Webbased Collaborative Project Management

1
Web-based Collaborative Project Management

• ESM 684
• Engineering Management Project
• University of Alaska Fairbanks

2
ESM 684 Project Team

• Evan Griffith, P.E. Civil Design Engineer
• PDC, Inc. Consulting Engineers
• Galen Johnson, P.E. Construction Project Manager
  GHEMM Company, Inc.
• Rod Stanton, P.E. Construction Project Manager
• Richard Stanton Construction, Inc.
• Mark Wilkinson, Construction Engineer
• Rockwell Engineering Construction Services,
  Inc.

3
Hypothesis 1

• Web-based collaborative project management will
  improve planning, design and construction
  performance, efficiency and organization
  resulting in reduced construction and
  administration costs.

4
Hypothesis 2

• Web-based collaborative project management is
  only applicable to very large (multi-million
  dollar) projects

5
Hypothesis 3

• Web-based collaborative project management will
  not work in Alaska due to the remoteness of many
  project sites.

6
Associated General ContractorsHouston
Dallas/Ft Worth ChaptersWeb-enabled Project
Management Shootout
7
Constructware

• Meridian

8
Experience Relativity
9
Perspective
Tradition?
10
Pre-Planning

• Design
• Advances

11
Builder Selected

• Construction
• Commences

12
RFPRequest ForProposal
13
Change Order
14
Submittal Summary
15
Submittal Register
16
DC/VRDesignClarificationVerificationRequest
17
RFIRequestforInformation
18
RFI Tracking Log
19
Schedule of Values
20
Construction Progress Schedule
21
SubstitutionRequest
22
DailyFieldReport
23
JobsiteSafetyReviewChecklist
24
Traditional Chaos
25
Paper-Based?
Internet-Based?
26
METHODS

• Web Search
• Contacted Vendors
• User Survey
• Literature Review
• And back again

27
How Does it Work?
Collaborative Project Management Software and Data
Internet
Users (Owner, Architect, Engineer, General
Contractor, Sub-contractors, Suppliers)
28
RESULTS

• Rapidly Changing State of Practice
• ASPs versus Client-Server
• Collaborative Project Management is here to stay
  (Like it or Not!)

29
RESULTS

• Rapidly Changing State of Practice
• Much of the reported research has already been
  surpassed.
• Product reviews are not relevant to what is
  available today.
• Many of the vendors no longer exist
• ASPs versus Client-Server
• Collaborative Project Management is here to stay
  (Like it or Not!)

30
ASPS versus Client-Server

• ASP Application Service Provider.
• Program and data are hosted by a third party
  (generally the program developer)
• Users access the program and data through a web
  browser
• Client-Server.
• Program and data are hosted on your own server.
• Users access the program and data through a web
  browser

31
ASPs versus Client-Server

• Cost
• Development and Distribution
• Support for older versions
• Time to Market
• Testing
• Individual Enhancements vs Patches
• Security
• Resources
• Design
• Confidence
• What if ASP fails?
• Future Access?

32
RESULTS

• Rapidly Changing State of Practice
• ASPs versus Client-Server
• Collaborative Project Management is here to stay
  (Like it or Not!)
• Literature and survey results overwhelmingly
  positive.
• Competition will eventually force the issue.

33
Total Survey Respondents

• Private Companies Public Owners 20 15
• 400 Potential users contacted
• Most public owners said they did not currently
  use products
• Respondents typically did not answer all questions

34
Products Used and Number Who Use Each

•   Private Companies Public Owners
• Constructware 11 3
• Meridian 10 0
• Other 2 2

35
Question 1

• Why did you start using the software?
  (advantageous on proposals, potential cost
  savings, client driven, etc.) What is/was your
  companies goal for implementing the software?

36
Private Companies

•  
• Time/Cost Saving 6
• Organization/ Document Control 15
• Hold Sub's Accountable 1
• Extra Selling Point 2

37
Public Owners

•  
• Online Collaboration Function 2

38
Question 2

• Why did you select this software?

39
Private Companies

•  
• Selected Constructware
• Modules 1
• Software Maker Stability 2
• Most Efficient/Advanced 3
• Best Overall Comparison 3
• Reputation 1
• Worked on initial software development 1
•  
•  

40
Private Companies

• Selected Meridian
• Better Modules 2
• Most Efficient/Advanced 4
• Reputation 1

41
Public Owners

•  
• No specific answers

42
Question 3

• How long has your company been using the
  software?

43
Private Companies

•  
• Less than 1 Year 3
• 1 to 2 Years 9
• Greater than 2 Years 3

44
Public Owners

•  
• Less than 1 Year 2
• 1 to 2 Years
• Greater than 2 Years

45
Question 4

• What specifically do you use the software for and
  how often? (in-house organization, document
  exchange, etc.)

46
Private Companies

•  
• Document Management 11
• General Communications 4

47
Public Owners

•  
• Document Management 2
• General Communications 2

48
Question 5

• Who has access to the database? (Client,
  Subcontractors, Designers, End Users, Permitting
  Agencies, Public, etc.)

49
Private Companies

•  
• Owner 7
• Project Team 13
• Subcontractors 10
• Anybody Needing Info 2

50
Public Owners

•  
• Project Team 2
• Subcontractors 2

51
Question 6

• What were the costs associated with implementing
  the software? (purchase or lease price, employee
  training, equipment, etc.)

