Phil Clark reports on how using quality assurance software could save time and money

Phil Brown is in evangelical mood when discussing the state of the industry and just how much more efficient it can become. The chief executive of software provider Causeway Technologies believes plenty can be done to improve construction plc’s performance. “(Sir John) Egan reckoned there was 30% process inefficiency (in the sector),” Brown opines. “Say he was wrong by a factor of five – that would still be 5-6% which is £5bn a year. I have a gut feeling that the inefficiency out there is potentially vast.” Getting rid of such waste will create a more consistent product, he adds. “You want it to be like McDonald’s, where every fry tastes the same. It’s all about a consistent brand.”

Brown’s firm reckons it has a system that can start to chip away at such inefficiency.

His contention is that the use of digital collaboration tools has yet to evolve in really making significant inroads into reducing waste. “The project collaboration on the web is just sharing information quicker, such as uploading drawings, rather than improving the quality.

It’s just the tip of the iceberg.” Brown believes the next generation of collaboration is sharing best practice. “This could make a big difference to the industry. It will take the knowledge and stretch it to help people do their jobs better.”

Causeway’s new best practice system attempts to tackle an overlap of workload in QS practices, that of quality assurance. These are the checks made by firms to ensure that staff are complying with proper practice. Brown argues that in an ever hectic business environment, handing down such experience between generations of staff is increasingly difficult. “Gone are the days of the 55-year-old senior QS training a 22-year-old graduate,” he says.

For this exercise Causeway teamed up with leading player Davis Langdon, who Brown claims “had spent a lot of time looking at inefficiency”. The two saw an opportunity to integrate quality assurance more coherently into normal staff working practices. “What happens in most QS firms is that quality assurance becomes an additional set of forms to fill in to show what you have done,” says Davis Langdon partner Peter Sell. “It’s extra time and another process.” The two firms teamed up two years ago and shared development costs to come up with the system (see how it works) and it has already been trialled on a live project by the QS for a year.

You want it to be like McDonald’s, where every fry tastes the same. It’s all about a consistent brand.

Phil Brown, chief executive, Causeway

Brown stresses that the system is not over-bureaucratic or time consuming. “It’s not Big Brother,” he says. “When Davis Langdon took the system off the trial it was like pulling the staff’s teeth out. They didn’t want it to go.

It aided them in doing their job and wasn’t intrusive.” And although Davis Langdon is some way away from rolling it out across its 20 UK offices, Sell says the firm is convinced by the theory. “The practice believes this is the right way to go. Maybe when we started two years ago that wasn’t necessarily the belief.

This has got to help us to make sure the quality of our service is better.”

  • Causeway Technologies is launching the tool at an event next week on 28 September in Central London. Call 01628 552000 or email: marketing@causeway.com quoting QS8BP for your free information.

What does the Causeway Best Practice system actually do?

The system establishes a so-called task template, a virtual library of the varied practices a QS performs during a working day. For each task a set of questions is asked while it is being performed by staff. If they do not comply with best practice the system issues yellow or red cards, depending on the seriousness of the breach. As a result of this function the system can then create project reports and databases, alert senior staff if best practice is not met and advise staff on measures to adhere to best practice.

What does it cost?

Yet to be finalised – licence price per user calculated on the number of users required. An annual support and maintenance fee (20% of the total licence cost) plus there will be costs in the first year for consultancy, project management, installation and training.