If it's not rocket science, why do so few people understand it?

I'm confident that most of the people who read this blog will agree that there are distinct differences in the application of project Document Control versus the application of other information related functions such as Records Management or Operational Document Control or non-technical Document Management. Then there are differences across sectors of Engineering as to how Document Control is approached and generally understood.

There are experts in the field of Records Management that are highly competent and very experienced but really would not have the first idea of how to set up a project Document Control function. There are people with degrees in Information Management who don't even know what we mean by project Document Control. Believe me this is not conjecture, I have had the honour of having to work with many such people; I learnt something from them and I like to think some of them learnt something from me. For example, when I want your opinion, I'll give it!

(Of course I also know some world class Information Managers and even some Records Managers who understand what Document Control should look like, but they all started out as Document Controllers themselves).

Meanwhile, if you think I'm stretching the facts, consider this. The Gartner Guide is used by many businesses to select the best EDRMS tools. If a system sits in their 'magic quadrant' then it's considered a safe bet. Well I've been interviewed by two representatives from Gartner on two separate occasions, where I was involved in a system selection process. On both occasions, so that they could understand the requirements for the system, I had to explain at length and from scratch, what Document Control is, how it works and why it's important. They could then begin to understand the difference between content management which is their area of expertise and Document Control, which is mine.

Many, many companies have invested hundreds of millions between them (conservative estimate) in these systems, having taken advice from such experts and from Records Management experts and Information Management experts and of course the 'A' list consultancies who know that these systems are a meal ticket for them, only to discover that they need to spend millions more on customisation, more consultancy and on bolting on things the system is not designed to do. For example bulk upload metadata without content. In that time of course they may also have lost money on claims, lost work and missed deadlines, KPI payments, been hit with disallowed costs etc, etc for lack of traceability and proper reporting.

(Obviously there are realms of content management and record management requirements outside of project Document Control whereby an EDRMS content solution makes perfect sense, particularly for big corporations and global enterprises however, a proper Document Control database is also needed and there are so many examples where that alone would more than fulfil the requirement).

I have complete respect for my fellow colleagues and for their expertise in their own fields. Obviously good Records Management is essential. Patently, for the sake of our planet, good Operational Document Management is paramount and of course there are thousands of other business sectors like Legal, Banking, Retail and so on where there are different requirements in Document/Content Management.

The fact is however, that on engineering projects, without best practise project Document Control the Records Manager won't have everything they need to archive and the Operations team will have neither the complete record or the quality and compliance across the docbase that is critical not only for Safety but for the performance and maintenance of the asset.

This is one of the multitude of reasons that Deliverable Schedules are so essential. Getting the information up front from Contractors and Vendors so that you can plan the distribution and approvals but also so that you know what you should have to handover and that the supply chain have signed up to it. Which takes me back to bulk uploading of metadata without file content; it's a fundamental requirement of project Document Control. If a system doesn't have that then I need something that does.

A very common syndrome is that many businesses have compromised by adjusting how they work according to what the system they've spent so much on is capable of. The words tail and dog spring to mind.

I'm interested to know others experiences across different sectors. I personally believe very strongly that there are key pillars of best practise that apply in all sectors, be it Rail, Aviation, Oil and Gas, Civils, Mining, Defence. Meanwhile I have spoken to Nuclear Power owner operators who, like the Gartner reps, had no idea what I was talking about. It was all new. Same in Aerospace, same in Mining, Utilities etc and even when companies do acknowledge a need, there is still a vast spectrum in their levels of understanding and therefore across the standards and application of Document Control across these sectors.

An obvious result of this lack of understanding is reflected in the quality of people that get hired to do Document Control. Where there is no recognition of the function as a discipline, people will be hired with little or no experience because they are cheap and they'll do what they're told by someone else who doesn't know what needs to be done. Then someone decides that a new system will solve their problems, so they get some expensive consultants to send in some business analysts to define requirements. They get the requirements from the users who don't know anything but the consultants don't care because they can deliver a system that they know will generate more work for them when the business wises up that the requirements were inadequate. It's called the 'long con'.

