the downside tradeoff becomes huge. When scaled up beyond a few hundred users, the Citrix-based solutions are considerably more costly in terms of hardware and software licensing than true ASP solutions…. [On the other hand], Constructware has a proven ASP platform and no legacy data issues looming. Our developers are now forging ahead with new features for accounting integration, solving the data ownership issue, [and adding] complex bid management features, [and we expect] to achieve open integration with third-party applications before any other vendor.… "Since Constructware is a true Internet solution, our system architecture is already in sync with the idea of using the Internet for platform integration. In our view, data will flow between the systems using the Internet, XML, and standards-based tools such as HTTP and SOAP…. [Therefore], our development path is a straight line to the future and raises exciting new prospects for interoperability and open systems." Clearly Unger is convinced that there are subtle but important factors that would not show up in a shootout, and he has a growing number of customers who apparently agree with his prognosis. Further complicating the current picture is the fact that prices vary all over the lot. According to industry analyst asptip.com, Meridian’s price per seat (user) is $150/month ($50/month for a collaborator), whereas Constructware’s price per user is $33/month. Primavera’s price for subscription to its PrimeContract system wasn’t listed by asptip.com because PrimeContract didn’t come to market until late November 2000. However, Primavera quoted us a price of $500/month for a $5 million project and $1,250/month for a $50 million project. Surprisingly, though, per-seat cost did not seem to influence evaluators greatly. For example, price was not one of the criteria Intel established in evaluating systems. According to Tom Kepper, Intel’s three criteria were current functionality, the provider’s vision for what functionality will be incorporated in the future, and the provider’s financials. (Intel’s annual capital program budget averages $3 billion.) Based on these criteria, Intel selected Primavera’s PrimeContract system. Kepper definitely takes a long-range view of Internet-based systems. In fact, he likens the probable impact of Web-based project management on the construction industry to that caused by the introduction of electronic drawing by AutoCAD in the 1980s. His only concern is that development is not going fast enough. "We’ve assembled a group of owners to assist in assessing product development to confirm that it is going in the right direction and to recommend potential useful functionalities," he says. "As an owner, I want the system to provide an enterprise view of where my project stands from a cost and schedule standpoint. And I want it to provide a current Earned Value Analysis so I have evidence that my project is under control." Are there challenges in reaching the hoped for potential of these systems? Everyone agrees there are. LaMarr points to the Internet infrastructure. So much of the country is not served by the Internet, and available modem speeds are too low. The network needs DSL capability as a minimum, but it is difficult to get the equipment right now. He has looked at–and tested–wireless options but with mixed reviews. Pat Arrington of Atlanta, GA—based R.F. Griffin thinks the answer might be providing satellite dish access for remote sites, but he is by no means sure. Devon Cheshire thinks that interoperability, specifically the need to integrate dissimilar systems, will be a big challenge. "It’s such a huge field that there will be systems from multiple suppliers that will have to exchange data and otherwise be compatible with one another," he says. "The industry simply cannot concentrate on just one system. In fact, it is dangerous for it to concentrate on just one technology to the exclusion of others. We cannot reliably predict what the environment will be five years from now." Even so, it would appear that the Internet has a long and useful life ahead for linking enterprise systems. This is perhaps the only consensus in the project management arena. The fact that Internet-based construction systems are already being taught in such universities as Auburn and Florida confirms the belief in the future of this technology. Troy Tyler, product marketing manager for Meridian, sums up this consensus best: "Internet-based systems are definitely here to stay. Even those companies that want to have just a local Intranet system capability will find that their system will have to interact with the Internet. All systems will relate to the Internet to one degree or another." Charles D. Bader is with Dateline II Communications in Los Angeles, CA.
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
