Don’t expand your tech stack – challenge your tech provider to fill the gaps

Phil Hannabuss, solutions engineer at Asite, set the scene on the Information Management Exchange stage at the show: “[The industry is] in a scenario where we’ve got far too much technology that overlaps with each other, and it’s not actually doing the things that we want it to do, which was [to deliver] a return on investment, and actually improve our processes.”

Liza Langford, lead information controller at Skanska, offered her reflection on why tech stacks expand. “I think it’s lots of software for lots of different people: commercial teams want their software; you’ve got [different] software for quality teams; software that the teams on site need; and then there’s the digital teams. That’s where I think it does become a bit of an overload. We’ve got lots of different software and silos, and often we probably could be doing a lot of it all in one software – we’re certainly looking at those options.”

She proposed the following solution: “You need to ask as a business: what’s your functional requirement? What do you need? And have subject matter experts for each discipline and get them together. What does the commercial team need? What does the site team need? What do we need for a field tool? Have that all scoped out first. Then, if you’re going to look at different software, compare them, and decide based on the needs of the [entire] business.”

Josh Myers, director of major accounts at Asite, detailed his experience with customers. “Whenever you approach a new customer, the reality is that you’re battling two things: a legacy bias based on software that people in the business use already; and legacy usage – there’s legacy data, committed projects, archived projects. The challenge is to meet the customer where they are: given their legacy system and the cost of change, the adoption of a new product is really tricky and a large barrier to entry for any software provider.

“We have a lot of competition here today, with a lot of other tech providers who would all say ‘we all migrate, we’ve got really good APIs, we’ve got the ability to interface’. However, we offer a broad range of technology under a single tool: CDE, tendering, contracting, field management and agentic AI, which gives you the ability to slightly consolidate your tech stack and keep you focused within one family of products.”

Each of the panellists thought that technology reviews – as part of a communication process between software vendor and customer – are a must. Myers said: “The systems are only as good as the people using them – you can have loads of brilliant technology, but it’s probably not used to its maximum at all, it’s probably not been deployed in the right way, it’s probably not integrated with your core technology in the right way. That’s not a technology problem, that’s a process problem. We need to help you understand that, conduct a genuine tech review and buy the right things rather than everything.”

Langford said: “I think you need to liaise a lot with your provider, be aware of the technology that’s available, and whether you’re utilising something or not. It’s just as important for the provider to be in constant touch with you, showing you new developments and products, and saying, ‘are you aware that you’re [only] using 10% of this bit, which could actually save money’, or ‘you’re paying for this, but you’re not using it’.”

Dr Martin Geach, technical director at AtkinsRéalis, noted: “Every six months, our IT business partners conduct a critical review for us; and then every year, we do a fundamental review of the technology with our customer success managers [and ask] are we happy with it? All of this is managed through the CIO.

“I think we have a real critical challenge where technology companies are not meeting the demand and not being dynamic by listening to their customers.

“The best implementation of technology for me is when a partner really listens. People ask me why I like Asite: it’s because they listen. It’s because a backlog item goes onto their roadmap, and within two weeks, it’s deployed. I do not fundamentally see that in some of our other vendors: they do listen to us, we do see our items on the backlog, but the time to deliver is just phenomenally longer.”

Geach believes that construction technology acquisition and adoption must be seen holistically within the scope of a business’s full IT architecture. “Here’s one big takeaway for every information management specialist: look for the head of enterprise architecture, look for the CIO, and try to understand how you can be part of their vision.”

Hannabuss added: “We’re solving issues with technology, but also causing them at the same time. Some of those problems aren’t necessarily visible, because it’s tech spend: there’s morale within the business, because you’re changing between systems left, right and centre; and you’re using one system for 10%, but not knowing that another system could do that as well.

“I think all technology has a use, and ultimately that’s why it was purchased in the first instance, but having that communication and being able to ask, ‘can the system that we purchased in the first instance do that job already, and if it can’t, why not? Is it because it’s not capable, or is it because we haven’t thought outside the box?’”

Myers concluded the debate with a succinct call to arms: “Keep challenging your tech providers to do more and be better.”

Keep up to date with DC+: sign up for the midweek newsletter.