I heard of a major airport programme for example where all the legacy drawings were lost; out on the site somewhere, thrown into old containers and nobody could remember where. So they had to re-survey the whole site. I've heard of facilities being built to hundreds of rejected drawings that are currently operating. I had a colleague that worked on a massive refinery programme where one of the US design houses engaged in a long running battle with him because he insisted that they keep the same drawing and document numbers throughout their lifecycle and uprev them when they resubmitted. They insisted that he was wrong and that they always change the drawing number and keep the revision the same! You couldn't make it up.

I am trying to highlight, again, the need for recognition of expertise in the field of project Document Control, specifically. I am interested in others views and experiences on the subject and I am interested in raising the profile of so many highly professional practitioners that I've had the great pleasure to work with over the last 30+ years, many of whom I count as close friends.

I've lost count of the number of times I've heard people dismiss Document Control with the tired line 'it's not rocket science'. No it 's not, neither is designing a bridge, but there is a science to delivering first class project Document Control and it's value is immeasurable. The people who can deliver that should also be recognised and valued.

Faulty approaches to Project Document Control cost millions and put projects at risk

This week, I would like to throw a spotlight on a ubiquitous irony that results in the unnecessary waste of millions of pounds across all engineering and construction sectors.

Industry does not recognize professional expertise in Project Document Control.

Placing the broader question of generic Document Management and Information Management to one side, I have personally witnessed millions of pounds poured down the drain for the simple want of going out and finding a Project Document Control expert to write best practice procedures, select the right software tools and find the right people to provide a proper function from the start of a project. I have also seen such professionals employed and ignored whilst others with no experience make costly decisions.

The irony is (and this is common across every engineering sector) that Document Control is under resourced and companies are reluctant to budget appropriately for it. What is then very common, is that rather than spend a small amount of money investing in a professional with a proven track record in successful project delivery, projects choose to engage expensive consultancies who then deploy business analysts, who spin their wheels whilst re-inventing wheels, who attempt to configure systems that were never and will never be fit for purpose and justify this on the basis of meeting user requirements, where the users are also unqualified to provide requirements. Another frequent mistake is to assume that an IM or an IT person will know what to do; but like most professions, it requires many years hands-on experience to own the big picture and be capable of success under all circumstances.

This sounds ridiculous and it is, so why does it happen all the time? Why do all my peers in this business have very similar tales to tell? There are a number of typical reasons. In some industry sectors and especially in the public sector, many managers ‘hide’ behind established consultancies to make decisions for them. Often these consultants are integrated into the project team and paid for under ‘operational’ cost which circumvents the red tape and lengthy writing of business cases even though it can end up costing ten times as much for a solution that fails and no-one ever uses.

A more common reason is that nobody wants to make the effort to understand the detail of the requirement because they have better things to do and when a technology salesman tells them he has a one stop solution that does everything - they want to believe. They already think, incorrectly, that Document Control is a problem for which there is an IT solution. There are so many systems out there that have bolted on some concession to ‘Document Management,' whatever that means! There are software systems that started out as CAD systems, Configuration management systems, Collaboration portals and file sharing systems, Planning systems and more. As someone who has been very successful over 30 years delivering world class standard Document Control or should I say North Sea standard? I can tell you categorically, that no software system can accommodate and support the processes and functions necessary at that level unless it has been written from the inside out around those processes and specifically for that purpose.

For an experienced professional, there is no mystery about the right ways to set up and deliver best practice Project Document Control. There seems to be endless confusion however, when people are tasked with the delivery of that function who lack the experience and the knowledge that comes with it.

It starts with understanding the proper application of key principles appropriately for the sector and type of project. There are highly valuable techniques to numbering, revision coding and taxonomy for example that when applied well can make money by increasing efficiency, communication, accuracy of content and distribution, hastening the review and approvals cycle and providing key operational information. On the other hand, when these methods are not applied, it can lead to a real life disaster.

Document control in the Design, Engineering and Construction industry is not something random that you make up according to someone’s good idea. There are well proven essential principles that can only be prescribed and applied by an experienced practitioner.

A further irony is that the reluctance to spend a little money comes from underestimating the critical importance and the great value of the function and in believing that it’s a small risk that might need to be mitigated. One major Oil and Gas owner operator recently assessed that by combining the right people, processes and software tools, they now save between 3 and 5% across all their projects globally. That amounts to tens of millions, if not more.