Web-based Collaborative Project Management

ESM 684

Engineering Management Project

University of Alaska Fairbanks

ESM 684 Project Team

• Evan Griffith, P.E. Civil Design EngineerPDC, 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 EngineerRockwell Engineering & Construction Services, Inc.

Hypothesis 1

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

Hypothesis 2

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

Hypothesis 3

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

Associated General ContractorsHouston & Dallas/Ft Worth Chapters

Web-enabled Project Management “Shootout”

Viecom Bidcom ProjectCenter

ProjectWorkspace ProjectNet FirstLine

Constructware TeamBuilder AdvantageWare

IronSpire VISTA 2000 Project Talk

PrimeContract ProjectGrid ProjectSolve

Struxicon Paragon FYI

Constructware

Meridian

Experience “Relativity”

Perspective

Tradition?

Pre-Planning

Design Advances

Builder Selected

Construction

Commences

RFP

Request For

Proposal

Change Order

Submittal Summary

Submittal Register

DC/VR

DesignClarificationVerification

Request

RFI

Requestfor

Information

RFI Tracking Log

Schedule of Values

Construction Progress Schedule

SubstitutionRequest

DailyField

Report

JobsiteSafetyReview

Checklist

“Traditional Chaos”

Internet-Based?

Paper-Based?

METHODS

Web Search

Contacted Vendors

User Survey

Literature Review

And back again

How Does it Work?

RESULTS

• Rapidly Changing State of Practice

• ASP’s versus Client-Server

• Collaborative Project Management is here to stay (Like it or Not!)

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

• ASP’s versus Client-Server• Collaborative Project Management is here to

stay (Like it or Not!)

ASP’S 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

ASP’s 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?

RESULTS

• Rapidly Changing State of Practice

• ASP’s 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.

Total Survey Respondents

Private Companies Public Owners20 15

400+ Potential users contacted

Most public owners said they did not currently use products

Respondents typically did not answer all questions

Products Used and Number Who Use Each

  Private Companies Public Owners

Constructware 11 3

Meridian 10 0

Other 2 2

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?

Private Companies

 

Time/Cost Saving 6

Organization/ Document Control 15

Hold Sub's Accountable 1

Extra Selling Point 2

Public Owners

 

Online Collaboration Function 2

Question 2

Why did you select this software?

Private Companies

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

Private Companies

Selected Meridian

Better Modules 2

Most Efficient/Advanced 4

Reputation 1

Public Owners

 

No specific answers

Question 3

How long has your company been using the software?

Private Companies

 

Less than 1 Year 3

1 to 2 Years 9

Greater than 2 Years 3

Public Owners

 

Less than 1 Year 2

1 to 2 Years

Greater than 2 Years

Question 4

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

Private Companies

 

Document Management 11

General Communications 4

Public Owners

 

Document Management 2

General Communications 2

Question 5

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

Private Companies

 

Owner 7

Project Team 13

Subcontractors 10

Anybody Needing Info 2

Public Owners

 

Project Team 2

Subcontractors 2

Question 6

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

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

Public Owners

 $500 to $10,000$10,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $100,000Greater Than $100,000Not Sure or Not Specific 2

generally varies with seats

Question 7

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

Private Company Project Types

 

Commercial 7

Government 4

Depends on Complexity 1

Private Company Project Sizes

 

All Project Sizes 5

$100,000 and Up 1

$1,000,000 and Up 6

Large 1

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.

Question 8

On how many projects have you used this software?

Private Companies

 

1 to 9 8

10 to 100 4

Greater Than 100 2

Public Owners

 

1 to 9 2

Question 9

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

Private Companies

 

Decrease 1

10% to 20% 4

Greater Than 20% 1

Noticeable increase but no percentage given 3

Not Sure 4

Public Owners

 

Noticeable increase but no percentage given 2

Question 10

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

Private Companies

 

Medium 1

Large 1

Any 8

Depends on Collaboration Needs 1

None 1

Public Owners

 

Depends on Collaboration Needs 2

 

Note: No difference between product type.

Question 11

Did the software meet your needs?

Private Companies

 

Yes 9

No 2

Yes, but With Further Changes 4

Public Owners

 

Yes, but With Further Changes 2

Question 12

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

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

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.

MERIDIAN PROJECT SYSTEMSCOLLABORATION FLOW CHART

PROLOG PROJECT PACK(SELF-HOSTED SOLUTION)

• Prolog ManagerAutomation of everyday project management and tracking from design to close-out.

• Prolog WebsiteConnects the project team to one another and to the database information, images, and documents.

• Prolog SchedulerComplete 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 MPS’s future plans.

• Prolog ExecutiveAggregates information from multiple project databases into a global database. For analysis across the enterprise to identify trends.

• Prolog PocketIntegrates Prolog Manager with PDAs for quick transfer of data collected in the field.

PROLOG PROJECT PACK SOFTWARE COSTS

Software Price

Prolog Manager $2,495

Prolog Website $495 Client, $1,995 Server

Prolog Scheduler $5,000 per Server License, $495 Project Manager User License, $249 per Contributor User License

Prolog Executive $2,495

Prolog Pocket $299

PROJECTTALK PRICING SCHEDULE

Features

Basic Membership

Project Stakeholders,

Interested Parties

Collaboration Membership

Owner, Architect,

Engineer,

Subcontractor

Project Management Membership

General Contractor,

Construction Manager

Unlimited Projects

Project Websites

Personal Action Item Manager

Collaboration

Document Control

Reports

Field Administration

150 mb of disk space

Cost Control (Read Only)

Purchasing (Read Only)

Project Setup/Admin

Annual Rate Per User (Prepaid)

Free $ 540 $ 1,620

*Monthly Rate Per User

Free $ 50 $ 150

Collaborative Project Management will increase

• $3,200,000,000,000/year

Collaborative Project Management will increase

• Paperwork is overwhelming design and construction professionals

Collaborative Project Management will increase

• Outdated info causes 35% of all mistakes

Collaborative Project Management will increase

• A project is a sinkhole…

Collaborative Project Management will increase

POTENTIAL SAVINGS• When in the Project is Collaboration

Implemented?– @ Construction Phase

• 1-10% of design costs

– @ Earliest Design Stages (better design)• 60-70% of Construction Administration• 20% of total Project Time and Cost

(Laiserin, 2001)

Collaborative Project Management will increase

Eventually all members of the AEC industry will use Collaborative Project

Management

Current Research

• Intelligent Agents

• Artificial Intelligence

Star Trek

BACK TO EARTH

Web-based collaborative project management will

improve planning, design and construction performance,

efficiency and organization – resulting in reduced

construction and administration costs.

TRUE

Web-based collaborative project management is only

applicable to very large (multi-million dollar) projects.

Partially True

Web-based collaborative project management will not

work well in Alaska due to the remoteness of many project

sites.

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

TRUE

FALSE

• Progress strikes again.

• Satellite link for $2,500 setup and $900/mo.

WHAT NOW??

• Realistic Budget• Pick Winners• Target Everyone• Demonstrate

Commitment