52
Private Companies

•  
• 500 to 10,000
• 10,000 to 50,000 1
• 50,000 to 100,000
• Greater Than 100,000 2
• Not Sure or Not Specific 10 generally
  varies with seats

53
Public Owners

•  
• 500 to 10,000
• 10,000 to 50,000
• 50,000 to 100,000
• Greater Than 100,000
• Not Sure or Not Specific 2 generally varies
  with seats

54
Question 7

• On what types of projects do you use this
  software? What are the sizes of these projects?

55
Private Company Project Types

•  
• Commercial 7
• Government 4
• Depends on Complexity 1

56
Private Company Project Sizes

•  
• All Project Sizes 5
• 100,000 and Up 1
• 1,000,000 and Up 6
• Large 1

57
Public Owner Project Sizes

•  
• 1,000,000 and Up 2
•  
• Note Meridian users claimed product is better
  for bigger projects. Constructware users claimed
  product is better for a wide project size range.

58
Question 8

• On how many projects have you used this software?

59
Private Companies

•  
• 1 to 9 8
• 10 to 100 4
• Greater Than 100 2

60
Public Owners

•  
• 1 to 9 2

61
Question 9

• What is your estimate of your companies increase
  in performance upon utilizing this software?

62
Private Companies

•  
• Decrease 1
• 10 to 20 4
• Greater Than 20 1
• Noticeable increase but no percentage given 3
• Not Sure 4

1 to 9
63
Public Owners

•  
• Noticeable increase but no percentage given 2

64
Question 10

• What types/sizes of projects do you believe this
  software is suited for?

65
Private Companies

•  
• Medium 1
• Large 1
• Any 8
• Depends on Collaboration Needs 1
• None 1

66
Public Owners

•  
• Depends on Collaboration Needs 2
•  
• Note No difference between product type.

67
Question 11

• Did the software meet your needs?

68
Private Companies

•  
• Yes 9
• No 2
• Yes, but With Further Changes 4

69
Public Owners

•  
• Yes, but With Further Changes 2

70
Question 12

• Are there any areas of improvements you would
  recommend? Other comments?

71
Conclusions

• Mostly Used By Private Companies
• Used Primarily For Documentation Collaboration
• Project Team Has Primary Access
• Usable On Small And Large Projects
• Software Increases Efficiency

72
MERIDIAN PROJECT SYSTEMS

• COMPANY BACKGROUND
• MPS was founded in 1993.
• Meridian Project Systems is a software and
  application service provider specializing in
  comprehensive project management tools.
• MPS debuted on Inc magazine's INC 500 as the 56th
  fastest growing company in the United States in
  2000.
• MPS serves 70,000 customers.
• MPS solutions are offered via traditional
  software (self-hosted) or as an ASP subscription
  (hosted).
• MPS is headquartered in Folsom, Calif., with its
  European base in Düsseldorf, Germany and
  research and development centers in Vancouver,
  British Columbia and St. Petersburg, Russia.

73
MERIDIAN PROJECT SYSTEMSCOLLABORATION FLOW CHART
74
PROLOG PROJECT PACK(SELF-HOSTED SOLUTION)

• Prolog Manager
• Automation of everyday project management and
  tracking from design to close-out.
• Prolog Website
• Connects the project team to one another and to
  the database information, images, and documents.
• Prolog Scheduler
• Complete task and resource management in a
  collaborative, web-based system designed for the
  enterprise. Integrates with Microsoft Project,
  Primavera Project Planner and Suretrak Project
  Manager. Prolog Scheduler does not integrate
  with Prolog Manager, but integration is in MPSs
  future plans.
• Prolog Executive
• Aggregates information from multiple project
  databases into a global database. For analysis
  across the enterprise to identify trends.
• Prolog Pocket
• Integrates Prolog Manager with PDAs for quick
  transfer of data collected in the field.

75
PROLOG PROJECT PACK SOFTWARE COSTS
76
PROJECTTALK PRICING SCHEDULE
77
Collaborative Project Management will increase

• 3,200,000,000,000/year

78
Collaborative Project Management will increase

• Paperwork is overwhelming design and construction
  professionals

79
Collaborative Project Management will increase

• Outdated info causes 35 of all mistakes

80
Collaborative Project Management will increase

• A project is a sinkhole

81
Collaborative Project Management will increase

• POTENTIAL SAVINGS
• When in the Project is Collaboration Implemented?
• _at_ Construction Phase
• 1-10 of design costs
• _at_ Earliest Design Stages (better design)
• 60-70 of Construction Administration
• 20 of total Project Time and Cost
• (Laiserin, 2001)

82
Collaborative Project Management will increase

• Eventually all members of the AEC industry will
  use Collaborative Project Management

83
Current Research

• Intelligent Agents
• Artificial Intelligence

84
Star Trek
85
BACK TO EARTH
86
Web-based collaborative project management will
improve planning, design and construction
performance, efficiency and organization
resulting in reduced construction and
administration costs.
87
TRUE
88
Web-based collaborative project management is
only applicable to very large (multi-million
dollar) projects.
89
Partially True
90
Web-based collaborative project management will
not work well in Alaska due to the remoteness of
many project sites.
91
TRUE

• Even in areas that we consider, in-town, there is
  no broadband access.
• Sattelite leasing and hook-up is 45,000 plus
  1,000/mo
• Microwave, if available, is 30,000 plus 1,000/mo

92
TRUEFALSE

• Progress strikes again.
• Satellite link for 2,500 setup and 900/mo.

93
WHAT NOW??

• Realistic Budget
• Pick Winners
• Target Everyone
• Demonstrate Commitment